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.
Open Parachute 
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 5 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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.
LikeLiked by 3 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
This hiding behind names must result from a conspiracy theory obsession. There doesn’t seem to be a rational purpose.
>
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
http://althealthworks.com/2262/fluoride-officially-classified-as-a-neurotoxin-by-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journal/
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Israel
LikeLike
As I thought, Bruce, you haven’t read the paper.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Bruce hasn’t read the paper. Bruce is dumb.
(,,.,points at Bruce and laughs….)
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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!?
LikeLike
Hmm, typical, it’s what happens when science deniers are asked for evidence to support their assertions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
Click to access 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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
and after inexplicably accusing Ken of “abusing”…
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
.
No advertisement that.
Steve Slott spelled it out for Bill.
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 ;
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.
LikeLike
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.
Click to access 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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
James, you appear to have made several unwarranted assumptions here which you should really justify.
As they stand your claims are not supported but I welcome anything you can cointribute to support them.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
https://muskoka.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=16740
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Is there a peer reviewed, placebo controlled study demonstrating these safe upper limits, or are they simply extrapolated by the IOM?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
>
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
A splendid rebuff to this bad article from the Lancet..
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Harley, armed with his cutting-edge anecdotes, is another brave dissident for the truth, battling the establishment’s evil conspiracy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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….
LikeLike
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….
LikeLike
Joy, did your even bother reading this article?
All you have produced is a homily which has no significance beyond the personal.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
>
LikeLike
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…..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
As I said – faith. Certainly no reason or evidence, Joy.
LikeLike
Ignorance is bliss, Joy. Enjoy yours.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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,
LikeLike
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″”
LikeLike
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! 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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. 😉
LikeLike
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….
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Joy
You may want to look up “Laetrile”, or have you tried that as well?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Joy. one thing you need to learn, alterative medicine that works, is called medicine
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLike
pity we cant ask steve jobs that question
LikeLike
Joy said
because, like, that decision worked so well for Dr Yiamouyiannis.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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..
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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)
LikeLike
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
…
LikeLike
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….
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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”.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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……
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Cedric
“Beclown yourself”? Excellent! I will have to remember that very descriptive verb!
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
My personal anecdotal experience was not to “prove” anything, but…
What anecdote? What are you talking about?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Do you actually think they will not look at local conditions and adjust the fluoride levels to suit?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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….
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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….
LikeLike
You mean fluoride lowers IQ in cars?
Considering the concentration of F in the sea….think of the poor submarines… 😦
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
if you have an electronic engine management system in your car
joy says if you wash it with fluoridated water ,it wont start
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Twisting other comments I know I have been around the activists too long they are masters at it, look at Connett
LikeLike
You havin FUN?
it was said the “F” messed up the water going into the machine
Can anyone read this and not laugh?
LikeLike
very FUNNY Richard
But F is SERIOUS
It messes with your mind…and dialysis machines
LikeLike
(…chuckle…)
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
“very FUNNY Richard
But F is SERIOUS
It messes with your mind…and dialysis machines”
…….and cars.
LikeLike
Happy that you BOYS are having fun and getting good laughs…I knew there was a reason for my being here…..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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…..
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Oh Lordy, my spelling is atrocious!
Poison!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“No , I’m not a doc….”
Really, Joy?? Wow! From your comments, you sure had me fooled….
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
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.
😉
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.”
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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…
.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Yeah, I know, Joy. Very inconsiderate of us to want to talk science on a science issue.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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…)
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
Joy
Thank you for yet one more clear example of the intelligence level of the vast majority of antifluoridationists.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
exactly, so its not a problem
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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….
LikeLike
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
>
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
I would’ve thought the rules of biology would have demanded that Joy’s B.S was preceded by a colon
🙂
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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…….
LikeLike
Joy, before you go . .
http://t.co/hTqfwinhWb
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
(…applause…)
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
>
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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!!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Joy doesn’t understand the Peer Review process
This video may shed some light
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
I would like to follow up Cedric’s comment by recommending this excellent video on the scientific peer review process
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
‘Curiouser and curiouser’
Yes! A fellow, Sheriff Andy fan!!
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
videogame tonic water you are very brave or very stupid to argue chemistry with Ken
LikeLike
No one can argue against grammar like that. It’s impossible.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Videogametonicwater
Perhaps you should go back to your video games and tonic water. Chemistry is obviously not your thing.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
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.
>
LikeLike
Steve. Go rot and get a life. You are a pathetic joke of a man.
LikeLike
“Steve Slott is a snake.
By: Jon Rappoport”
Uh, oh……I’ve been outed.
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
Snake or man?
Do make up your mind Bob Nob. (a Lizardman covers both options)
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Arrogance, you are the GANG that wrote the
book on arrogance and Manipulation of other’s
words!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
“Arrogance…..”
Oh, sorry, Joy, was there supposed to be some valid evidence in there which would support your position?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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 .
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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 .
LikeLike
lol,
Ken ought to frame that one.
LikeLike
Wow! Fluoridation really brings out the squirrels.
Steven D. Slott,mDDS
LikeLike
oh steve you look so important with all those letters after your name it’s a shame for you that you are not
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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 ??
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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 ?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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 .
LikeLike
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 .
LikeLike
Oh noes! The internet neo-Nazi says I must lack compassion. However will I deal with this crushing and devastating blow to my psyche?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
I a, afraid “Clark Kent” has reached new heights in his personal abuse so I have put him back into moderation.
>
LikeLike
Good decision, Ken
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
I have skimmed through a lot of the comments(not all of them) and understand the views of both sides. I just have one lingering question for those in favor of continuing the public practice of “safe water fluoridation levels” (according to the EPA and other sources you all have identified above).
1. What are your personal thoughts on the function of the pineal gland, and if it has ANY connection to how Fluoride can affect the optimal performance of the glands natural abilities?
I enjoy hearing the advice from experienced doctors, and I would greatly appreciate if you can answer my question directly, thank you.
-Undergrad student at University of Minnesota
LikeLike
curios cat, I have no more opinion on the pineal gland than I do of any other gland in the body.
As for fluoride there is a lot of nonsense written about this. Apparently the pineal gland naturally calcifies with age. This is caused by Ca, phosphate and old age. It is not caused by fluoride. That is a common misrepresentation.
However, F is attracted to Ca in the body and will accumulate in areas where there is active Ca – as there is in areas of calcification. So naturally the calcification of the gland, and other areas of the body, is accompanied by accumulation of F.
I guess the gland may be influenced in its activity by old age, maybe even by calcification. But this is not initiated or caused by F.
LikeLike
Curious Cat
I fully agree with Ken. The pineal gland is irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water.
I also recommend you seek information on water fluoridation from legitimate, respected, and reliable sources, rather than relying upon the filtered and edited “information” posted on “fluoridealert” and other such biased antifluoridationist websites. The websites of the CDC, the EPA, the American Dental Association, the National Sanitary Foundation, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of accurate information on fluoridation readily available to anyone.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Steve you are either an ignorant fool or a paid shill. Take it from the CDC WHO or worse, the ADA? You must be living in a vacuum or are the only person not on the fluoride cash tit that still promotes the crap. What will you say when those same organizations are forced to admit the harmful effects of fluoride? They eventually will you know. You know its history and so do we so give up your full time position at this blog trying to defend what can’t be defended. Here’s one for you but you won’t admit anything…ever. That’s why they will come for one’s like you first.
http://www.academia.edu/6889808/Full_Length_Research_Article_HISTOLOGICAL_EFFECTS_OF_FLUORIDE_ON_CEREBRUM_OF_ADULT_ALBINO_RATS_1_Fazal-ur
LikeLike
Bog rob, did you not notice the request “PLEASE BE POLITE TO OTHER COMMENTERS & NO AD HOMINEMS.”
I am leaving you in moderation and in future will not allow such rudeness through. Although an apology might convince me you are capable of following the guidelines to comment in future.
As for your link – isn’t that pathetic. Are you not aware that the dose makes the poison? It is not honest to use such high concentration studies to attack community water fluoridation- they are just not relevant.
LikeLike
Bog rob
Thank for such an intelligent reply. To answer you question, the CDC, the WHO, and the ADA have nothing to “admit”. They, like most respected healthcare organizations, certainly understand the harmful effects of fluoride and would be the first to state so. However, they, also like most other respected healthcare organizations, understand that all substances have harmful effects when consumed at improper levels. They also understand that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated, has no harmful effects.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
As far As I see it and it’s very clear, all the “F” pushers are drunk on “F” and $$$$$. And so trained to push and convert.
LikeLike
This just in from another “health friend”…
Previously, did we talk about the City Fathers of Santa Monica being misled and instituting/perpetuating Fluoridation?
If so, Fluoride has had a bone-softening effect (contributing to degeneration etc), for Santa Monica residents and, of course, the many other communities in the US (And elsewhere) which have been misled over the Fluoridation issue.
One critique of the research into the Fluoride/Tooth decay issue is that research showing lesser tooth decay in fluoridated areas is because children in fluoridated areas have fewer teeth (Because of the toxic effect of Fluoride in delaying tooth eruption!). If Fluoride does that to teeth, imagine the effect on other tissues.
Folks I was in the “F battle here in Santa Monica for 3 miserable years and the F pushers were able to buy and sell the city on “F”….I lived in this Environmentall SOUND city for close to 50 yrs without this poison in our waters….
LikeLike
It’s always comical to see the antifluoridationist greedy mindset manifest itself constantly. Their inexplicable obsession with money, money, money is ironic given the fact that the only ones of whom I’m aware are profiting from this issue are Paul Connett, his family, and his cohorts.
Are they not sharing with you, Joy?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Joy, is it real scary inside your spooky little world of greed and conspiracies?
Perhaps if you fabricated some uplifting anecdotes here and there, instead of just the old negative ones, it might help improve your outlook on life a bit.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Oh, you and yours are so trained, and YES, it’s the huge huge Money trail for too long, and the chemical waste people make 1000%’s in profits….going in and coming out…..they win big profits…..
LikeLike
“You and yours”? Well, Joy, it’s unclear as to what that might mean, but in view of your claim that the “money trail is huge huge” then you should have no trouble in directing readers to wherever may be this “huge huge money trail”. Would you be so kind as to cite specifically where this trail might be found?
And these “big profits”, are they bigger than those enjoyed by the Connett’s and their pals? Have you approached the Connetts about cutting you in? Perhaps if they did so your disposition might change for the better.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
What if they never put the Fluoride byproduct from the phosphate/fertilizer industry the into our water supply in the first place? Where would they put it?
The reason I ask this is because I keep finding contradicting evidence ALL over the internet. Yes, I know, only trust legitimized sources only blah blah blah…But i really need help finding the errors in this claim I found on MediaRoots.org. PLEASE, don’t attack me for the source I have used, rather I would appreciate it if you would simply answer my question and tell me if there is anything wrong with the following passage, thank you.
“Phosphates are minerals that are used to make fertilizer, and phosphate mining industry is a giant moneymaker. Fluoride is created by the production of fertilizer as well as in the manufacturing of steel, aluminum, glass, and cement. Previously, the lack of government regulation allowed gaseous fluoride to move through factory smokestacks and straight into our atmosphere. Now, environmental regulations require giant filtration systems called “scrubbers” atop the stacks to keep these toxic chemicals from escaping into the air. Fluorosilicic acid is then extracted from these scrubbers and condensed to a water-based solution which is packaged unrefined and sold to city governments for the purpose of water fluoridation.
By selling the fluoride byproducts for this purpose, companies avoid the huge cost of disposing of these chemicals in the environment safely, and according to regulation. Back in the 1930’s, a band of industrial corporations – including Monsanto, U.S. Steel, Union Carbide, and Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), the leading producer of aluminum – had been cheaply disposing of their fluoride byproducts into the environment for years. This changed when their toxic waste became the target of negative press in the local news. A 1933 toxicology report by the USDA had warned of fluoride’s toxicity, singling out the aluminum industry as the biggest culprit.”
LikeLike
curious cat, what is your own reaction to that quote? Why should water treatment be the only use for this by product given the widespread use of fluorine in industry? Have you actually looked into uses for fluorosilicic acid? Do you realise that producers can actually get a bigger return on this material if it is further processed and onsold? Isn’t it a good thing that something that was initially just disposed of as waste has become another money earner – especially when the other source of fluoride are being mined out?
If you have trouble seeing through the claims in this article could you be specific?
>
LikeLike
From the view of a chemical engineer the hexafluorosilicic acid (HFSA) coming from the phosphate rock processing stream is not a waste byproduct. The so-called-scrubbers are not generic pollution control devices, rather are specifically there to extract the fluoride in the mineral ore processing stream. Because this requires a capital investment injection both for the equipment and for their operation, the HFSA is simply one of the products created from phosphate rock mining. No waste to it whatsoever. Waste is the stuff that dribbles out the back of the plant only to be disposed of.
The fluoride removed for water additive is only a few percents of the fluoride in the ore. The vast majority goes into the so called “gyp stacks” which are ponds of processed ore and water which are then eventually buried and the land restored per the obligations the mining companies have for that.
These claims that the phosphate fertilizer companies are solving an industrial waste disposal problem by “dumping” it in drinking water thus fails for at least three reasons.
1. It isn’t waste
2. There is no specific disposal problem for fluoride
3 The quantity of fluoride which becomes water additive is too small to solve the “problem” if it did exist
Arguments like this with little relationship to reality sadly often convince citizens to oppose what Surgeon General C. Everett Koop called “the single most important commitment a community can make to its children and to future generations.”
LikeLike
Curious
Yes, you need to cease reliance on dubious sources and seek accurate information from reliable, respected, and authoritative sources.
That aside, it makes no difference what is added to drinking water, or from what source. I am only familiar with water quality standards in the US, but I cannot imagine that those in NZ and other developed nations are not every bit as strict as those of the US, if not moreso. These drinking water quality standards begin with water at the tap, as this is the water we ingest and/or otherwise utilize. In the US, drinking water from the tap must meet all of the stringent EPA mandated certification requirements for quality, or it isn’t allowed. It’s as simple as that. It makes no difference what are the sources of additives, who may be making money, what are the contents of raw, undiluted products, etc…….if water at the tap does not meet the stringent, EPA mandated water quality standards, it is not allowed. Period.
Now, the other issue is the hypocrisy of antifluoridationists who deem themselves to be conservationists concerned with the environment on one hand, while condemning the productive recycling of resources by phoshate producers…..resources which otherwise would be disseminated into the environment in a non-productive manner. We should all be applauding these types of recycling efforts, not transparently condemning them for the purpse of furthering personal ideologies.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
You and yours look in the mirror.
I support Dr. Connett’s hard work every year with my meager donation.
LikeLike
So, Joy, it seems that it’s okay for people to be paid to be involved in the fluoridation issue, but only if those people are antifluoridationists……correct? Antifluoridationists who profit from the issue are deemed to be “hardworking” while fluoridation advicates who receive no compensation, whatsoever, for their efforts are deemed to be “on the take” and “corrupt”…….correct?
Hmmm, appears that something is a little out of kilter with that mindset.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
“Isn’t it a good thing that something that was initially just disposed of as waste has become another money earner – especially when the other source of fluoride are being mined out?”
I don’t think its a good thing or a bad thing. I just think its a thing. A thing that I believe is spurring world-wide debate over whether it is a legitimized practice or not. Most scientists TODAY, are going to say that fluoridation is an irrelevant topic because studies have proven that we are using it at ‘safe levels’. I think people like Joy, are questioning the safety of this product because it has just RECENTLY been added to our DRINKING WATER. This gives me the chills, and also makes me very curious at the same time because the nazis also did this in concentration camps, but obviously at ‘unsafe levels,’ according to scientists. It has also come to my attention that other countries have stopped this practice in recent years, I want to know WHY. I think STEVE and KEN want to shut people up like Joy BECAUSE she doesn’t bring legitimized evidence, in the eyes of scientists, to the table. I think instead of pushing out Joy, and telling her that she is wrong, that we should continue research on ALL toxins and how they affect our health over a LIFETIME.
Guess what? Scientists don’t know all the answers yet, BUT I think they know a hell of a lot more than people like Joy, and I. I also believe that the general public should have the choice of whether or not they want fluoridated water pouring out of their tap. I don’t think there is enough quality evidence out there to prove the ABSOLUTE health benefits of fluoridation. I believe there has to be some unknown negative health effects when it comes to fluoridation, even at ‘safe’ levels that we are not yet aware of. This is why I believe we should stop fluoridating our water.
LikeLike
I have been against this practice when I first really learned of the dangers of fluoride back in 1991…..adding to our drinking water and foods to treat the people is just against what is right….bad enough our water is treated with chlorine and other chemicals, but I guess that needs to be done.
I have no more to say at this point, I’ve said a lot here and was quiet for a while …. it would all be a joke if it weren’t so sad about this long practice.
LikeLike
Curious
I’m all for wuestions and proper research on the issue of fluoridation. The problem is that antifluoridationists such as you and Joy have no interest in accurate information from legitimate sources. You simply peruse antifluoridationist websites and accept as being fact the filtered and edited information and misinformation posted on these sites.
Your erroneous reference to Nazis and Joy’s hypocritical references to money are clear example of this.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
And, yet once again, Joy, where is the valid evidence of these “dangers of fluoride” you “learned”? You cannot seem to understand that science and healthcare are evidence-based, not anecdote-based, not personal opinion-based, not hearsay-based, not misinformation-based…….evidence-based. And this evidence must be correctly documented and cited in order to be accorded any credibility.
Antifluoridationists constantly attempt to condemn this very valuable public health iniative, depriving millions of its benefits in the process, based on nothing but innuendo, misinformation, personal opinions, and anecdotes, none of which constitute valid scientific evidence. When you learn what is considered by respected science and healthcare to be valid evidence, when you learn that spouting statements and claims which have no foundation whatsoever is not acceptable, then you may be able to engage in intelligent discussion of this issue. Until then, you are not.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
I know you don’t care a bit about me and same goes for you from me, no love lost between us….but a couple others around here just may care. I’ve been in alternative/holistic healing world for 25 of the 76 yrs on this earth. So I’ve been studying all the dangers of the drugs and toxic chemicals, etc…
Maybe some don’t know this but the DANGERS of the fluoroquinoines abx drugs like Cipro, Levaquin, etc….all laced with Fluoride…I’ve run across and talked to so many with tendon damage from these drugs, much damage irreversible.
I see only integrative MD’s once a year and do all my own healing as best I can….if only I could have done an alternative hip replacement in 2010, I’d not be as crippled as I am now.
Dentistry, I get no more xrays and get a cleaning maybe once every couple years, otherwise I work to care for my teeth and gums after years of working with supplements including powerful antioxidants… I even make up my own toothpastes and not because I can’t buy them. But I like my ingredients and no chemicals in my toothpastes.
So Dr. Slott, not a science type person BUT a lot of COMMON SENSE.
I’m anti war also, so you know more about my thinking, take it or not.
Off to my coop today for my organic foods and a new supply of clean water…
And again, I know you don’t care Dr….
LikeLike
You are entirely correct, Joy. I don’t care about you in your self-absorbed little world where all you can see is yourself, where everything is about you, where you have no earthly idea as to the impact on others of your irresponsible activities, where truth and accuracy are optional and of no real importance to you.
Once again, your personal anecdotes, hearsay, and irrelevant, unsubstantiated claims…..are meaningless in the absence of valid, documented, properly cited evidence of support…..of which you have provided absolutely zero.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
what Joy and Curious Cat say must be true they use caps,It seems normal practice when the anti fluoride lot get pushed into a corner the caps are used or people get called names
LikeLike
Steve,
I appreciate your comments. First I am going to refer to one of my quotes.
“This gives me the chills, and also makes me very curious at the same time because the nazis also did this in concentration camps, but obviously at ‘unsafe levels,’ according to scientists.”
I’d like to add something to this. I had heard this from somewhere and it helped spark my curiosity but I would like to apologize for not fact checking and realizing it’s not true.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/06/critics-water-fluoridation/truth-about-fluoride-doesnt-include-nazi-myth/
Secondly, I am currently taking a human anatomy class here at the University and when we learned about the brain, the pineal gland came up. I have started to do my own research and have learned that this gland has had a strong influence on multiple religions in history. I am excited to learn more about the function of this gland and how calcification possibly affects its function? I am still in the early stages of my life, and I believe I am on the right track going to College and learning all I can. I believe there are things happening in our body that we do not totally understand yet, ESPECIALLY THE HAPPENINGS OF OUR BRAIN. I think we know a lot more about the body within the next couple decades, thanks to SCIENCE (Joy).
Until then, I will question EVERYTHING I hear, including Steve, Ken, Joy, Obama, professors, internet, books, songs, personal experience, and come to my own conclusions.
http://genius.com/Ab-soul-pineal-gland-lyrics/
Stay curious.
LikeLike
Curious
That’s fine. I strongly encourage you to question everything. But when you do so, perform your research with information from legitimate sources, demand valid support for claims, and understand the difference between science and “junk science”. As you found out about your nazi quote, the nonsense posted on biased activists websites is neither reliable, nor, frequently, accurate. Very telling is that antifluoridationists rarely cite information from primary locations, they cite “fluoridealert” or other such antifluoridationists websites where the infrmation has been filtered and edited to appear to support their position. Those who provide honest information will cite the primary locations of that information so that readers may view it in its complete and proper context, unedited and unfiltered.
Antifluoridationists are notorious for cherry-picking studies, posting quotes out-of-context, misrepresenting study results, and disseminating outright misinformation. Part of this is simply ignorance of science, but part of it is a lack of integrity by these individuals who totally disregard truth and accuracy in their quest to further the antifluoridationist ideology which has been around aince the very beginning of this initiative 7 decades ago. Be curious, but also be demanding of the truth.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Curious Cat wrote @ https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/repeating-bad-sicence-on-fluoride/#comment-65419
(rolls eyes)
LikeLike
How can you and the DDS live with yourselves as you know so much, rolling eyes…..and chuckling. Having all the answers has got to be hard to live with yourselves, I would think. And especially on all the toxic chemicals we are ingesting. Yawn….Sigh…..
Yes, question everything…..I didn’t question the “church” for most of my life….and for sure the govt…..and EPA and CDC and FDA…..Pentagon????? and those 4,5,6 Star generals.
Come to think of it, I don’t think the “F” is FDA approved…..but maybe that’s all changed…..are those “F” tabs dentists prescribe to children FDA approved, is there a Dentist in the house?
LikeLike
How can you and the DDS live with yourselves as you know so much, rolling eyes…..and chuckling.
As we don’t write the comedy ourselves it is very easy to sit and chuckle when it is presented. Laughter, rather than making life difficult, cures many ailments.
LikeLike
Ok, Joy, so first in regard to FDA approval…..mineral additives to drinking water, as is optimal level fluoride, are regulated by the EPA, not the FDA. The FDA has no jurisdiction over optimally fluoridated water. Its approval is neither required nor needed for any reason.
In regard to your other commentary, see, it’s like this……Richard, Ken, Chris, and I “know so much” because we’ve spent lifetimes completing rigorous science currucula in undergraduate college and years afterward. Unlike you, and most other antifluoridationists, we have chosen to properly research the fluoridation issue rather than jumping into discussions having done nothing other than lazily perusing activist websites and lapping up whatever nonsense the unqualified personnel maintaining thise sites has chosen to feed us.
My own education consisted of 8 very trying years of mainly science courses including multiple chemistry courses, biology, zoology, physics, physiology, biochemistry, anatomy, histology, toxicology, pharmacology, and materials, along with rigorous clinical coursework and training. I have spent literally hundreds of hours familiarizing myself with the science of fluoridation, including obtaining and reading entire studies, contacting researchers, experts, and authors of studies, finding answers to any questions raised, about which I was unclear, and verifying my facts before I posted anything rather than attempting to do so afterward. I have made as sure as I can that for any claims and statements I make, I either provide proper evidence and citation of support, or can do so upon request.
I can live with myself because I do not intentionally post false or misleading information and do my utmost to remain truthful and accurate.
Now, given all of this, yes it is immensely funny to me, and does most certainly evoke chuckles and sarcasm from me when people who are basically science illiterate have perused little activist websites and then deemed themselves to be more knowledgeable about fluoridation than Richard, Chris, Ken, I, and the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Yes, it’s true you fluoridationists have spent lifetimes poisoning our waters…lakes, rivers, oceans, all this run off goes to these bodies of waters as well, fluoridating our water life.
Now, you didn’t answer me, on the fluoride tabs the dentists (not alternative dentists for sure) prescribe for children, are they FDA approved Drugs? So when these kids get the tabs, then drink all the “F” water, they are really getting mega doses of “F”……
And all you young people, spread the word, and keep thinking on this….wake up the future generations.
LikeLike
All the pushers of “F” could give a flying hoot about children’s and our health….please, it’s all about the Money…..
LikeLike
Joy, you demonstrate, yet once again, the propensity of antifluoridationists to assume they are in command of some special knowledge which has somehow escaped the awareness of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare.
In actuality, the question of overdose of fluoride through the uncontrolled ingestion of fluoride supplements in combination with optimally fluoridated water, has been long since considered and addressed, long before this “new” information occurred to antifluoridationists. Fluoride supplements require prescription, and have required it for decades, for that specific reason….to ensure that the primary water source of the patient is evaluated for fluoride content prior to dispensing the supplements. Once evaluated, supplements are prescribed according to the total amount of fluoride which will be ingested on a daily basis from all sources, including water, supplements, dental products, food and any other sources.
The same safeguard exists with fluoridated water. Prior to fluoridating any system, the existing fluoride content is evaluated for that system. Once evaluated, only that amount is added through fluoridation, which will bring the total fluoride content of that system up to the optimal.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Joy
“It’s all about the money”. Yes, and I’ve already explained who gets “the money”. If you feel left out then I suggest you contact Connett and see if he will cut you in.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
So is that right. And who is being paid in the fluoride debarkle, Its not the pro fluoride people. But I have Tax returns for the anti fluoride people that show they receive payment. You are right ,it is all about the money More to the point it is how much the anti fluoride lobby group can fleece from the general public They always have their hand out to help promote the family business
LikeLike
Yes, ask for your cut, Joy. Afdter all, not only are you paying for Paul’s annual holiday down under (he is here again next Februrary) but this year you are aqlso paying for Bill Hirzy to accompany him on his holiday. I imagine wives also tag along.
LikeLike
“FAN” is currently in the process of fundraising to meet their $150,000 budget for next year. All those salaries, combined with travel expenses for Paul to flit all over the world on his “business” trips, add up in a hurry.
These salaries, travel expenses, and the entire existence of FAN, itself, rely solely on the ability of FAN to keep the fluoridation issue alive. Given this gross conflict of interest it is always truly comical when antifluoridationists cry out to “FOLLOW THE MONEY!!” Yes, do follow it….right back to FAN.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Yes, it is about big fat ugly greedy money. Shame on you all…..
The CDC [conceded], in 1999 and 2001, that the predominant benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC. To the extent fluoride works to reduce tooth decay, it works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. It makes no sense to drink it and expose the rest of the body to the long term risks of fluoride ingestion when fluoridated toothpaste is readily available.
LikeLike
. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
“Water fluoridation prevents tooth decay mainly by providing teeth with frequent contact with low levels of fluoride throughout each day and throughout life. Even today, with other available sources of fluoride, studies show that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by about 25 percent over a person’s lifetime. … This method of fluoride delivery benefits all people ― regardless of age, income, education, or socioeconomic status.”
LikeLike
Joy, you need to take of your blinkers and read what the science actually says about systemic and topical roles of F.
Have a read of Fluoridation – topical confusion, Fluoridation – topical confusion persists and Ingested fluoride is beneficial to dental health.
As for the role of “big fat ugly greedy money” – read Who is funding anti-fluoridation High Court action?.
LikeLike
Joy, I think if you’ll play around with your web browser a bit you’ll find that it’s pretty versatile. “fluoridealert” is not the only site it will access.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
From another DENTIST, long before your time. Many of us will NEVER go along with your toxic science:
http://www.westonaprice.org/health…/nutrition-fluoridation-and-dental-health/
Apr 28, 2014 – Dr. Weston Price was born in Canada in 1870 and graduated from the … The plants produced large amounts of fluoride, a toxic waste.10 They …
LikeLike
It says a lot when the best research you can find to support your arguments is 80 years old
LikeLike
So, Joy, this quote from some dentist who graduated dental school in 1893……is this some of that “new emerging science” to which antifluoridationists constantly refer but are somehow never able to produce?
That really neat that you can go back centuries to find quotes.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
The Weston Price Foundation lives on and fluorishes in Dr, Price’s name and research over his many years.
Hopefully OTHERS who think and believe as I do, will read this, as I know YOU guys surely don’t…
LikeLike
I suggest Joy get a life. It’s a bit pathetic trolling this site with promotion of a crank on Christmas Day. Our readership is generally a little too intelligent for this to be effective.
>
LikeLike
Not everyone HERE thinks like you guys….most who think like me just back off and don’t bother talking to or discussing, they’ve been here….I have a life and christmas is not my big deal.
LikeLike
Well, anyway, Merry Xmas to you Joy and thanks for your entertainment during the year. 🙂
I am off for a few days on family visits.
>
LikeLike
Hopefully others have brains, Joy, so will be able to not “think and believe as [you] do”.
I can’t speak for the other “guys”, but personally speaking, yes, you are correct……..I will not be reading your utter nonsense. I prefer my nonsense to at least be post World War I.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
SO let me see if i get this straight. We’re supposed to believe that the government is so concerned about our teeth that they would dump fluoride into our water supply without the people’s consent? And any, and I mean ANY negative correlations for fluoride are automatically deemed “bad science”? Here is an idea. Please provide ample and sufficient detailed explanation as to WHY they are putting this crap in our water system without our approval? Let me see the paperwork and unanimous votes both at the state level and federal. Then, please provide information on how it is LEGAL for the government to add fluoride to the water system, without our consent, in order to benefit our teeth. This article is PURELY designed to take you down a rabbit hole… so before you go down, just ask yourself the basic common sense questions that i have brought up.
LikeLike
Ralph, before you hear from them and all their Science….I want to say I am just sick to see my 18 yr old grandgirls’ teeth disfigured with nasty fluorisis…and her telling me about their dentist and all his gels of fluoride used on her teeth…..
The poor parents believe their dentists and are so MISINFORMED of this toxic CRAP.
And to see her glass tea kettle full of grey matter at the bottom of pot from our now fluoridated tap water …. I have to spend a lot of money to buy clean drinking and cooking water…… Her mother buys all their drinking water, but thought the tap water would be safe, it is NOT….
Makes me absolutely crazy all this Science Crap!!!!!
LikeLike
Good for you, In a few years time you can also tell her you helped stop fluoride in your town because you did not like it.So that is why her imaginary fluorosis is fixed but her tooth decay has increased, with its associated costs, But you are not going to help her pay for it.
That would be right would it not
LikeLike
So basically I still haven’t seen Steve or Ken directly address the issue as to why it is somehow legal to purposefully add extra chemicals to our drinking water without our consent?
(I bet they’ll either ignore me completely, call me stupid, or dance around the question. Or all three! Prove me wrong please.)
LikeLike
Any body can answer that, fluoride is not a chemical, never has been ,never will be, it is a natural occurring mineral, found in all water, All that is done is adjust the current level of fluoride in the local supply to optimize tooth repair
So why are you not addressing the real chemicals added to drinking water i.e chlorine and others, If you are so worried about chemicals. And go and find some forum that deals with that
LikeLike
True it’s natural occurring from the atmosphere but not from the alum and lead scrubber smelter waste by products…..hydrafluorasilic acid if I spelled it correctly…
And it never saved my teeth and I was raised in the East in a PA town that was pushed on them back in the 50’s….not a soul knew anything about this toxic crap back then, not until the worldwide net and books and people talking FINALLY. MANY still do not have a clue about this horrific FRAUD..
LikeLike
Ralph,
Before you reply to this thread sounding like the dim witted, cookie cut konspiracy theorist you appear to be, could you please have the courtesy of reading the information provided on this blog before reverting to a childish rant replete with nutcase assertions and obligatory ALLCAPS that would make any die hard konspiracy peddler swell with pride, ‘Joy’ and self indulgent stupidity.
The Guv’mint aren’t out to get you – you are not even on their radar – unless of course you are dumb enough to subscribe to the more militant ideas promoted on the internet while you sit at late at night tap tap tapping away at your computer with grandiose ideas of self importance – thinking that other people actually care what spurious dots your uneducated brain can connect together in an attempt to make you feel intelligent and that ‘you’, yes you are the one – the only one who can figa it all out on your lonesome, without evidence, without support – except for a few other krazies who live at the margins of society.
LikeLike
Curious Cat – ignorance is not excuse. Have a read of y article on fluoridation. Many of them have been specifically aboutthe situation in my own city where fluoridation was stopped without the consent of the people. A 6 month struggle led to a referendum where voters overwhelming supported fluoridation and it was centrally reintroduce.
So what is all the crap of yours about lack of consent?
And I suppose you oppose the use of flocculation, clarification and disinfection chemicals. I actually can’t remember specific consent being sought by referenda for them.
No need to prove you wrong – it has already happened. 🙂
>
LikeLike
Hi Curious Cat,
Instead of being eternally curious – why don’t you provide evidence that community water fluoridation is illegal.
You are making the assertion.
The onus is on you.
I know for some this concept is difficult to grapple with but it’s quite simple really.
If you think any Law is broken, not followed or sidestepped, it should be easy peasy for a person as articulate and adept as you, rather being a lazy Cheshire Cat and reversing an onus that is firmly on you.
You can dance around your own question…therefore there will be no point in calling you stupid.
It will be plain for all to see.
LikeLike
Curious Cat
What you and most other antifluoridationists seem not to understand is that it is not your water to which fluoride is added. It is added to public water supplies. These water supplies are under the authority of local community officials. These officials have the legal authority to add whatever they wish to their water system, as long as they remain in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. They are not required to have, and do not need, your consent to do so. The only say that you have in this is through your vote for the elected officials who have the ultimate authority over the water system, and whom you have elected to act on your behalf in the best interests of their entire constituencies. You are free to voice your opinion to those officials and to vote, or not vote, for them in each election. That’s it.
Your choice is whether or not you wish to draw the water to your home from that public supply. Water utilities have complete listings of the contents of their public water supply readily available at any time, to anyone. If after viewing the contents of the public water supply of your community, you decide you do not want to draw your water from that supply, you are entirely free to not do so. No one will force you.
Water from a community water supply is not a “right”. It is a convenience which communities have available to their citizenries. Citizens can, for a fee, have the convenience of having water come directly into their homes, automatically, without their having to go out, lug it in from some source or another, and store it for use. Just like with any product, citizens are entirely free to purchase this convenience or not. If they don’t like the contents of that water, they are not forced to purchase, consume, or otherwise utilize it.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Joy
If your comments weren’t so comically illiterate and entertaining, they would be truly pathetic.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
hahahahaha
Will you be mad when water fluoridation in the water is put to a stop in the U.S.? Like would it irk you if it somehow stops? When that happens, I’m gonna comment on this feed and ya’ll are gonna look like some dummies. :p
LikeLike
Curious Cat
It seems as though you have bought into Connett’s fundraising nonsense , lock, stock, and barrel. In spite of what he and his minions put out in order to get gullible souls to turn over their hard earned money to fund his salary and world travel expenses, fluouridation in the US is increasing, not decreasing. According to the latest CDC report, the US was 74.6% fluoridated in 2012, increased from 73.4% in 2011.
Saaaay, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’ll sell you cheap. Interested? How about some land in Florida at low tide? Want me to put you in contact with this nice Nigerian fellow who wants to give away bunches of his money? You are exactly the type person for whom he is searching.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
FUCK MONEY
LikeLike
Cat and all who have never seen this info:
fluoridealert.org/content/communities/
Fluoride Action Network
In its 60+ year history, the majority of U.S. communities that have had an opportunity to vote on the measure have rejected it. Fluoridation was thus established in …
And for our resident Dr. “F”….happy I can bring you so much comedic relief….
LikeLike
Curious Cat
Actually I mentioned Connett’s source of income because it demonstrates his conflict of interest. We really aren’t concerned with yours.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Joy
Sure, it’s tough for diligent members of communities who understand the need for truth, honesty, and integrity, to overcome the onslaught of misinformation disseminated by those who do not limit themselves by such constraints. Portland and Wichita are two excellent examples of this.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
“Actually I mentioned Connett’s source of income because it demonstrates his conflict of interest. We really aren’t concerned with yours.”
Awesome, I’m really not concerned with yours either.
Curious F. Cat, SMD
LikeLike
Curious Cat
“Awesome, I’m really not concerned with yours either”
So much for humor………
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Curious Cat & Joy, the Fluoride Action Network is lying to you and I can prove it. Go to this page on the Fluoride Action Network: http://fluoridealert.org/content/communities_2010/
This is a list of communities that have rejected community water fluoridation. The list is in chronological order. Scroll down to May 19, 2014 and you will see Boyne, Michigan. Boyne City, Michigan is my hometown. Dr. Connett spoke at a local library there on October 10th.
Now, back on May 19, the City Commissioners voted to end water fluoridation in Boyne City. This was deemed illegal and became subject to a vote of the people on November 4. Water fluoridation was re-introduced as a result of that vote, by the people, with a margin larger than 2 to 1. That is the history of what happened in Boyne City.
Now look what it says on this website: “*On November 4, 2014, the city commissioners voted to resume fluoridation.” That is a complete lie. Exactly the opposite happened. The City Commissioners illegally ended water fluoridation and a vote of the people put it back, and Dr. Connett knows this because he was there.
That is a provable lie. Now ask yourselves, these people that you trust, and quote, why would they lie about this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I TRUST the anti group any day before I trust the pro group…..My mind will NEVER change, too much damage done with this toxic waste. There are many of US out there too. thank goodness…
LikeLike
The pro “Fers” have been lying to the people TOO LONG….not even lying not telling them about the added “F” in public waters…..
LikeLike
Yes, Joy, of course your “mind will NEVER change”. That’s the definition of an antifluoridationist. It makes no difference how much valid science is presented to them, the rocks in their brains will “NEVER” become dislodged.
Are we supposed to be surprised by this earth-shattering proclamation by you?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
And Neither will your Mind(s) change either…..So!!! I’m not paid thou…
LikeLike
“Not even lying not telling them about the added “F” in public waters….”
Joy, do you provide a translator for your comments? You have a real talent. Not many people can regarble garbled nonsense so artfully as you.
But, let’s see if I can decipher: The “added ‘F’ in public waters…….would that make it “Fpublic waters”, or “public Fwaters”? Or, maybe “publicF waters”?
“Not even lying not telling them”……..hmmmm, that’s a tough one. I give up, Joy, you got me on that one.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
“So!!…I’m not paid thou…..”.
Oh, come on Joy. Who do you think you’re kidding? We all know that you get huge checks from the big corporations who make BILLIONS by keeping people sick. It’s common knowledge that they pay people like you to be their shills.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Joy, I showed you a provable lie that the Fluoride Action Network has on their webpage. This was your response to that: “I TRUST the anti group any day before I trust the pro group…..My mind will NEVER change,”
Ok, fair enough. What if I got Dr. Connett to admit he was lying, in writing? Would you still trust the anti fluoride group?
LikeLike
How can anyone in their RIGHT MINDS believe we should be ingesting this poison:
The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary describes fluorine as “a poisonous pale yellow gas and is very reactive”. In its simplest form, fluorine is a toxic and corrosive gas and to be useful must be combined with other elements. When added to hydrogen it becomes hydrogen fluoride gas and when added to water it becomes hydrofluoric acid.
There are three forms used to “medicate” drinking water. Hydrofluorosilicic acid and silicofluoride are both waste products from fertiliser factories. And there is sodium fluoride some of which has been sourced from “pollution scrubbers” situated in Exhaust chimneys of aluminium factories. But 90% of the world’s supply of sodium fluoride destined for water supplies comes from super phosphate fertiliser factories. And sodium fluoride is the ingredient commonly used in toothpastes, dental rinses, dental gels, anaesthetics, tranquillisers, etc.
References to these substances in medical and legal literature are scarcely comforting. Medics read the following : “Warning: Inhalation Hazard. Inhalation of hydrofluorosilicic received from soaked cotton clothing could cause irreparable lung damage in one minute.
International lawyers read that sodium fluoride must not be used in fertilisers so that pastures, crops and animals are not harmed.
Before being inflicted on people for far greater profit it was used to exterminate rodents and insects.
LikeLike
Was that a yes or a no?
It’s funny you should say: “There are three forms used to “medicate” drinking water.” The word “medicate” is what is so interesting. I actually got Dr. Connett to admit that Prune Juice is a drug, when using the same definition which he uses to define fluoride as a “drug.”
LikeLike
One question, Joy: Is it a medicine or is it a poison? Medicine cures while poison has the opposite effect. You seem to be using both words interchangeably to describe the same thing. Using two different words with opposing meanings to describe the same thing is not logical.
LikeLike
Joy, if you have been ingesting hydrofluorosilic acid, that would certainly explain your bizzare mindset. If that is indeed what you have been doing, you seriously need help………even moreso than I previously thought.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
This is your quote, Joy: “The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary describes fluorine as “a poisonous pale yellow gas and is very reactive”. In its simplest form, fluorine is a toxic and corrosive gas and to be useful must be combined with other elements. When added to hydrogen it becomes hydrogen fluoride gas and when added to water it becomes hydrofluoric acid.”
Ok. I get that. Now, if you go to your copy of “The Case Against Fluoride” by Connett, Beck, & Micklem, and look in Chapter 25, p. 245 (my edition) you will see that they say, “Water is treated with chlorine to make the water safe to drink.” And then they go on to say that, “millions of lives have been saved by this process.” (meaning chlorinating your drinking water)
Did you know that Chlorine was used as a weapon in World War I? Did you know that if a canister of chlorine gas (like the ones they use for water chlorination) were to erupt, it would kill everyone within a city block? Did you know Chlorine is considered a weapon of mass destruction?
And yet Dr.s Connett, Beck, & Micklem say that it is a good thing to use this toxic poison in your water. How could it be that the process of putting this poisonous substance into your drinking water is endorsed by these outspoken anti-fluoride personalities?
Ponder this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joy, there are a few points you really ought to take on board.
Fluorine =/= fluoride.
HF =/= fluoride
Hydrofluoric acid =/= fluoride
Hydrofluorosilicic acid =/= fluoride
Silicofluoride =/= fluoride
Sodium fluoride =/= fluoride
Now, given that all these different substances are not, in fact, fluoride, even though fluorine/fluoride makes up part of their structure, perhaps you can grasp why your rantings about the dangers of these substances are utterly irrelevant to the topic of fluoride.
Then again, perhaps you can’t. After all, you come across as extremely dogmatic in your thinking, what with the whole implicit and unconditional trust of anybody maligning fluoride and refusal to acknowledge any information which might threaten your worldview.
LikeLike
Many medicines are poison and cause damage….should I make a list? I won’t but think about it. Every G.D. drug comes with possible side effects…deaths from drugs in this country are monumental. So many take so many drugs, they don’t know what one drug is doing to the other and it’s a vicious cycle.
Dentists write scripts for fluoride tabs, guess that’s a drug huh…..mass fluoridation is a mass drugging. F is building up in our bodies…..forget the teeth, think about arthritis, hjip fractures, thyroid dsyfunction and the list goes on, cancers (could be) so much cancer in our population…
Unless you are one of the fortunate than can do R.O. in their homes, I cannot, cost prohibitive….bet the pro F’s have their own R.O. systems..
LikeLike
Joy, do you know why fluoride tabs require “scripts”? Highly doubtful, but give it a stab, anyway.
So, okay, I have taken your advice and thought about “arthritis, hjip [sic] fractures, thyroid dysfunction, and the list goes on, cancers (could be) so much cancer in our population……”. Not sure, why you wanted me to think about such things, but can we now get back to water fluoridation, and stick to that which is actually relevant to this issue?
LikeLike
Joy, you are correct. Many medicines can cause death when used improperly. That’s true. However, my point is that you are using the words medicine and poison interchangeably to describe water fluoridation. These words, medicine and poison, are defined by their intended purpose. So, for example, if I were to use alcohol topically as a disinfectant, I guess I would call it a medicine. That is it’s intended purpose. If I were to use alcohol to kill someone by overdose we would call it a poison, i.e., alcohol poisoning. Do you see my point. We use the word to define its intended purpose. You can’t use the words interchangeably to describe one intended purpose.
So, when you call Community Water Fluoridation POISON (which is 0.7-1.2 parts per million of fluoride), you are saying that its intended purpose is to poison people. To poison, being the intended purpose, must necessarily mean that Someone is trying to do the poisoning.
Ok, the natural questions are WHO is trying to poison people, and WHY are they trying to do it?
The other word you use interchangeably with poison is MEDICINE. Medicine is used to cure an ailment or disease. I suppose the disease to which you refer, in the case of water fluoridation, would be tooth decay. However, I don’t know of anyone who has ever said that Community Water Fluoridation will cure tooth decay. Nor does it treat tooth decay. Therefore, it is not a medicine either.
Community Water Fluoridation can help to Prevent dental decay and improve oral health, which in turn can improve the health of the body by helping to reduce the risk of many other diseases including diabetes.
Now this idea of mass medication, or mass drugging through water fluoridation is nonsense. You may know of the anti-fluoride guy Dr. Paul Connett, he wrote some anti-fluoride books. Anyway, he is famous for calling Community Water Fluoridation a drug – drugging the people through the water supply. That is a classic scare tactic.
I was fortunate enough to have been able to have discussed this idea of “Community Water Fluoridation as mass drugging” with him. Now, he uses one specific definition of the word drug to define CWF as a drug. I pressed him on this and I got him to admit that by using his definition of the word “drug”, Prune Juice is also a drug. Cranberry Juice is a drug. So you see, this idea of “drugging” the people is just nonsense. He’s trying to scare you.
Now I’m going to go back to my original question with you. You need to decide what you want to call Community Water Fluoridation. Is it a poison, or is it a medicine? You can’t use them interchangeably for one thing that is used for only one purpose. It doesn’t make sense, and in fact it’s not possible. Once you have decided what you want to call Community Water Fluoridation (0.7-1.2 parts per million of fluoride in water), medicine or poison, we can continue the discussion from there.
LikeLike
David, It’s just PLAIN WRONG, does not belong in public waters…if a person chooses to use “F” toothpaste, they can do that as they wish….otherwise it’s wrong to be forced on the public….it is being forced, MANY of us NEED to buy our cooking and drinking water to avoid tap, unless one lives in non-F area or has the luxury of well water….off the city grid……
LikeLike
Question: Did all the fluoridated communities ASK to be fluoridated?
http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Grand+Rapids+first+use
Today Americans are fluoride overdosed, suffer from fluoride’s toxic effects while … “Grand Rapids has a moral obligation to stop fluoridation instead of glorifying it … The state of Michigan is now 86% fluoridated and Detroit is 100% fluoridated.
LikeLike
And who is asking, well its our old friends from New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.What a credable source If I want information on grand rapids fluoride state the last place I would look is the twisted cherry picked opinions of Carol Kopf and company
If you think your quote is so credible, Why did you not say who was making the statement, instead of cherrypicking the data to suit your own agenda
LikeLike
Thank you, Joy, although that really doesn’t answer my question as to whether you want to call community water fluoridation a poison or a medicine. Please decide before we can move forward.
Regarding your question which I will be happy to respond to, “Question: Did all the fluoridated communities ASK to be fluoridated?”
Answer: Well, I don’t know about ALL fluoridated communities. There is a town near where I live, it is Boyne Falls, Michigan. It has naturally occurring fluoride at 1 part per million. Boyne Falls has perfect, optimally fluoridated water and they didn’t ask for it. God, or Nature, or whatever you want to believe, put it there without their consent.
Moreover, if you look at my previous statement, (TIME-STAMP: January 1, 2015 at 7:05 am, on this post) you will see that I gave the example of my home town which voted to put fluoride back into its water. It was a vote by the people. Prior to that, the privilege of having the health benefit of Community Water Fluoridation was illegally usurped by the City Commissioners on May 19, 2014. Three of five of the City Commissioners had been mislead by anti-fluoride propaganda. It was put back in on October 4 of this year, as a result of the people deciding, by a margin larger than 2 to 1. That happened in Boyne City, Michigan, and the Fluoride Action Network is still lying about what happened there.
Now, Chris, in his comment above, makes a very valid point. You can’t always believe what the anti-fluoride websites are saying. The Fluoride Action Network, for example, in its statement about what happened in Boyne City is clearly lying. Please have another look at my comment above where that is fully explained.
Please decide whether you want to call Community Water Fluoridation a “medicine” or a “poison” and then we can proceed with the dialogue.
LikeLike
One more point I would like to make, Joy, is that I have heard, and considered all of the arguments that you continually repeat. These are nothing new to me, so it is unlikely that you will convince me with arguments that have already been presented to me and then rejected.
However, one thing that I have not heard yet is your decision as to whether you want to call Community Water Fluoridation a poison or a medicine. For any real progress to be made with me, you will first have to consider and answer that question for yourself.
LikeLike
I don’t want to debate this as EVERYONE here knows my position on this mass fraud, as I will call it.
It’s a toxin and a medicine as I see it….
How about adding a laxative and anti depressant in the waters too, as so many are consipated and depressed……J
LikeLike
Joy, of course you “don’t want to debate this” because, as “EVERYONE” here knows, you have absolutely nothing to support your ridiculous claims.
As for adding laxatives and anti depressants……….well, those are kind of bizarre things to want to add to a public water system, but if that is what you desire for the public water system of your area, then this is not the place to submit your request. You will need to make that request of the local officials of your community who have the authority to approve such additions. I’m sure they will give your request due consideration.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
SS – you pushers are ALL bizarre……weathy pushers….I might add…thanks Alcoa for starting all this.
LikeLike
“It’s a toxin and a medicine as I see it….”
Well, at least you aren’t using the word “poison” anymore. I think we may be making progress.
You also called it a “mass fraud”. Fraud meaning deception. You are opposed to deception.
What do you have to say about the fact that the Fluoride Action Network is lying about the events that happened in my hometown of Boyne City, Michigan. (See my comment, TIME-STAMP: January 1, 2015 at 7:05 am, on this post)? Do you have any comment on that fraud (well, I will use the word lie)? Please comment on that.
LikeLike
I’m not going to comment on your city issues and FAN…..info is not always up to date anyway. And I’m all for what Dr. Connett is doing around most of the world to stamp out this “cwap”…..I fear I won’t see the end in my lifetime, maybe my grandkids lifetime.
As far as naturally occurring fluoride, our city where I’ve resided for 48some yrs always had naturally occurring “F” in the water from rocks, atmosphere, reservoirs, etc….BUT when they marched in here in 2005 proclaiming to add the “waste” “F”,, many of us formed our safe drinking water group, and fought it for 3 yrs….Yes, we lost our battle as I do believe our city “fathers’ had deep pockets….politics are so correct, for the most part anyway….there are a few officials who are honest, I think…..
I’m sure the dentist doc is having his fun with laughter…..I could care less about any of their feelings…. . ….
LikeLike
A comment on Santa Barbara just north of my city….when we were fighting this back in 2005 on, we talked to many and I remember the Mayor of Santa Barbara and her rejection of adding “F” to their waters….here is the comment:
(((Mayor Harriet Miller, referencing her background in chemistry, stated that adding a chemical to the water supply to medicate everyone was not the right approach and requested that the City’s staff draft a letter to the appropriate health agencies to look into other programs that are intended for children from birth to 5 years of age to devise a method of getting the appropriate care directly to the individuals who truly need it and when they need it.))) They rejected “F” in 1999. I am very envious of this decision.
Our city “fathers” and one woman didn’t have these smarts…
LikeLike
“Mayer Harriet Miller – referencing her background in chemistry!!”
Joy, please explain how her backgound in chemistry is relevant to her statement. That is a political viewpoint – nothing to do with chemistry.
LikeLike
“I’m not going to comment on your city issues and FAN…..info is not always up to date anyway.” You got that right.
Actually, after the November 4th election, and the people voted to reinstate fluoridated water, a local citizen wrote to Dr. Connett and advised him to remove Boyne from his list of municipalities that had ended water fluoridation. Dr. Connett’s reply was less than friendly to say the least. But that is when FAN put the footnote at the Boyne listing which lied about the history of what had happened there. So it’s not that FAN is not up to date, it’s that FAN is intentionally lying about what happened here.
The local anti-fluoride group lied about him not getting paid for his visit.
I showed him, to his face, where he intentionally misquoted the Fluoridation Engineer at the CDC and lied about what he had said. Dr. Connett had no response to this at the time, but in an email to me he later said that he “sometimes has a tendency to overstate” the facts.
Dr. Connett likes to review studies. Professor John Spencer at Adelaine University, in 2005, said, “Dr. Connett misrepresents my study as an analysis of the benefits of water fluoridation,which it was not. He also misrepresents the study’s indirect evidence on the benefits of water fluoridation on decay.”
Dr. Connett not only lies, misquotes people, but he also misrepresents studies.
You used the phrase “mass fraud” to describe water fluoridation. Any objective can easily see that the only fraud here is Dr. Connett and the Fluoride Action Network.
You want to talk about deep pockets and money. I hope you are aware that FAN is one of several entities which make up Health Liberty, whose parent company is Mercola.
This is who Connett is in bed with: “Mercola has also received three warning letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for violations of U.S. marketing laws. The first two letters, dated 2005 and 2006,[15][16] charged Mercola with making false and misleading claims regarding the marketing of several natural supplemental products, which violated the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#Views_and_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#FDA_Warning_Letters
Mass Fraud? This is your mass fraud, and you gobbled it down hook line and sinker. Please tell me that you haven’t given any money to these people.
LikeLike
David, I would support ANYONE who is working to rid us of this TOXIN in our public waters. Talk about profits, the alum, fertlizer waste industries ONLY make 2000% profits on all this madness…
You are so brainwashed or drunk on your fluorides…..or count on $$$ for yourselves from all this …
LikeLike
Ken, I don’t know Mayor Harriett Miller but I recall her comments way back was she was not letting that “F” added to their public water. I didn’t know she had a chemistry background until I was reading more today..
I just can’t understand WHY any smart human would want to treat humans via our public waters….do you all really care about our health…Please…..
Why not just love that “F” toothpaste and stop your craziness….
I truly believe your motives are all driven by the g$$$d awful $.
LikeLike
So, Joy, what was the relevance to her chemisty background? Surely not an endorsement?
LikeLike
Ken, she is a chemist and knows about all these chemicals….what can I say…..science, chemistry …. I have neither back ground but street smarts not to add this stuff to our public waters……geeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzz
I’m done, no more here for a LONG time, I hope…..hope hope hope..
LikeLike
Joy, I have 3 degrees in chemistry but you are surely not going to accept my political recommendation because of that are you? Yet you seem to think her background in hemistry is a reason to accept her political recommendations.
Barmy!
>
LikeLike
Ken, I don’t care if you have 12 degrees in chemistry….pouring this waste into our public waters is WRONG….no matter how many degrees you have.
LikeLike
But you do care that this Mayor you support has a âbackground in chemistryâ â that is because you support her political statement and are grappling to find a way of providing her with authority. Yet, as far as you are concerned, qualifications in science really mean nothing â it is the politics you support.
LikeLike
Yes, I have mega trust in those who REFUSE this stuff….Santa Barbara is just one of 100’s of communities who have rejected/removed “F” in recent years…..when will Grand Rapids wake up? They were the first guina pigs..
Makes me think just how poor health is up there and for that matter the whole state of MI….
I thought I was done here…..
LikeLike
Joy, you were “done” here months ago. You are not a rational commenter. J
LikeLike
Joy, this is your comment: “David, I would support ANYONE who is working to rid us of this TOXIN in our public waters. Talk about profits, the alum, fertlizer waste industries ONLY make 2000% profits on all this madness…
You are so brainwashed or drunk on your fluorides…..or count on $$$ for yourselves from all this …”
And this: “I truly believe your motives are all driven by the g$$$d awful $.”
Ok, Joy, I have shown you how Dr. Connett and FAN lie to the public, and I have spoken about how FAN is associated with the unethical corporation Mercola LLC.
You seem to think that pro-fluoridation people are in it for the money. That’s really not true. In fact, as FAN increases the paranoia about what’s in your water, Mercola sells more water filters. This isn’t rocket science.
But what I wanted to say is that back in October I did debate Connett. Ok, I’m not a great public speaker . . . but, the point I wanted to make about the money is that at the beginning of the debate, the moderator, an anti-fluoridist, said, “Neither of these gentlemen are getting paid anything for being here.” Then in the next sentence, she said, “Dr. Connett has come here all the way from New York and we would like to take donations for him.”
Think about that, and think about who is in it for the money. By the way, I didn’t receive any money for it. He did. Think about who is really in it for the money.
My thing is that I don’t like it when misinformation and lies are used to establish a public health policy. That’s why I’m in it. So your statements that I have quoted above are dead wrong. I have never received as much as a dime for speaking out against anti-fluoride misinformation. And that IS the Truth. Can Connett say the same?
LikeLike
David
The following is what I know to be true about Connett, his family, and his cronies as far income from keeping this issue alive. No telling how much more they may be taking in from their little cottage industry, “FAN”. I do know that Connett is in the midst of fundraising for the “FAN” 2015 budget of $150,000. I generally post this when hypocrites such as “Joy” trot out their idiotic money and conspiracy nonsense. It is always comical to see how quickly they start backpedaling about how Connett is “due” compensation, how “little” is the $1,000 per month that he and the missus are each paid every month, and other such hogwash.
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
LikeLike
And this comment you have made, Joy: “Talk about profits, the alum, fertlizer waste industries ONLY make 2000% profits on all this madness…”
Ok, you are talking about Fluorosilicic Acid here. FAN, and the other anti-fluoride pushers want you to believe that the only way that Fluorosilicic Acid can be disposed of is in municipal water supplies.
The truth is that Fluorosilicic Acid has many other uses and its manufacturers are not, in any way, dependent on its use in Community Water Fluoridation. This is another great example of how they are lying to you.
Please tell me you haven’t given any money to these lying profiteers. Connett is laughing all the way to the bank. Well, he will after he gets back from his winter holiday in New Zealand. I wish I could afford to go there this winter.
LikeLike
Very good article.
I have written about why Fluoride is not dangerous to our health here:
LikeLike
Fluoride is absolutely a neuro toxin there is no disputing that.
LikeLike
What a strange statement, Tim. I dispute your claim – so are you prepared to back it up with any evidence that we can then discuss?
LikeLike
I feel the same way, and have been taken to task by fluoride supporters about this as well.
My understanding of the evidence says fluoride at .7-1 PPM is not a neurotoxin
First we look at the Grandjean 2014 Abstract
“Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all
new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these e ff orts and to accelerate
translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse”. Nothing definite, just a proposal, and the reason for this, is his own 2012 paper that he uses for reference to back up his claims
. The Lancet says this in their article
The Lancet, a British science journal, published an article online (Feb. 15) about autism, ADHD and other neurodevelopmental disabilities and the role that lead and other neurotoxicants play in these health issues. ” The co-authors, Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan, express concern about what they call a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity,” and they identify six neurotoxicants that include fluoride.” Although the article never refers to the optimal fluoride level used to fluoridate community water systems, groups that oppose water fluoridation have cited the article to attack fluoride.
After the dust had settled Grandjean and Landrigan came out and said this
“We are grateful for the comments on our review.1 Our aim was to present a balanced assessment based on our best
professional judgement concerning toxicity of industrial chemicals to the developing human brain. The diversity of
opinion expressed in these letters reflects the serious absence of neurotoxicity information about most chemicals,
but we interpret all four letters as supportive of a call for intensified research”
So once again ,nothing definite ,just a .’call to arms’ to coin a phase
At this stage according to my research. I believe Fluoride is not a neurotoxin at the levels used in CFW
LikeLike
It BUILDS UP after years and years, so so many are ingesting it for way way too many years and this should be going on.
Anyone with brain cells that are working know this and so many do not have a clue about it anyway…..
LikeLike
I,m sure the zombie population in Grand Rapids is no more than the rest of the USA, and they have had fluoride from the start
LikeLike
Chris, i think the key is the difference between “neurotoxin” and “neurotoxic”. Grandjean hasn’t provided anything new. He’s just fear-mongering with old news. . Fluoride is a neurotoxin. It has been on the EPA list of neurotoxins for years, along with 200 or so other substances including aspartame, ethanol, salicylate, tetracycline, caffeine, and nicotine. However, like these other commonly ingested substances, fluoride at its proper use level is not neurotoxic. There is no valid peer-reviewed scientific evidence to dispute this fact. Fluoride at the optimal level is not neurotoxic, short term or bioaccumulative…..period.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Steve thanks for that. At least we are both on the same page just the interpretation of the research is diffrent, but as you say at the normal C.F.W level there is no danger
LikeLike
Where is the evidence that fluoridation is beneficial, especially in first world countries?
Dental caries rates have decreased to the same extent in countries that don’t fluoridate their water compared to those that do. I don’t understand why water is fluoridated when it is of no apparent benefit. I have a feeling studies will eventually link fluoridation with thyroid issues but only time will tell.
LikeLike
Franter, the beneficial role of fluoride is well documented. Your argument that oral health has improved in all first world countries dies not preclude this beneficial role. Fir example check out the data fir Ireland where there us a clear difference between fluoridated areas and non-fluoridated areas. You have to look at the data properly and not let yourself be fooled by anti-fluoride propagandists.
Also, have a look on this blog – there are plenty of articles here dealing with fluoridation which answers these sorts of questions.
LikeLike
Franter
Antifluoridationists have been trying desperately for 70 years to link fluoridation to thyroid, or anything else they possibly could. In spite of their Herculean efforts, they have not been able to link it to anything other than mild dental fluorosis. This is the reason that they rant and rave about dental fluorosis. After decades of their pushing, pulling, kicking, shoving, misinforming, misleading, misrepresenting, and outright lying, about fluoridation…..mild dental fluorosis is all they have. Thus, they have no choice but to do everything they can to portray this barely detectable, benign effect as being some some of major catastrophe.
That there is no valid proof of any adverse effects of fluoridation is also why those such as you are reduced to insiduously attempting to plant seeds of doubt with irresponsible innuendo about your “feeling” of a link to thyroid, with nothing valid to support such innuendo.
There will be no valid link of fluoridation to thyroid issues……..because there is none. Period.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
There is SO MUCH evidence and reports for many years of thyroid dsyfunction, arthritis and hip fractures and cancers….this F mass medication is total B.S. and to believe any of these folks makes you as nuts as them…
This crap should NOT be in public waters without consent for sure….I never consented to have this waste in my water…
LikeLike
Oh the words from the KNOW IT ALL conventional dentist who continue to slather childrens teeth with F gel and I see my own grandchild with pitted and fluorisis teeth now….hang them all.
LikeLike
Joy, it is bad enough that you indulge in such personal attack but I cannot allow the use pf death threats like “hang them all.” This is worse than childish and such behaviour will not be allowed in discussion here.
I am moderating your future comments until you withdraw that statement.
LikeLike
Joy ” There is SO MUCH evidence and reports for many years of thyroid dsyfunction, arthritis and hip fractures and cancers…” Well Joy if there is so much around pertaining to fluoride levels of .7-1.5 PPM. Lets see some??
LikeLike
The conversation should begin with discussing the supposed benefits of flouride before we talk about the potential for harm it may possess. To measure the effect of small amounts of a chemical distributed to hundreds of millions of people could or should take hundreds of years. The science against it doesn’t have that luxury. It appears that there is some evidence that it protects your teeth, by binding to enamel, but it’s unquestionably toxic at at certain levels, and it’s next to impossible to control how much you ingest. Pretty impossible. If it binds to our teeth it seems logical to assume that it would accumulate in the body. I haven’t read anything from the pro-fluoride folks that would dispute that conclusion, and I can’t find any information sufficient to convince me that it’s necessary to put this chemical waste in my water supply. I, like many others, suffer from poly-neuropathy and several other neurological problems, and it’s pretty clear that it’s a result of living in a polluted world. Even more, it’s a result of living in a society that treats us like lab rats, and corporate collusion with the government seeks to expand the threshold of toxic tolerance. I can’t trust it. Given the history diabolical shit our government has perpetrated, it seems very plausible that it’s being used to essentially poison us, especially at the time when it was introduced: 62? Mkultra, etc. It’s unfortunate, but it comes down to two choices: it’s a conspiracy or it’s not. Are you sure it’s not?
LikeLike
Scott, there is a lot of evidence fluoride itnake protects the tooth. F is a normal and antual component of bioapatites (teeth and bones)- giving strength and hardness to them at optimum levels. It also acts via soimple solubility product to reduce acid attack on existing teeth.
The desctipon of the chemcial processes as “bing” is a bit simplistc, but as this invoilves chemistry of itneraction with Ca and PO4 in apatties it is not logical it will “bind” to toher tissues. “Accumulation,” along with “dissolutiuon” in bones, etc., is normal.
Fluoride is not a chemical waste – a waste is something that is not used so must be dumped. You are using an emotive term inappropriately.
Yes, F can be toxic at high concentrations – mnost things are. But it is just silly to say “it’s next to impossible to control how much you ingest.” Of course you can – within a healthy range. One does not have to be precise with such elements.
You control the intake by avoiding contamination, not swallowing volcanic assh, etc. Eating and drinking normal food and beverages is the way to control it.
Clearly you have a naive conspiracy theory abgout the subject so I guess these facts wont have any effect on you.
LikeLike
scott “the time when it was introduced: 62?” Oh boy another expert who says fluoride is only been around for 55 years.
Fluoride has been around since time began ,and it does not matter where it come from ,the fluoride ion is the same, it is in the sea ,freshwater ,the air and ground, so how you are going to avoid it is a major problem for you. And because it is in the surroundings you blame the gubbermint. Your polluted world that we all live in, means that some people are unlucky to have an adverse reaction to some things in it. and it is not a reason to prevent other people from the benefits of fluoride
LikeLike
For the last 30 years the fluoride used to fluoridate community drinking water is not pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, or naturally occurring calcium fluoride, but untested silicofluorides — hexafluorosilicic acid and its sodium salt, sodium hexafluorosilicate. These fluoridating agents are waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry and contain trace amounts of arsenic and lead. Fertilizer plants sell these unpurified silicofluorides to municipal water systems at a profit, rather than, at considerable expense, having to dispose of them as toxic waste.
There are a lot of things that were thought to be good by the mainstream medical community that turned out to be bad like Mercury for example.
Vitamin A for example in it’s synthetic form causes an increase in the rate of cancer, however natural vitamin A doesn’t.
LikeLike
Mike, your comment actually has nothing to do with my article so I wonder why you posted it. Perhaps you are just a drive-by troll spreading the faith.
However, in case you aren’t I wish to challenge your assertions.
1. Nome of the chemicals used to treat water are “pharmaceutical grade.” However, they are regulated and must pass strongest tests of quality and contaminants.
2: The fluoridating chemicals currently used are sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid, I’m increasing order of impeotance.
3: Fluorosilicic acid is a by-product if the phosphate industry. When fluoride is derived from phosphate ores the phosphate is a by-produce of the fluoride industry. They are not waste products if used and sold commercial,y as they are not sent to waste.
4: any contaminants in the fluoridating chemicals used must be below regulated levels. They are in fact very low. For example in my city the main source of arsenic in our water is natural, for geochemical sources. It is reduced below the maximum kermis sinks levels during treatment. By comparison any arsenic from the fluoridation chemicals extremely minor. Search for arsenic on this blog and you will see some data on this.
5: Your comments on Mercury and vitamin A are irrelevant. There is role to if research in the role of fluoride in dental health. The only credible negative effect from community water fluoridation has time and again been shown to be mild or very mild dental fluorosis which is really,only if cosmetic interest.
6: Most importantly, there are political activists backed and financed by big business interests (the “natural”/alternative health industry) who are spreading lies about fluoridation. The reader needs to beware and approach these claims sceptically and intelligently. One is very silly to repeat them without due consideration.
But, Mike, I would welcome some sensible feedback on my article.
LikeLike
Oh Ken, STOP with the treating of WATER, “F” is used to treat the PEOPLE and Animals, etc….now water.
Our water is treated with chlorine, arsenic, cadmium, etc…bad ENOUGH.
LikeLike
Fluoride is NOT a nutrient. (See Refs below)
ie. No healthy bodily function or process requires it.
There is no deficiency disease.
It is NOT like Vitamin A or Selenium where you must have some…… but too much is harmful.
This is a misleading presentation of fluoridistas.
Fluoride is just plain toxic. But, as with most toxins, we (each variously) tolerate more or less of them before exhibiting symptoms which may well not be recognised. The point is to MINIMISE intake of such toxins.
Not a Nutrient……………………..
“Safe, responsible, and sustainable use of fluorides is dependent on decision makers (whether they be politicians or parents) having a firm grasp on three key principles: (i) fluorine is not so much ‘essential’ as it is ‘everywhere,’ (ii) recent human activities have significantly increased fluorine exposures to the biosphere, and (iii) fluorine has biogeochemical effects beyond bones and teeth.”
SOURCE: Finkelman RB, et al. (2011). Medical geology issues in North America. in O. Selinus, et al. (eds). Medical Geology. Springer Publishing.
“[F]luoride is no longer considered an essential factor for human growth and development.”
SOURCE: National Research Council (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC. p. 30.
“Fluoride is not essential for human growth and development.”
SOURCE: European Commission. (2011). Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water. Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER).
“Fluoride is not in any natural human metabolic pathway.”
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335:699-702.
“These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluorine as an essential element, according to accepted standards.”
SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences. (1989). Recommended Dietary Allowances: 10th Edition. Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press. p. 235.
Statements from U.S. Government Agencies:
“In summary, FDA does not list fluorine as an essential nutrient.”
SOURCE: Food & Drug Administration, October 1990.
“The United States Public Health Service does not say that sodium fluoride is an essential mineral nutrient.”
SOURCE: U.S. Public Health Service, May 10, 1966.
“Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient. Fluoride has not been determined essential to human health. A minimum daily requirement for sodium fluoride has not been established.”
SOURCE: Food & Drug Administration, August 15, 1963.
The Institute of Medicine Report (1997)
Some commentators have cited a 1997 report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) as demonstrating that fluoride is an essential nutrient. The IOM report, however, does not do so — a fact confirmed by both the President of the Institute of Medicine (Kenneth Shine), as well as the President of the National Academy of Sciences (Bruce Alberts). In a jointly authored letter on November 18, 1998, Alberts and Shine unequivocally stated:
“Nowhere in the report is it stated that fluoride is an essential nutrient. If any speaker or panel member at the September 23rd workshop referred to fluoride as such, they misspoke. As was stated in Recommended Dietary Allowances 10th Edition, which we published in 1989: ‘These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluoride as an essential element, according to accepted standards.’
——————————————————————-
Whether the denaturing of tooth enamel from Hydroxyapatite to Fluoroapatite may be considered as a “Useful Pathology” I am sceptical.
However to drink toxins like Fluoride it is foolish.
To force others to drink it is a crime….. that has to be denied to protect reputations and authority. And to do this in the name of “Science” is to subvert science for authority’s sake.
On the point about “Toxic Waste Product” or “By-Product”? We know this is semantics. The point is “Why was/is this material collected in scrubbers?” . Not because it is needed for drinking;… but because it was laying waste to the environments around the facilities emitting it.
It is too poisonous to enter air/landfill/sea or watercourses.
If it wasn’t required for fluoridation it would be toxic waste once again.
Perhaps the point of Fluoridation is not whether 0.00001% of the fluoride in fluoridated water gets into a child’s tooth. The crucial fact may be, that each time you wash your car, water the roses or flush the toilet, crude toxic “waste” (“waste” were it not for fluoridation) is cheaply disposed of in a manner that is otherwise illegal!
LikeLike
Mike, Grand Rapids, MI was the first city in the U.S. to get this TOXIN added to their public waters, that was in 1945, do the math.
Thank Alcoa and then their wonderful Mellon buddies for the start of this mess. There is a LOT going on as more and more people are waking up, thank you the worldwide web.
LikeLike
Also Ken,
You state ….”there are political activists backed and financed by big business interests (the “natural”/alternative health industry) who are spreading lies about fluoridation.”
My experience is that this campaign to end fluoridation is done by individuals with no funding or backing. (In contradistinction to pro-fluoridation societies, who get Gov. funding here in UK)
And what would be the financial gain for this so-called “natural industry”?
And would you really expect anyone to believe that what you call “the “natural”/alternative health industry” is any match for the massive financial interests of those with excess (waste) Fluoride to dispose of?
I would be absolutely astonished if anyone did not see on which side the funding (and the lies it buys) were biased!
Fluoride is, by volume, the world’s largest toxic “waste” product.
The incentives to sell it, rather than dispose of it, are huge.
Aluminium processing, glass-production, coal-burning activities & petroleum refinining and others apart from phosphate production you cited.
The fact is the background air & soil pollution of Fluoride has rocketed, from here it enters the foodchain further supplemented by Fluoride-based pesticides. The last thing we need to to is add to this elevated background level by drinking even more!
I wonder that you queried if another contributer was a troll!
When you see the “natural”/alternative health industry” as some kind of powerful bogeyman…… capable of bullying the poor, defenceless, giant, multinational industries and the Dental & Public Health establishments. I wonder as well?
Are really genuine?
And, in the end, who is bullying who?
I don’t want to drink this; why should you force me to drink it?
LikeLike
Hey Mike, me again….as Ken said You gotta be more sensible…. WE are just not sensible!!!!!!!….
LikeLike
A couple of points for you, L. Harley:
1: If you do not wish to drink the water supplied by your community organisations that is up to you. No one is forcing you to. Only a idiot would claim that and drink the water supplies instead of seeking alternatives or further treating the water by ion exchange filtering or similar. Many people do this – and it is the responsible action of someone with a minority view.
2: The definition of an element as essential is rather abitrary as it assumes involvement in a biochemical process. The beneficial role of F is inorganic as a normal and natural component of bioapatites. Rather than indulge in a silly argument of definitions I usually refer to fluoride as a beneficial microelement – as Wikipedia does.
3: Your experience is worth nothing if it ignores the fact that Paul Connett’s Fluoridation Action Network – which is the puppet master in much of the anti-fluoride activity and spreads most of the lies – is financed by Mercola which earns it’s millions from sales of alternative health products and propaganda.
4: Search in this blog for the NZ Health Trust. It is a lobby arm of the “natural”/alternative health industry in NZ. From published financial returns it is clear that it pours hundreds of thousands of dollars into the so far unsuccessful ongoing High Court action attempting to stop community water fluoridation in NZ.
5: You might not choose to see or acknowledge these facts but in the end it is the people who decide in a democracy. Our experience in NZ is that the propaganda of the anti-fluoride movement is more and more being questioned and rejected as people support through their votes a beneficial social health policy which is repeatedly being shown to be safe and effective.
LikeLike
Bad science all around, evidently:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract
The Cochrane Collaboration says that the benefits of fluoridation are not clear.
LikeLike
Myrto, read my article on the new Cochrane report. Anti-fluoridation propagandists are already misrepresenting this.
LikeLike
Link your article here, Ken. I’m sure it is more compelling than a comprehensive review of over 100 studies by the Cochrane Collaboration that concluded the following:
” There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.
There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.
There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation.”
WE also have these two recent gems:
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/02/09/jech-2014-204971.abstract?sid=387994a1-4d28-493a-bef6-8fdf845ecbb0
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/17/abstract
LikeLike
Thanks for mentioning the new Cochrane review, Bill, and the studies on hypothyroidism and ADHD. I have already analysed all three of these in some depth. Have a read of the following articles:
Cochrane review:
And I will be posting the 3rd of my series on this today. It discusses the dental fluosis comments.
Hypothyroidism study:
ADHD study:
You are welcome to read and comment on those posts.
By the way, you didn’t comment in this post here. Do you accept what I say about the Grandjean paper?
LikeLike
How can anyone who has done any due diligence on fluoride promote its use in our drinking water, toothpaste. A neurotoxin derived from industrial waste (from aluminum smelting plants) has been exposed as awful for your health, especially to the developing brain of babies/our youth, and calcifies the pineal gland. Since the Lancets and Harvard’s exposures of the neurotixicity of fluoride aren’t good enough for you, perhaps Dr. Mullenix’ report will help you open your eyes. If you still really think it is good for you, and agree with our gov’t putting industrial waste in our water without our consent, you are most likely a paid shill working for the dark side and have a lot of spiritual growth to undergo. I will provide a link to the report for everyone’s review and would suggest reading it in its entirety as she is clearly credible.
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a researcher who has investigated the neurotoxicity of fluoride since 1987, was contacted by BSE, a contractor for the U.S. Army Medical Command, (MEDCOM). Headquartered at Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas, it has some 25,000 soldiers and 28,000 civilian employees in its command. MEDCOM commands four Army installations including the world famous Walter Reed Army Medical Center, in Washington, D.C.
MEDCOM was concerned about fluoridating the water supply of Fort Detrick, Maryland and Dr. Mullenix’s expert opinion was requested.
“In summary, my opinion is that there are no advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today far exceed the hoped for benefit. Dr. Hodge during the Manhattan Project requested funds from Col. Stafford L. Warren to do animal experimentation to determine central nervous system effects of fluoride (17). He did so because he had clinical evidence that the fluoride component of uranium hexafluoride caused “mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude among the workmen. Yet, he never got to do those studies, and because this information was classified, he never discussed his findings with me. Perhaps, however, this explains why he was so intensely interested in my fluoride studies up to the time of his death.
Therefore, in good conscience I can only discourage the notion of fluoridating the water supply of Fort Detrick. The evidence against the safety of this public health policy will keep mounting and never disappear again. My ignorance of fluoride in the beginning was a matter of chance. If you ignore this evidence today, it will be a matter of choice. Good luck with doing the right thing.”
http://www.nofluoride.com/mullenix_bsa.cfm
LikeLike
Bly – perhaps you should take your own words seriously and do some due diligence instead of repeating baseless propagandia.
Lancet and Harvard have not “exposed” fluoride to be neurotoxic.
I challenge you to find any official statement from The Lancet (who clearly are not in the business of making such official regulations) or Harvard. Specifically neither have these have said this about community water fluoridation concentrations. In fact – several of the deans from the Harvard Medical School have published a letter stating they see no health problems from community water fluoridation.
I also challenge you to support your claims about babies brains. As for calcification – that is caused by calcium phosphate and old age – not fluoride. The fact that fluoride accumulates in actively calcifying tissues because of its chemical reactive calcium is completely beside the point. Basic chemistry.
Your confidence in Phyllis Mullenix reveals you own bias as she is an extremely unreliable witness on the subject. In her own studies on rats she used such high concentrations of fluoride (far, far in excess of that used in community water fluoridation) that some of her rats were dying from poisoning.
She published a single paper on this work – and as far as i know – has not worked as a genuine researcher since then. She is an anti-fluoride activist – and well known as such.
As I say, Bly, do your own “due diligence.” Stop relying on propaganda – and provide citations to support your claims.
LikeLike
Whoever decides they want to consume Fluoride, in any form, is making a willful decision to do so and I would defend that right to choose for yourself to consume Fluoride. You have the right to believe what you do about it and you have every right to take it yourself.
Likewise, I would expect that whomever the above situation concerns would deliver the same respect for my willfull decision not to consume Fluoride, in any form, and also respect my preference to consume Iodine as my halogen of choice, in the form of natural sea kelp, with a dash of Selenium and a side of L-Tyrosine. ;D
LikeLike
AV – I cannot see how your personal declaration supporting freedom of choice (which I, and many other people, do too) relates to this post.
Why not discuss the subject of the post – the specific paper that was being touted and its quality?
Why do you feel the need to make a personal declaration?
Why should we be interested in such a personal declaration?
LikeLike
Yeah, sure, AV. I fully respect your right not to consume fluoride, in any form. If someone is holding you down forcing fluoride down your throat you should most definitely report them to the proper authorities.
This, however, is of no relevance to this post, or to water fluoridation in general.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Your understanding o….f “being forced to do something”…. is so naive an unrealistic, that I wonder if you are sincere or just trolling?
Your first clause…. “Yeah, sure, AV. I fully respect your right not to consume fluoride”…… should drive you to the inevitable conclusion that water fluoridation is unacceptable.
LikeLike
L. Hartley, could you please explain how you get to your conclusion? I cannot see it as inevitable at all.
LikeLike
If fluoride is added to water supplies one is forced to consume it…………..
Only a very few wealthy people, in the most extraordinary circumstances, could even hope to avoid it. (E.g. People, and families, permanently housebound with their own low-F-well; who grow & process all their own food, & who never visit, eat out, go on holiday, go to school or get hospitalised. Alternatively they must buy an all-house, Reverse-Osmosis filtration system & still do all the rest ).
As you very well know, addition of F to water supplies is, for all practical purposes, compulsion to consume it.
Their is no respect here of a person’s right not to consume it!
The whole point of adding it to water (ostensibly), instead of just to toothpaste,….is that people CAN’T avoid it.
LikeLike
Harley
“Your understanding o….f “being forced to do something”…. is so naive an unrealistic, that I wonder if you are sincere or just trolling?”
Save it, Harley. The “forced medication” nonsense has been rejected by the courts each and every time it has been trotted in by antifluoridationists. One of the biggest problems with these activists is their belief that they can just make up their own facts, and define things in any manner they choose. There is no medication and no force involved in fluoridation, obviously.
“Forced medication” is nothing but an unconscionable effort by antifluoridationists to exploit emotions felt for those unfortunate souls throughout history who have indeed undergone the horrors of forced medication. The childish whining of antifluoridationists that they are somehow being force medicated with a substance humans have been ingesting in water since the beginning of time is……..utterly ridiculous.
Inconvenience, regardless the degree, does not equate with force.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
If we don’t buy into the “F” poison, we’re trollers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It SHOULD not be added to PUBLIC waters……
You want it for yourself, buy your own stash of F…which comes from China no doubt…helping China to get of their massive pollution.
LikeLike
Steve I did not mention “compulsory medication”!
I simply pointed out that your claim above…..”I fully respect your right not to consume fluoride, in any form.” …..was incompatible with fluoridation of the public water water supply.
It was about your inconsistency.
That point you evaded.
LikeLike
Just hearing Ralph Nadar on my progressive radio and looked up his views and there are many on the “F” issue….here is one link.
http://www.nofluoride.com/nader.cfm
Does anyone THINK the coroporate pigs care about our health…Please…..we are the only ones who can HELP our health.
LikeLike
Harley, I evaded nothing. You want me to inexplicably agree with your nonsensical argument that because water flows from your faucette, you are somehow forced to drink it. I do not agree with this, and because I do not does not mean I have evaded anything. There is nothing incompatible with fluoridation in my statement that I respect anyone’s right not to consume fluoride. People are entirely free to consume it or not. Their choice. This is a simple fact. If you want to try your luck in court with that ridiculous argument, then fine, go to it. Given that this tactic has never bamboozled courts, however, I don’t much like your chances with that.
LikeLike
But, (separately) in reference to your diversionary rant about whether, water fluoridation was/is “compulsory medication”…….
I understood that this thread to be about SCIENCE not Law.
You can’t snipe at people for not backing up claims with science and then fall back on “Law”…….which has little relation to “Science”
Courts are only state appointees interpreting local Law, as written.
In countries where there was a tendency to see it as “compusory medication” water fluoridation was never adopted or abandoned.
Where Governments favoured it and imposed it, the Law embodies this view.
I hope you’re not relying on courts to tell you what is good science!!!
And when courts reverse (& have reversed) this decision; will it (did it) reverse your science?
There is a concise overview of US Court cases here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Abh47vD7JTEC&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=courts+and+fluoridation+and+compulsory+medication&source=bl&ots=Jztd_Tm3fn&sig=Lr2JXYxLAp0QFPI709l-18sLY_E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwA2oVChMIuNeOioiByAIVAvEUCh2N-go6#v=onepage&q=courts%20and%20fluoridation%20and%20compulsory%20medication&f=false
It is not at all one way. And the overriding impression is that judges tend to side with established practice for its own sake; and not fully understand the science, or not even listen to it. One said the benefit of F was “common knowledge”… and some required “overwhelming evidence” of harm to overturn a valid contract. (To reverse the precautionary principle)
The problem, as most anti-F people know, is challenging an established edifice defended with cherry-picked “science”.
It is not about science; it is about their authority and their reputation.
They ignore or unfairly-fault contrary data
“Law”, always & everywhere, reflects establishment presuppositions and biases. To trot it out in support of established practice is to do nothing. When it is invoked in a discussion about bad science it is just bad argument.
LikeLike
What are you talking about? CHOICE????
We have no choice if it’s added to our public waters. Yes, our choice is to drink it or BUY our water…which I do….
Adding “F” to our public water will NEVER be the right thing to do.
LikeLike
Quote from Steve…
—————————-
“You want me to inexplicably agree with your nonsensical argument that because water flows from your faucette, you are somehow forced to drink it. I do not agree with this, and because I do not does not mean I have evaded anything. There is nothing incompatible with fluoridation in my statement that I respect anyone’s right not to consume fluoride. People are entirely free to consume it or not.”
—————————-
“Nonsensical” you say. So why write nonesense?
Water is necessary for human life.
We are forced to consume it
If Fluoride flows from every tap in the country you are forced to consume it.
(In Foods/Beverages/Farm produce & water)
Your notion that where water is universally fluoridated…. “People are entirely free to consume it or not” is a piece of staggering nonsense.
You should take a breather.
But then, according to your lights, your perfectly free not to breathe the air.
LikeLike
Harley
The science overwhelmingly supports fluoridation. That is not the question. The fact that antifluoridationists cherry-pick a couple of studies which they use to deny the volume of science which contradicts them, while making up their own facts and definitions…is the question. When such attitudes threaten the health and well-being of entire populations, it is left to the courts to be the final arbiters……your attempt to minimize the role of the legal system notwithstanding.
The courts do not agree with your position, never have, and never will. The reason is because your opposition to fluoridation, and that of the overwhelming majority of antifluoridationists, is not grounded in science. It is grounded in personal ideology which antifluoridationists attempt to cloak in science. When these arguments get to court, it is not a difficult task to expose the invalidity of them, in short order. Antifluoridationists don’t even believe most of the junk they put out, much less being able to convince a court of law that it has any validity.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
1. Fluoride does not flow from every faucet in the country.
2. Where there are options, there is no force.
2. There are options of:
a. Non-fluoridated bottled water
b. Rainwater
c. Water from rivers and streams.
d. Filters to remove fluoride
3. If you want to argue inconvenience, fine. But, inconvenience does not equate with force.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Your blythe talk of “inconvenience” may be your face-saver.
But it is much, much more than “inconvenience” to avoid Fluoride in Fluoridated states or regions (Where F-water DOES flow from every tap)
As I said above, it would mean……….
People, and families, permanently housebound with their own low-F-well; who grow & process all their own food, & who never visit, eat out, go on holiday, go to school or get hospitalised. Alternatively they must buy an all-house, Reverse-Osmosis filtration system & still do all the rest ).
Such heroic (and for most people, impossible) measures do NOT leave them “entirely free to consume it or not” (your words above).
To “be entirely free” over a matter requires, real, practical, viable, cost-free choices & options.
In these circumstances any rational person would conclude that people are effectively “forced” to consume it, and that, indeed, is the rationale for adding it to the water supply. (Universal treatment).
Your specious options are full of presumptions around wealth & permanency of residence. (eg Students in Halls. The many millions renting in UK on short -term tenancies permittIng no such filter installations).They also ignore F in foods & beverages produced in Fluoridated regions (& concentrated by boiling)
LikeLike
L. Hartley – your talk of trolls is rather disingenuous considering your comments are completely irrelevant to the specific post you are commenting on and you have completely avoided our requests to explain the relevance of your comments to the post.
As for your comments on “avoiding” fluoride – you have not explained why any rational person should. Nor have you acknowledged the fact that we are all naturally exposed to fluoride, and many other beneficial trace elements, irrespective of any attempt to ensure that exposure is at the optimum level. F occurs naturally in most water sources and foods.
Your comments on the inconvenience of usi cheap water filters or using different water sources to lower F concentrations are just silly in the extreme. They are common claims made by ideologically motivated propagandists attempting to deny a safe and beneficial health measure to the rest of the population, but in practice the claims are shown to be hypocritical. Have a look at my article on this here – https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/fluoridation-freedom-of-choice-and-responsibility/
After all the hype – the number of users of the “fluoride-free” tap in Palmerston North is only 4 people! I conclude from this that either the anti-fluoride campaigners really don’t have much objection to fluoridated water or have been responsible enough to make their own provisions – like use of a cheap water filter. In fact, every anti-fluoride person I have managed to get an honest reply from informs me they already use a filter!
Given this I can only conclude that their moaning, claims of freedom of choice and violation of rights, is hypocritical. It has nothing to do with their freedom of choice – except the ideologically driven desire to impose their own hangups on the rest of society. In our words an attempt to deny the freedom of choice to others.
LikeLike
The wheels of Justice turn slowly but they are a turning…..I’ve talked personally to so many who took this class of abx drugs and deal with nerve and muscle damage and much more. FLUORIDE laced drugs.
http://www.prleap.com/pr/239347/levaquin-lawsuit-update-antibiotic-peripheral
LikeLike
Harley
I have no need to do any face-saving.
The science clearly supports fluoridation, and your arguments have been exposed as being nothing more than nonsense. You are the one who keeps flailing away in unsuccessful attempts to salvage some “face” for your absurd argument about somehow being forced to consume fluoridated water.
No matter how much diatribe you continue to post, the facts will not change. No one is forced to do anything in regard to water fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Quote
“As for your comments on “avoiding” fluoride – you have not explained why any rational person should”…………..
—————-
I have had to avoid Fluoride since 1993 on discovering it caused my (so called) IBS.
This is relatively easy in UK (only 10% fluoridation) ….except when I unknowingly moved to a tiny local hotspot of high natural F (Braintree area) in 1997. My IBS returned until I discovered the fact about the water supply & used bottled water.
When I am in Ireland it is EXTREMLY difficult, even though I stay at a place with its own well.
You call my comments on this silly, but I have lived with this for over 20 years and, as long as I severely limit my F exposure, I am a totally cured “IBS” victim.
I am of course aware that F occurs naturally everywhere….. as do many other toxic minerals such as Lead & Arsenic with similar toxicities.
This is a regular pathetic deceit of the public by F apologists. “F is common so its innocuous & let’s add some more.”
Or “There’s a few absolutely tiny sources of high F water in UK…so let’s bring all normal supplies up to that level” (This “Nature thought of it first” PR campaign was scurrilous; LIES! Nature thought to leave it out almost entirely from the vast, vast majority of water sources, and Nature also thought to create high Lead, Manganese & many other toxic water sources. What kind of scoundrels seek to fool the public with half-truths like this; the antithesis of Science)
This is war on science. It is deceitful jingoism in the service of defending policy & reputations.
THIS IS “REPEATING BAD SCIENCE” by “ideologically motivated propagandists”
The truth is that shallow water sources (that we evolved drinking) are almost invariably containing minute traces of F. Most deeper sources also. Certain areas of high volcanic activity bringing up deep rock have more…. India (Deccan plates) or The Rift Valley where people suffer appalling Fluorosis.
What the semi-science-apologists for F always ignore is that their PR slogan “safe & effective” cannot be true. They focus on water levels & average intake & average retention.
But what matters for toxicity is TOTAL, individual intake (from all sources) & total accumulation over time plus individual susceptibility.
Unfortunately I had drunk tea by the gallon for many years before I developed GE effects of Fluorosis (See Walbott or Moolenbergh).
The so-called optimal level is a crass average that ignores accumulative factors such as individual sensitivity, tea drinking, occupational exposure. It also ignores the vague & banal symptoms of early Fluorosis which will be diagnosed as Arthritis, IBS, Headaches, Fatigue etc. etc.
Your knowledge of the Fluoride is highly questionable as you seem to be unaware that your “cheap water filters” do NOT remove any F.
You require either an RO installation or an Alumina filter followed by another filter to remove Aluminium. All expensive.
LikeLike
L Hartley – in my career as a research chemist I often used ion exchange and absorption “filters” in my research so I do know about them and have a practical understanding of them. May I suggest that it is, in fact, your knowledge of fluoride that is questionable. An example is your unsupported claim that F in drinking water can cause IBS (might I suggest a more likely cause is anxiety – probably irrational and self-imposed in your case).
Just because a filter is “cheap” doesn’t mean it cannot remove F. It is just a matter of getting the appropriate filter cartridge. For example – a brief look on the internet suggest you can get a cartridge to remove filter (by absorption on alumina) for a measly NZ$78. Go on – bitch about the recommended advice to also use a cheap activated carbon filter in series with it. Most people who are going to want to reduce the F concentration probably already use a carbon filter to remove taste and chlorine anyway. A specific anion exchange cartridge for fluoride may be a little more more expensive – but not impossibly so. Of course reverse osmosis systems are more expensive (but again not prohibitively so – NZ$510). These are, of course one-off, costs.
Now, please tell us. Do you filter you water supply to remove fluoride (natural or added)? If so, what does this cost you? If not, do you monitor the F content of your water supply – and what does that cost you?
Finally, do you not appreciate how ridiculous you appear by referring to the well-known problem of high fluoride intake in areas of endemic fluorosis in a discussion on CWR where the levels are controlled and low and the results knows to be safe and beneficial?
LikeLike
Ken, what is in adding fluoride to our waters — what does this all do for you. Do you really CARE about our health, teeth etc….. What do you really get out of this practice? I’d love to hear your excuse.
Many many including myself have allergies to this stuff, my body itches like crazy when I get out of a quick shower. I don’t drink the stuff….
I find more and more it’s all about the money for those involved in this nasty…
LikeLike
Bruce – I have held back you comment because it is abusive. But I don’t think you care anyway because you say:
Why the hell comment if you do not want a discussion?
LikeLike
Yes I monitor my consumption. I have to.
My local supply mean reading is 0.000189mg/L
About one ten-thousanth of what the PR for F guys say is optimal!!!
Water Suppliers in the UK provide this info ABSOLUTELY FREE.
I can only laugh at your callous ideas of “cheap” filters!
A cheap filter is a jug filter that even a student in digs could have.
Moreover I live in rented accomodation & this installation would not be permitted.
LikeLike
Excuses, excuses, LH. You appear to have absolutely no problem as your hang-up over fluoride is irrelevant to your current situation.
So, I take it the answer to my first question is that you don’t use, or need, a filter.
You answer to my second question is unclear – are you telling me that your local authority regularly monitors the F level of the water coming out of your tap for free? I find that very hard to believe. I suspect that, in fact, you do not monitor you actual tap water but just rely on the data the local authority has for their treatment plant.
You may define my understanding of “cheap” as callous and laughable, but it actually is the case. And my point was that the evidence suggests that almost everyone serious about their fluoride hangup probably has no problem finding that small cost. How else do you explain that only 4 people per day are using the “fluoride-free” tap in Palmerston North that cost the rate-payers $90,000?
If I had a hangup about fluoride I would take the responsible course and buy a filter – they are not at all expensive as I have shown. And I would not try to deny the benefits of a proven safe and beneficial health measure that the majority of society has decided to use.
A parallel situation – I have a hangup about eating meat and do not eat animal meat as a result. I am responsible enough to check the food I purchase and have absolutely no desire to get the sale of animal meat banned. I believe freedom of choice requires personal responsibility and have no time for moaners who pretend it means they have the right to deny others access to social health measures like CWF.
LikeLike
LH – just a little more information – can you supply a link to the information for your F analysis? Speaking as a chemist with experience in analysis the value of 0.000189 mg/L does not appear to be a realistic analytical result – I want to check out your information.
LikeLike
It’s interesting how chemists think differently. The SMART city of Santa Barbara CA rejected the “F” notion in 1999 and here are a couple comments from the mayor who has a chemistry background:
(((Mayor Harriet Miller, referencing her background in chemistry, stated that adding a chemical to the water supply to medicate everyone was not the right approach and requested that the City’s staff draft a letter to the appropriate health agencies to look into other programs that are intended for children from birth to 5 years of age to devise a method of getting the appropriate care directly to the individuals who truly need it and when they need it.
Council Member Tom Roberts proposed a parallel ordinance that was also considered on the same Council agenda that called for a prohibition of adding any substance to the water supply that was intended to treat humans rather than the water __ no matter how beneficial they seem. He called into question whether the City’s mission in managing the water was to deliver the purest potable water or to mass medicate, and asked why adding Prozac (fluoxetene, another fluorine-based product) to counter depression wasn’t of equal rationale))
While you people are at it, why not add a laxative as you are all full of it…
LikeLike
Ken,
I am trying to copy/paste here the info you want (Part of pdf file from Bournemouth Water) but can’t see how to show it here publicly.
Please advise
LikeLike
Just post the HTML for the link to the PDF I can download it myself.
>
LikeLike
Ken
The PDF was sent from Sembcorp/Bournemouth-Water, attached to an email in response to my request.
It is the “full summary report for your supply for 2014.” (Lymington Zone)
So I have the PDF & the email (which includes a broken link)
How can I post it here please? (I notice you posted an image of a letter above)
LikeLike
FB group on Fluoride laced abx drugs and lawsuits:
https://www.facebook.com/FluoroquinoloneToxicity?fref=ts
LikeLike
Put the PDF online somewhere (eg Dropbox) and then just link to it. Alternatively you could send it to me by email (ken.perrott at msof.nz).
I have had a look at the website for your water supplier (http://www.bournemouthwater.co.uk/Uploads/Docs/Water%20Quality/BW_flouride.pdf) – they comment:
This is very different to what you claim and is expressed in the normal way.
LikeLike
Ken, I have sent the PDF, sent to me by Sembcorp/Bournemouth Water ,attached to an email to you.
The Fluoride measurements are near the top of page 2.
I also noticed the statement on the Bournemouth Water website when trying to locate this online for you. And indeed 0.1 to 0.2 mg/L of Fluorides is very typical of UK natural background sources that I have encountered without any issue.
However the Lymington source is from sandy beds locally, & is different, but, given the “detail/resolution” in this extremly low reading, I would not be surprised if there was a microgram/milligram error in the report supplied to me.
Although it says ug/L (& gives the limit correctly for ug/L…1500) The readings given might possibly make “more sense” as milligrams/L
But this is only a possible surmise. I would have to contact them.
Mark.Burton@sembcorp.com
I also lived in South Northamptonshire with a level of 0.2mg/l without issue.
But after my IBS returned in Feering, N Essex I discovered the level there was 1.5mg/L !
This was natural CaF of course, but it made me ill anyway, until I used bottled water. (The local Water Company used dilution with neighbouring supplies to get the offending source down to the 1.5mg/L WHO max.)
Notwithstanding any errors in the report, the level of F is similar to the level of Arsenic and I would not want either artificially enhanced tenfold.
Regards
L Harley
LikeLike
Yes, it is clearly a mistake in units between ppm and ppb. Think you can assume that the F in your tap water is around 0.1 or 0.2 ppm F. A very common level.
Did you become ill before or after did I g out theta you were drinking water with 1.5 mg/L F? 🙂
>
LikeLike
By the way, the error has confused you in your comparison of the F and As levels – they are not similar – remember the error is if the order of 1000 times.
LikeLike
I got “IBS” a good 7 years before I lived in the 1.5mg/L area. (circa 1990)
My IBS crept up on me in the late 1980′ & early 90’s ending in daily pain. But after several years of “IBS” I found out by accident that it was solely caused by my huge tea-habit. (Coincidently I was using Sensodyne toothpaste which was not fluoridated at that era). So when I stopped tea (very high in F) I had very low F ingestion.
BUT I REALISED NONE OF THE F INVOLVEMENT AT THE TIME.
It was only my research afterwards….as to WHY tea might cause my IBS, …….that I found out the uniquely high F content of teas. (often 8mg/L of F….double the EPA water intevention level)
That was not conclusive however, but I avoided Tea, & F-toothpaste (as suspect) and remained well for several more years until I lived 8 months at Feering (1997)
Essex. Suddenly it was back! Only after some time did I enquire of the Water Supplier if they Fluoridated by any chance? “No” they said “But you have the highest natural F in the UK!” I went on to bottled water & was well again in 48 hours. Like night & day.
Both my initial cure, & my relapse, occured as “blind” events for me in regard to F. And I was actually very slow to shift my “conventional” mindset on F.
But that was conclusive for me (Nevertheles for several years I tried the odd cup of tea & got the gut cramps). So I’ve been “cured” over 20 years.
Given the extraordinary F levels in teas, and my 25 years of heavy tea-drinking, my experience should not be surprising. One trouble with mass fluoridation is it does not allow sufficiently for such individuals.
Even on the callous broad-brush approach of public health measures, to export the 1mg/l level from coffee-drinking US to Tea-guzzling Ireland shows a lack of “adjustment” to realities.
LikeLike
LH, you are clearly into self-diagnosis. We all do that, but the ideologically-inclined often do not wish to check against expert diagnoses or, even, reject such expert diagnosis – preferring to believe what they want to.
In my experience I have in almost every case found my own self-diagnosis to be wrong when checked by experts. I therefore believe it is foolhardy to insist on ones own biases and ignore expert advice in the process. Dangerous to one’s life, even.
IBS is one set of symptoms which attracts self-diagnoses attributing it to a wide rage of causes. Such symptoms are very attractive to the ideologically inclined. Many professionals actually stress psychological causes, such as stress, are more likely.
Such self-diagnosis and its use in your propaganda may be satisfying to you. You may even be a rare individual where sensitivity to some natural factor, maybe even tea, causes your symptoms. But that does not give you the right to interfere with the health of others by campaigning against CWF which is known to be safe and effective.
You are welcome, of course, to take individual steps to avoid any factor you think important. That is your own freedom of choice. But freedom of choice does not extend to you denying beneficial nutrients to others. CWF is we’ll known to alleviate tooth decay which has a strong negative impact on the quality of life of children and also interferes with their future.
By all means take the steps you think suitable for your own situation but please don’t attempt to impose your own hangups on others. And specifically please stop attempting. To use your own situation to campaign against beneficial health policies. Anecdotes do now qualify as evidence.
You like to use the word “callous” against others. I suggest you do a bit of self-reflection and co wider whether, in fact, the word may be more suitable as a description for your own anti-fluoride activity.
>
LikeLike
Good for you for doing the required research into the reason why you had a reaction to fluoride. This shows that most people with reactions get spoon feed all the scary stuff from the activist groups, and then say it is the Community Fluoridated Water, without looking at their own lifestyle. Research has shown that fluoride at .7PPM will not cause a reaction in normal circumstances. So really it is about education and looking at the scientific facts,
Another reason that proofs fluoride is no danger at .7PPM
LikeLike
But that was conclusive for me (Nevertheles for several years I tried the odd cup of tea & got the gut cramps).
You, obviously are convinced, but in reality it isn’t conclusive evidence of cause and effect.
So please, don’t expect your tale to convince others.
LikeLike
Thank you for respecting my right to choose not to consume Fluoride. 😁😁😁😁😁
To all: it is OK. You do not have to consume Fluoride. In fact, most people are Iodine-deficient and consuming Fluoride will most certainly displace normal hormone metabolism, disrupting the endocrine system and lead to debilitating and deadly disease. Some would argue dose, but i choose to skip the argument and just avoid Fluoride altogether. I mean, you wouldn’t intentionally salt your food with Arsenic, Cadmium or Lead, but if someone claiming to be a medical professional told you that it was harmless and you take it because they told you it was safe, they are liable for what happens to you. And if they think not and you have proof they did, then you have a lawsuit.
It’s already out that Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor. It has been verified and confirmed that Iodine-deficiency is a leading cause of brain disorders. Fluoride displaces Iodine in endocrine chemistry. It is bad news. Much worse than people thought. I would switch sides before i end up having to switch professions if i was a medical doctor or a dentist who is pro-fluoride. I am dead serious and you have been sincerely advised.
LikeLike
Overall,
despite of 20 years of research a human health risk from exposure to low concentrations of exogenous
chemical substances with weak hormone-like activities remains an unproven and unlikely hypothesis.
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
LikeLike
AV – could you please give a citation for each of the claims you make?
I will interpret your failure to do so as an admission that you don’t know what you are talking (or more correctly – raving) about.
LikeLike
OK Alchemilla Vulgaris, you have had long enough. From the confidence of your rant one could be forgiven for assuming you had the information at your fingertips.
But obviously not.
As I warned, then, I see your lack of response to my request as an admission on your part that you do not know what you are talking, or raving, about.
LikeLike
You are familiar with the endocrine system?
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *
“In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response.” (National Research Council, 2006)
“Endocrine System
Fluoride was definitively identified as an endocrine disruptor in a 2006 report by the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). This report states:
“In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone. (page 266)
“The endocrine system is a collection of glands in the body that secrete hormones–chemical signals that regulate the function of numerous cells and organs in the body. As discussed in the NRC report, the following four glands can each be affected by fluoride exposure:
“Thyroid Gland:
The thyroid gland produces the hormones triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4), which are required by all metabolically active cells in the body. When the thyroid produces too much, or too little, of these hormones, a myriad number of health consequences arise.
“Based on evidence indicating that fluoride can suppress thyroid activity, doctors in Europe and South America once prescribed fluoride as a drug to reduce thyroid gland function in patients with hyperthyroidism (over-active thyroid). Clinical research showed that fluoride ingestion, at relatively low doses, was effective at reducing thyroid function in the hyperthyroid patients. Concerns have thus arisen about the potential for fluoride to contribute to hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid). This concern has been further fueled by evidence showing that (1) fluoride can exacerbate the anti-thyroid effects of iodine deficiency, (2) can cause goiter in some individuals, and (3) can alter thyroid hormone levels in a manner consistent with a general thyroid suppressant.
“Pancreas:
“The pancreas is the gland that produces insulin, a hormone that regulates the uptake of glucose from the bloodstream. Animal and human studies have repeatedly found that fluoride exposure can increase the levels of glucose in the blood. Chronic elevation of blood glucose levels is the hallmark of Type II Diabetes. While the mechanism underlying fluoride’s effect on glucose levels has yet to be determined, some research suggests it could be the result of fluoride’s impact on the quantity of, or cellular responsiveness to, the insulin produced.
“Pineal Gland:
“The pineal gland is located between the two hemispheres of the brain and produces the hormone melatonin. Melatonin regulates the body’s circadian rhythm (sleep-wake cycle) as well as the onset of puberty. In the 1990s, a British researcher discovered that fluoride accumulates to very high levels in the calcified part of the pineal gland. The fluoride levels recorded in the pineal gland are, in fact, the highest fluoride concentrations found anywhere in the body. Although the effects of these high concentrations remain poorly understood, animal experiments have found that animals receiving high doses of fluoride had a reduced melatonin production and an earlier onset of puberty.
“Parathyroid Gland
“The parathyroid gland produces parathyroid hormone (PTH). PTH regulates the amount of calcium in our bones and blood supply. When the calcium level in blood starts to fall, PTH triggers the breakdown of bone tissue as a means of transferring the body’s stored supply of calcium into the blood supply. When the parathyroid produces too much PTH a condition known as hyperparathyroidism develops. Hyperparathyroidism has been found to occur as a secondary effect of the fluoride-induced bone disease skeletal fluorosis, and may help to explain some of the bone effects encountered in fluorosis.
“More recently, in 2012 Vandenberg et al. included sodium fluoride in a list of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) with low-dose effects. They noted the EDC action of sodium fluoride as: “Inhibits insulin secretion, PTH, TH.” The Vanderberg et al. paper was cited in a larger report, Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals – 2012, co-published in January 2013 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization – see page 13.
My comments: Most other countries have already banned water fluoridation. Like the ICD, the USA has been behind for about 30 years. No proof that drinking it helps prevent tooth decay more than it disrupts the glands of the body exists. Only topical. Ingestion idea was a mistake. There are alternative sweeteners that are better for dental health than fluoride-consumption. I’m sorry to have to say it. Sugar-free candy does a better job of preventing tooth decay than fluoridated drinking water.
About Iodine displacing Fluoride? The chemistry is they are both halogens from group 17 on the periodic table and can switch interchangeably in the thyroid, which is heavily dependent on Iodine, and corrupt it’s function. Without Iodine, we would all get cancer because our cells couldn’t undergo apoptosis. You don’t need to be an expert to know that, you just need access to the information and take the time to look it up, read and understand it. Search and you shall find.
About iodophobia (from Iodine Remedies):
“In an article titled, The Wolff-Chaikoff Effect: Crying
Wolf?, Dr. Guy Abraham explains that the misinformation
about iodine can be traced to the Wolff-
Chaikoff study at University of California at Berkeley
in 1948 that resulted in the removal of iodine from
the food supply. The study, that was later referred to
as the Wolff-Chaikoff (W-C) Effect says that iodine
intake of 2 milligrams or more is excessive and potentially
harmful.
“Abraham’s paper explains that the W-C effect has
caused an iodophobic mentality that prevented further
research on the need for inorganic, non-radioactive
iodine by the whole human body, which turns out to be
100-400 times the established Recommended Daily Allowance
(RDA).
Good nutrition is more than popping a Centrum these days. You’ve got to do your research, because not all doctors educate their patients. My experience is you’ve got to ask the questions or you get no answers. And if they don’t know, you have to keep looking for those answers. Nobody can stop you from searching for the truth. In time, people look back at water fluoridation like we look at other things that we used to accept as a given that turned out to be unhealthy and unacceptable. But there is light at the end of the tunnel and you’re going to be amazed at what you are seeing, if you haven’t already. What we need is something that’s going to bring bright smiles to the faces of all children that will last them their entire lives without increasing their risk of developing serious diseases. Fluoride fails that. We should not be consuming an endocrine disruptor. Fluoride is used in medications like Prozac and Risperidone for this very purpose – they alter brain chemistry. There are more psychiatrists who rush to prescribe anti-psychotic drugs for off-label use to children in foster care situations than there are nutritionists and endocrinologists. They don’t even know what the drugs they are giving to kids are doing to their brains. The Fluoride in the molecule allows it to bypass the blood-brain barrier and it is a wonder they don’t just use Iodine in synthesis instead. Fluoride accumulates mostly in the Pineal gland, calcifying it and dulling the extrasensory perception through the suppression of endogenous neurotransmitter synthesis. Yeah, nasty, that’s exactly what I was thinking.
It is reasonable for anyone who is health-conscious to cease consuming fluorides and bromides and to test for iodine deficiency. Could save your life or the life of someone you love.
Thank you for enduring my “raving”.
Best Regards
LikeLike
All that copypasta, AV, and not a link to community water fluoridation or the concentration of fluoride used in that social health measure which has been judged again and again as safe and effective.
You have failed and again shown you do not know what you are talking about.
>
LikeLike
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
LikeLike
The ARROGANCE here absolutely reeks…..
LikeLike
Joy, if you don’t like the “ARROGANCE” of those who understand fluoridation, here’s what I suggest you do:
1. Stop posting illiterate nonsense
2. Seek to properly educate yourself on this issue from trustworthy sources
3. Return when you can engage in inteligence discourse.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
You know Steve when our city “sold out” to the polluters for our water that had never been fluoridated for the 50some yrs I’ve lived here, except for naturally occurring “F”, a retired dentist had been on the council….yes, they sold out. He’s gone off the board now, so a newer “flock” of members and I’ve decided to bombard them with messages once a week on the crap they put in our waters….MOST of these people don’t have a clue and took no time to learn.
I can say what I believe, you or no one else, can tell me what to think or what to say.
LikeLike
Ken
(1)You referred to Fluoride as a “beneficial nutrient”
Please, can I assume you really care about scientific misinformation by apologist & propagandists for whatever cause? This is such.
“[F]luoride is no longer considered an essential factor for human growth and development.”
SOURCE: National Research Council (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC. p. 30.
“Fluoride is not essential for human growth and development.”
SOURCE: European Commission. (2011). Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water. Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER).
“Fluoride is not in any natural human metabolic pathway.”
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335:699-702.
“These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluorine as an essential element, according to accepted standards.”
SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences. (1989). Recommended Dietary Allowances: 10th Edition. Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press. p. 235.
Statements from U.S. Government Agencies:
“In summary, FDA does not list fluorine as an essential nutrient.”
SOURCE: Food & Drug Administration, October 1990.
“The United States Public Health Service does not say that sodium fluoride is an essential mineral nutrient.”
SOURCE: U.S. Public Health Service, May 10, 1966.
“Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient. Fluoride has not been determined essential to human health. A minimum daily requirement for sodium fluoride has not been established.”
SOURCE: Food & Drug Administration, August 15, 1963.
The Institute of Medicine Report (1997)
Some commentators have cited a 1997 report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) as demonstrating that fluoride is an essential nutrient. The IOM report, however, does not do so — a fact confirmed by both the President of the Institute of Medicine (Kenneth Shine), as well as the President of the National Academy of Sciences (Bruce Alberts). In a jointly authored letter on November 18, 1998, Alberts and Shine unequivocally stated:
“Nowhere in the report is it stated that fluoride is an essential nutrient. If any speaker or panel member at the September 23rd workshop referred to fluoride as such, they misspoke. As was stated in Recommended Dietary Allowances 10th Edition, which we published in 1989: ‘These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluoride as an essential element, according to accepted standards.’
(2) You dismiss my experience quickly, on the premise that I am inclined to self-diagnosis.
But I didn’t self-diagnose my IBS!
It was diagnosed by my GP & confirmed by a GE specialist in Southampton when I first became ill. They gave me Diclofenac which had zero effect & I stopped it long before my cure caused by being unable to drink tea due to a mouth injury.
When my relapse occurred on moving to Feering, the GP again diagnosed IBS. Only after that did I think to phone up the Water Co.
Up to that point I was only certain that tea caused it (and that the most curious thing about tea was its high F content & that some Canadian research had blamed IBS on toothpaste). But I certainly was very slow to jump to any conclusions. I kept the kids on F-toothpaste; I knew it was possible that something else in tea upset me, or that this was a personal, idiosyncratic effect.
After the Water Co call (& a second instant cure on going to low-F bottled water) I was as certain as possible that F caused my own IBS (I still did not assume it caused others)
But three years later I bought my first PC and one day put Fluoride & IBS into Google. I was dismayed that it was long known that gut symptoms (which may be described as “IBS”) were early signs of F toxicity. (See Susheela, Walbott, Moolenberg).
Please don’t read this with hindsight. I came through this step by step, reluctantly changing my default trust in the establishment message on F. (I did not rely on my biases as you suggest because my bias at the time was to trust the policy.)
That’s why I know this is a hopeless endeavour talking to you.
“Scientists” are not always open-minded toward evidence. They filter-and-fault evidence that challenges their current mindset. I did it myself on this issue. And the more intelligent we are the more we have read that shores up our position, making it harder for knowledgeable people to see afresh.
I am here because our UK Gov. wants to do something that will make me ill again. And also it may help others that have F-caused IBS (It doesn’t cause everyone’s. But the “IBS epidemic” has occurred in an era of increased F-ingestion and, when I gave a talk to a group of IBS spcialist-nurses on this subject, several remarked that many patients said Tea was implicated)
But reverting to “self-diagnosis”….if you want to find the “irritant” in your “irritable bowel” you have to find it yourself….indeed Doctors WILL TELL YOU TO keep a total food/activity diary to find it out. Most wouldn’t bother.; and I didn’t. My cure was down to careful observations made of two happy (but painful) accidents. These followed several medical diagnoses.
I feel you are reading my story with a “how can I fault (then ignore) this” and this goes back to mindsets. You are invunerable.
De-bunking is, by definition, a good thing (bunk=bad).
But de-bunkers can fall into groupthink like anyone else. And the usual tenor of partisan/tribal thinking is here on this thread. (“I can’t agree with anything that “kind” of person believes in”)
But on this issue (Fluoride) the De-Bunkers are wrong. But you wouldn’t want to break ranks and see some truth in the enemy, especially if you feel you are part of a thin, white(coat)-line holding back a chaos of mumbo-jumboism.
And if you use some untruth in the good cause of protecting science then so be it. But science is not served by this. The protection of science has become muddled with protecting policy, authority and the establishment in general.
Statements such as “CWF is well known to alleviate tooth decay” is an appeal to the crowd….. repeating hearsay, and if you repeat anything enough, like “60 years of studies….” people believe it. It is not science though (it’s PR), and York found little effect and no Grade A study to back it.
Furthermore the change from the natural Hydroxapatite enamel to Fluoroapatite (A “useful pathology”?) could be better facilitated by topical application,….without the foolishness of swallowing something that can potentially do nothing but harm to every other part of the human body
So the De-Bunkers have put Fluoride-sceptics into their Whacko category. It is a dastardly malicious slur.
When the York Review found “a dearth of reliable research” meaning that the Fluoridation “would remain SCIENTIFICALLY controversial” (My emphasis) it should not be falsely presented as a “closed case”. That is part of the PR campaign, as is insulting the intellect/sanity of opponents, as is calling F a “nutrient”. It is all untruth used to serve established policy. (And the Policymakers reputations).
Any rational person would observe that Fluoridation is only carried out…..because it has been carried out. It it were first mooted now, it would be rejected out of hand not least because of the flouting of customary Therapeutic Index margins. To stop it in US (the source) would throw into question past policy, professional reputations & public trust in authority. These issues are all far more decisive than a bit of ill-health or truth. So it will be a long, hard fight.
LikeLike
Sure, Joy, you can post whatever you wish as long it is doesn’t violate Ken’s guidelines. I was just trying to help you out with your obvious frustrations. If you want to engage in intelligent scientific discourse with knowledgeable people, without making a complete fool of yourself in the process, you must take the time and effort to at least make a stab at properly educating yourself.
If you only wish to post kindergarten level comments, then fine with me. Just continue doing exactly as you are.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
LH – my use of the word “element” seems to have produced a Pavlovian response with you.
I actually referred to F as a beneficial micro-element. I prefer to use the term “beneficial” because it is not at all controversial (the role of F in bioapatites is well understood).
The word “essential” is usually used to refer to a biochemical pathway – rather than a simple chemical one. Hence the confusion some people have. It is only a matter of definition so why not use the more appropriate term – as I did.
The role of F in dental health is clear – and I notice you cherry pick your quotes to avoid that elephant in the room.
I am picking that your GP did not diagnose you IBS was caused by F. I notice you avoid actually assertion that she did. If I am wrong please confirm this. Has any health professional attributed your symptoms to fluoride at the concentration used in CWF?
It is a bit rich for you to assert:
because you come across as doing exactly that yourself. Of course scientists are human, but researchers must confront reality in their work and always test their ideas against reality – rather than Google. They must also face peer review of their work during the publication process. Yes, that can be faulty – but when have you ever allowed tour ideas to be reviewed by experts before placing them out there?
I am aware that IBS is very often a result of stress or other psychological factors and do not see that you have even considered is possibility. Did your doctor not discuss this with you?
But I repeat – you are welcome to your position and I support your efforts to accommodate your own hangups. But please be responsible about it and stop trying to prevent the rest of society from taking advantage of a social health policy proven to be safe and effective. That is a violation of their freedom of choice. >
LikeLike
Harley,
1. Whether fluoride is an essential nutrient is nothing but an irrelevant red herring put forth by antifluoridationists. Fluoride has always existed in water. Adjustment of its level up to a point below the threshold of adverse effects, where maximum benefit will be obtained while ingesting a substance which we will ingest in water anyway, does not require that substance to be an essential nutrient.
That said, however, for whatever it may be worth, it is entirely debatable whether or not fluoride is indeed an essential nutrient:
“This report focuses on five nutrients—calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and fluoride, all of which play a key role in the development and maintenance of bone and other calcified tissues.”
—-Institute of Medicine (US) Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1997. Preface.
“Fluoride is regarded as an essential nutrient now well known to be effective in the maintenance of a tooth enamel that is more resistant to decay.”
—-Fluoride as a Nutrient
American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on Nutrition
Pediatrics, vol. 49, No 3, March 1972
“Fluoride is a normal constituent of the human body, involved in the mineralisation of both teeth and bones (Fairley et al 1983, Varughese & Moreno 1981). The fluoride concentration in bones and teeth is about 10,000 times that in body fluids and soft tissues (Bergmann & Bergmann 1991, 1995). Nearly 99% of the body’s fluoride is bound strongly to calcified tissues. Fluoride in bone appears to exist in both rapidly- and slowly-exchangeable pools. Because of its role in the prevention of dental caries, fluoride has been classified as essential to human health (Bergmann & Bergmann 1991, FNB:IOM 1997)8”
—–Australian Government
National Health and Medical Research Council
https://www.nrv.gov.au/nutrients/fluoride
2. Anecdotal claims as to what you claim has been diagnosed in regard to your medical issues, are irrelevant and meaningless. If you wish any credence for such claims, then you would need to provide valid, documented medical records which can be verified as being authentic.
3. Your diatribe of personal opinions, is irrelevant and meaningless.
4. What you claim “any rational would observe” is irrelevant and meaningless.
If antifluoridationists would ever get through their heads that science is evidence-based, not…. personal opinion, unsubstantiated claim, personal speculation….based, they might someday understand this issue, and be far less frustrated because intelligent people will not simply accept their opinions as being fact.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joy, I agree that AV displayed extreme arrogance in her comments – but you don’t do so bad yourself in that respect. 🙂
LikeLike
Steve, you certainly have a way of bringing people down so you can sound so superior. I’m probably just as guilty. I’m not a scientist, but live in a mind of a lot of common sense. And understand the corporate greed including the medical corporation greed.
LikeLike
Ken, we all have our Arrogance….many of us just more arrogant wanting to live in non toxic waters as much as possible. I’m not in my arrogance for the money greed.
LikeLike
Joy, I didn’t bring you down. You did that all by yourself through your lazy dependence on nonsense you glean from antifluoridatin websites. I simply exposed that fact. If you want respect then stop posting illiterate nonsense and make an effort to properly educate yourself, as those of us who do understand this issue have done. If you are too lazy to do so, then you obviously deserve no respect, and none will be accorded.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
I’m not Lazy Steve but not PAID like you pro F workers….
LikeLike
Joy, what is truly funny is that not only are antifluoridationists lazy, but they also have a very greedy mindset…….as evidenced by the ridiculous claims that fluoridation advocates are being somehow paid.
Obviously, truth is just minor annoyance to be discarded by you whenever expedient.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
It’s true, the whole medical complex industry is driven by greed…look at the TV ads in the U.S. pushing every harmful drug they have and spending millions to do it. Amazing no fluoride ads on U.S. TV….that’s because 75% of the U.S. water is laced with this waste coming out of China now.
Arrogant and pompus they are…I still can see them marching into our meetings when our Safe Water group was fighting this issue back in 2005..
LikeLike
Joy, I think you have justified the charge of laziness made against you. To claim people are pad for what they say without supplying evidence is lazy.
In contrast the charge that Connett is paid by the “natural”/alternative health industry and is therefor their shill is well supported.
>
LikeLike
Why would anyone PUSH this toxin IF not paid? I’m not stupid to think anything else. And furthermore, why not “buy” fluoride filters” for those of us who cannot afford them? We don’t want to digest your waste materials. I’ve asked our council to buy me a filter, but they ignored me. Bet they buy their own water or use RO in their homes.
L Harley, I shared your story with my neighbor who deals with horrible IBS and she cannot afford to buy or for that matter carry in gallons of distilled water. Otherwise, she is very alternative/holistic thinking and eating but on a very very low income. I’m not flush with money in my retirement, but I do buy my distilled water and had it delivered for a while and now buy/carry it in myself so far.
I support Dr. Connett all I can and I know many who do as well. I do all in my power to NOT support the drug industries… Over 100,000 die in the U.S. annually from drug interactions and that probably includes the “F” drug….it is a drug isn’t it? Dentists write scripts for it, right?
LikeLike
Joy, your wish or bias is not evidence. it is pure laziness.
Yet you are happy that Connett is a shill for big business.
That makes you a hypocrite as well as lazy.
LikeLike
And Ken, you’re not a Shill for BIGGER business. Connett is doing a great job fighting the forces of this EVIL…and it is evil. Not to the Alcoa’s and Mellon’s who started it all. And all those who have benefitted financially with gross profits coming and going.
LikeLike
Correct. There is big money involved. And last xmas it financed a trip to the south Pacific for Connett, Hirtzy and their wives to escape the northern winter, Connett is the head of the Fluoride Action Network. This outfit is part of the Natural Health Coalition.
Members include Mercola A long time financial supporter of F.A.N, as well as all the donations that they receive, No wonder vacations are no problem.
Dr. Joseph Mercola has been the subject of a number of United States Food and Drug Administration Warning Letters related to his health advocacy activities:
02/16/2005 – Living Fuel RX(TM) and Coconut Oil Products – For marketing products for a medical use which classifies those products as drugs in violation of 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.[51]
09/21/2006 – Optimal Wellness Center – For both labeling / marketing health supplements for purposes which would render them to be classified as regulated drugs as well failing to provide adequate directions for use upon the label in the event that they were legally sold as drugs.[52]
03/11/2011 – Re: Meditherm Med2000 Infrared cameras – For marketing a telethermographic camera for medical purposes which have not been FDA approved.[53]
12/16/2011 – Milk Specialties Global – Wautoma – Failure to have tested for purity, strength, identity, and composition “Dr. Mercola Vitamin K2” and others.[54]
Also now we see the water filter companies giving the anti fluoride lot a kickback
If you would like to support Fluoride Free NZ and buy a water filter now is your chance.
$50 from this sale will be going towards Fluoride Free NZ.
Note: you will need to complete your own due diligence as FFNZ does not endorse any one supplier.
So now we know where all the “big bucks’ are
Now remember anything is a danger to human health if it impacts the Natural Health industry bottom line
LikeLike
So to be fair and equal, we better mention the mega GIFTS pharma and all their associates give out to the tons of conventional MD’s….and piles of sample drugs to get the patient HOPEFULLY hooked on the drugs.
I hope NZ goes fluoride free, isn’t Australia free of “F”….and 98% of Europe…but not lucky ole U.S.
LikeLike
And, Chris Price, you forgot this jewel. Mercola gives funding to the Fluoride Action Network: http://www.mercola.com/pressroom/june-2015/mercola-com-donates-to-fluoride-awareness.htm
Of course Mercola sells expensive RO water filters and xylitol fluoride-free toothpaste, so the more paranoia that the Fluoride Action Network generates about what is coming out of the faucet, the better for sales.
Joy, did you not know that it is a HUGE conflict of interest, and unethical, to accept funding from someone who stands to profit from FAN’s predetermined scientific conclusion?
LikeLike
So you want to talk “ethical”….look around you … ruthlessness and unethical is everywhere from those WHO work to control our lives…why pick and choose here and there?
I have been working with and taking grape seed extract for 20 yrs and tell everyone who wants to hear me of it’s VALUE….and I don’t get a penny, just knowing it can HELP people with their health, and the failure of the pharma drugs…this OPC got me off pharma allergy drugs and out of the allergist office 20 yrs ago.
Turn on the U.S. TV and drug ads galore, is this ethical? I don’t ask for these ads and lies.
LikeLike
You want the water treatment plant to add chloride to clean the water but fluoride is unnecessary. Filter the chloride out before consuming via reverse osmosis. Instead of relying on fluoride to save your child’s teeth, avoid sugar and sweets, juices, soda, etc. Don’t rely on a known toxin to save their teeth. Is poison at any dose healthy? When our children fall ill, it’s always bad luck, bad genes, bad timing, but never the chemicals with known toxic effects. Just rely on the religion of science for all your answers because common sense is not good enough. Fluoride is toxic and highly reactive… but it’s safe in your water. Two opposite and opposing ideas meant to confuse and bewilder the public, creates a flatline in brain decision making ability, so an authority figure is needed to tell us what to do. The message, of course, you need fluoride in your water to stay healthy and keep your teeth from falling out. Any side effects are not our fault, not our problem, go see your doctor. It only makes sense if you don’t think about it.
LikeLike
Dean
1: Water treatment plants do not add chloride to “clean the water.” However, they do add chlorine (a completely different chemical species) to disinfect water.
2: The protective action of fluoride on teeth, and avoidance of sugar, are not alternatives. they are both common sense policies with well documents scientific and health expert support.
3: No one relies “on a known toxin to save their teeth.” You have been drinking the kool-aid produced by Connett’s crowd.
4: Science is not a religion – quite the opposite in this modern world.
5: The statement “fluoride is toxic and highly reactive” is just silly. Fluorine is very reactive, but the hydrated fluoride anion is stable. You have the two confused. Similarly, toxicity depends on concentration. Fluoride at the extremely low concentrations used for community water fluoridation is simply not toxic. On the other, had drink water in sufficiently large quantities and water is toxic.
You come across as extremely confused and are presented a very garbled message.
LikeLike
theres only one truth ken. Not two. The belief in your religion of science that says you need chemists to add fluoride to your drinking water for optimum dental health means you are under mind control and have stopped thinking for yourself many years ago. Fluoride can never hurt you in those small doses because that’s what science says. When you later fall ill, they’ll blame your faulty body. Whatever is making us sick is already in our lives. We were born perfect.
You come across as someone who doesn’t eat properly or exercise regularly and later runs to the MD to get the meds that will attempt to restore health and save you from your own self-sabotage. Outsourcing our health to authority figures in white coats with fancy degrees is really working well for those that stand to profit from it. You are free to awaken anytime.
LikeLike
“Outsourcing our health to authority figures in white coats with fancy degrees is really working well for those that stand to profit from it. You are free to awaken anytime”.
So instead of going to an MD and getting tested, quality controlled, medications from usually a trusted manufacturer
Are you saying we should go to a unregulated, untested product ,of some doubtful origin with doubtful ingredients who”s manufacturers have no accountability to the public for any damage done Preying on people in the most vulnerable times of their lives
Any why are they in the business?? pure profit.
And these are the people who say fluoride is toxic. Kettles and black spring to mind
LikeLike
Fluoride is added to drinking water by man because the water earth provided is not good enough to maintain proper health. That’s the message your handlers are giving you. Fluoride is poison and should be avoided but in low doses in your drinking water it is safe and effective without side effects, according to Ken’s health experts. Contradiction is proven to shut down critical thought, create confusion and have the confused person outsource important decisions in their life to authority figures, who orchestrated the confusion in the first place. It’s how the few rule the many. Ken needs scientific documents and health expert support to tell him drinking fluoride is safe and has no side effects. He cannot make the decision with his own thoughts, independent of science or his handler experts. Good example of mind programming.
LikeLike
And I wonder how well Ken does financially pushing this stuff too. I can’t help but believe so many of the city decision makers have deep pockets. Our city for one. Horrific profits from this waste and they can pay to keep pushing it.
LikeLike
Be specific, Dean. Who are the “handlers” you are writing about?
>
LikeLike
Joy, you have been told this before, so I guess an apology is in order.
Paul Connett and I have similar background and qualifications, we are of similar age. We are both retired.
Now, here is the difference. Connett and his family get monthly payments from Mercola – I get monthly payments from my pension fund and nowhere else. That is enough for my simple tastes and I do not need to sacrifice my critical thinking or scientific ethics in the way Connett does.
Now, about that apology . . . .
>
LikeLike
“Fluoride is added to drinking water by man because the water earth provided is not good enough to maintain proper health.”
So that is the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby reason.
Now the truth
HISTORY OF COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION
In the early 1900s, researchers started to look into brown tooth discolorations in Colorado
Springs, where 90 percent of people born in the area had some form of these discolorations. In the
1930s after studying communities that had similar dental conditions, the link was made between
tooth discoloration and elevated fluoride levels in the drinking water. Through researching the
cause of the discolorations, personnel at the Dental Hygiene Unit at the National Institute of Health
(NIH) found that teeth with these discolorations (now known as dental fluorosis) were resistant to
decay.
LikeLike
So how do you explain that fluoride is a natural mineral found in all things Did man put it in the oceans as well?? please enlighten me
LikeLike
Ken, no apology from me, I detest the “F” world. I’m on Connett and Mercola’s side and Perlmutter and J. Wright and Weil and All the others in the holistic/alternative healing world. Why in the “H” would I want to swallow that waste in my half way “clean” drinking water? Which I don’t touch to my lips if I can help it.
LikeLike
Well, Joy, all I can conclude is that you are ethically challenged to go around making defamatory statements and refusing to apologise when you are pulled up.
That observation is also supported by the fact that, at the same time, you are happily supporting well known industry shills like Connett and Mercola who continually lie about the science.
>
LikeLike
Looks like Dean has run away. Mind you, why bother interacting wioth such people who hate science and reason.
However, just a few challenges for Dean
1: He says “Whatever is making us sick is already in our lives. We were born perfect.” Well, tell that to the average family who know such claims are rubbish. Our children are not “born perfect” – and often intervention is necessary to save their lives. Parents of course a extremely grateful for science in these situations because without the science those children would die.
2: He says “Fluoride is added to drinking water by man because the water earth provided is not good enough to maintain proper health.” There is an implication that he believes “the water earth provides is good enough to maintain proper health.” Well, tell that to the majority of the planet’s population who don’t have access to safe drinking water. Such people really appreciate the science that helps them to remove harmful bugs and toxicants from their water.
LikeLike
Ken, you really enjoy planting words/thoughts in other’s minds. No one here ever said they hated science…..just SO MANY detest fluoirde from waste added to our public waters…..and it’s waste by product crap added to our waters…..all for the profiteers…they don’t care about teeth or health.
I’ve been Science of Mind philosophy for 30 some yrs so I am into Science of the MIND.
LikeLike
Joy, you should read things properly.
I did not accuse you of hating science – just of being ethically challenged because you are willing to defame others unjustly while supporting Connett’s practice of taking financial handouts from big business for his shilling.
Dean is the one who expressed his hatred for science.
LikeLike
Never said I hate science. I’m just challenging you to start thinking on your own. You keep repeating what’s been told to you by your religion of science. The science and Chris’ National Institute of Health studies say that we must add this to the water to save our teeth, no harm could ever come of it. Repeating what’s been told to you is not intelligence. I could present evidence out of the Netherlands that water fluoridation caused negative effects in a portion of the population. Then we could go back and forth all day and night with “scientific evidence” for and against fluoride added to our drinking water. Always repeating, never thinking.
LikeLike
Dean, I return the challenge. What about reading the post above? You obviously haven’t done so because if you had you would have seen an example of a critical and intelligent analysis of a paper which was then being touted as some sort of evidence by the Connett crowd. In fact, I have always argued that any claims and any scientific papers, however reputable, should be analysed critically and intelligently.
Your comments are simply a thoughtless ranting becuase people here do not accept your anti-scientific rants and uncritical acceptance of an ideologically and commercially driven propaganda against a social health policy known to be safe and effective.
You say you “could present evidence” but of course you won’t because you just don’t want to have your “evidence” subjected to a critical analysis. The sort of analysis which underlines scientific research.
LikeLike
Then we could go back and forth all day and night with “scientific evidence” for and against fluoride added to our drinking water. Always repeating, never thinking.
Let’s run with this.
“You’ve” got this sciencey paper, “we’ve” got that.
For and against.
How to decide?
Is Dean a toxicologist? perhaps an epidemiologist? a dental health health professional? ….
No, thought not. But neither is Ken.
The smart money doesn’t believe either of them. Because we have a thing we can look at called the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is spelled out plain and clear by the representitoives of scientific and health communities in the relevantfields. You may have heard of them, the CDC, Health Authorities, Dental Associations, US Surgeon General, heck, even the Royal Society gets in on the act.
The scientific consensus doesn’t occur by magic, as a once regular commenter here often pointed out (actually, I’m attempting to fill his shoes with this comment). It doesn’t rely upon one, or two, or even the very latest scientific paper in the field. It takes a lot of work to build a scientific consensus. Often over a long period. Results are tested and challenged. And tested again.
On water fluoridation, the scientific consensus is currently quite clear. It may yet change, but only as a result of hard work in the field.
It won’t change because Dean or Joy or Trevor or Connett object to it. No matter how hard or how loud they carry on. It won’t change even if the majority of the population reject the scientific consensus. Science if funny like that, it really is a science thing, evidence and all that.
So that brings us back around to Dean and his rather astute observation. More astute than he perhaps realises
. Then we could go back and forth all day and night with “scientific evidence” for and against fluoride added to our drinking water. Always repeating, never thinking.
What does the smart person do? How does the intelligent person decide?
The scientific consensus? articulated by every single relevant scientific community and health organisation the field, with no exceptions?
Or shouty activists waving oddball results (anomalies) around and constantly shifting and reinventing their arguments so long as it confirms their bias?
LikeLike
I don’t feel like I’m ranting. If anyone is ranting it might be Richard Christie. I feel pretty tame. Ken, you did a masterful job in the article. Excellent analysis. But both of you actually make my point. Ken repeats the slogan safe and effective and finds comfort in the science behind it. Richard looks to the cdc and the royal society for confirmation. I just think to myself, if the fluoride wasn’t in the water Earth provided but was added by a chemist, maybe it’s not so safe. We’ll never know if it’s 100% safe. Maybe it is safe. But I do know if I practice good oral hygiene, eat right, etc. my teeth will be just fine. I’ll have no use for fluoride and I won’t be exposed to any hidden negative side effects of it. Maybe there are no negative effects. Or maybe science won’t find them for another 20 years. If we were so good at producing health, why is everyone around me so sick? In that light, why would I listen to the cdc or Richards health authorities to do the thinking for me? You do good work Ken, keep it up. Knowledge is power.
LikeLike
Dean, you are wrong on two counts with this statement: “I just think to myself, if the fluoride wasn’t in the water Earth provided but was added by a chemist, maybe it’s not so safe.”
The fact is that fluoride has always been in the water on this planet – long before there were any chemists to point that out to you. And to imply something is safe because it is natural is the naturalistic fallacy.
Your teeth may be OK with or without CWF – but you are taking in fluoride anyway as part of your normal diet. Which is just as well as it is a normal and natural constituent of bioapatites – teeth and bones. Yiu would be in a sorry state without it. Nothing to do with chemists.
LikeLike
I don’t feel like I’m ranting. If anyone is ranting it might be Richard Christie. I feel pretty tame.
No, Dean, you were ranting, behold:
You keep repeating what’s been told to you by your religion of science…blah blah…Just rely on the religion of science for all your answers because common sense is not good enough. Fluoride is toxic and highly reactive… but it’s safe in your water. Two opposite and opposing ideas meant to confuse and bewilder the public, creates a flatline in brain decision making ability, so an authority figure is needed to tell us what to do…blah blah…We were born perfect….blah blah…That’s the message your handlers are giving you…blah blah…Ken needs scientific documents and health expert support to tell him drinking fluoride is safe and has no side effects…blah blah… He cannot make the decision with his own thoughts, independent of science or his handler experts…blah blah… Good example of mind programming….blah blah… The belief in your religion of science that says you need chemists to add fluoride to your drinking water for optimum dental health means you are under mind control and have stopped thinking for yourself many years ago…blah blah… We were born perfect….blah blah… Outsourcing our health to authority figures in white coats with fancy degrees is really working well for those that stand to profit from it… blah blah… You are free to awaken anytime.
We get your argument, Dean: You believe are better placed to make a decision than the world’s scientific community is placed.
You don’t need all that mind poison sciencey stuff.
You just know.
That sounds smart. Not.
Really.
That’s fine Dean.
I just love it when they
LikeLike
” Maybe there are no negative effects. Or maybe science won’t find them for another 20 years. If we were so good at producing health, why is everyone around me so sick?”
After 70 years of uninterrupted use in Grand Rapids there are no people unexpectedly dying from chemical poisoning ,or suffering from mental illness. And a city like that would be the best place to do any tests
And I bet the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby has gone through everybody’s medical history to find any fault .That they can shout from the rooftops and say, see we told you so. fluoride is this, and causes this, at .7 PPM
But as usual what do we hear ,,,Nothing
So really all the negative comment is just unproven scaremongering
It says a lot for there arguments, when not one quality medical or dental institution says fluoride is any danger at .7 PPM
LikeLike
I’d bet there is plenty of arthritis in grand rapids, as there is in much of the U.S. and I know it’s more than fluoride buildup but “F” doesn’t reduce arthritis and fractures AND thyroid dsyfunction…and people are dropping dead with these but dealing as best they can with these dread issues.
LikeLike
Ken where i live the fluoride is added to the water by someone. Yes you’re correct that it had some already. Fresh surface water around here contains a very low amount of naturally occurring fluoride. It’s treated to the “recommended” amount and becomes artificially fluoridated water (using industrial-grade fluoride chemicals). that’s all I need to know to stay away from it. As a child I drank the water provided and brushed with fluoride toothpaste but still got dental caries because I was a sugar hound. As an adult I don’t drink the tap water, eat smarter, brush with fluoride free paste, floss daily and my teeth are doing just fine. So to me, one does not need extra fluoride but to only give their mouth and body more attention, more respect and more love. The fluoride cannot save us from self-sabotage.
Richard…quit being such an angry little elf.
LikeLike
I meant people are NOT dropping dead but managing with all the medical work they do. I live with 60 yrs of osteoarthritis and born and raised in “F” water for many years of my life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok well to back up your statements, lets see the data ,that shows that Grand rapids has a higher incidence of illnesses than other areas then
As I said, I,m sure the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby would have turned over every stone in the district, to find something . The silence is deafening
LikeLike
“Some have suggested that pharmaceutical grade fluoride additives should be used for water fluoridation. Pharmaceutical grading standards used in formulating prescription drugs are not appropriate for water fluoridation additives. If applied, those standards could actually increase the amount of impurities as allowed by AWWA and NSF/ANSI in drinking water.
LikeLike
Nothing can save you forms self-sabotage, Dean.
But you look after yourself and let others look after themselves.
LikeLike
Richard…quit being such an angry little elf.
Dean, you write the comedy, I just rub your nose in it.
LikeLike
Others are not allowed to look after themselves, for the decision is made for them by evil masquerading as altruistic governments. If you think evil is going to show up in a red suit with a pitchfork, they already control your mind. Think you’re too smart to be under mind control? Many of the social policies, including water fluoridation, are meant to confuse and weaken the public and look to authority figures for help and dependence. All by design. A weak and dysfunctional population is easier to govern. But it’s all touted in the name of science and health. But where are all the healthy people? Show me the boat loads of healthy people. 20% of the stock market is now fully dependent on profiting from our sickness and misery, so why give people power to heal themselves? Whatever is making us sick is already in our lives. Blame the person, his genes, his bad luck, his family history. Never anything that medicine or government policies did. Too much fluoride will kill or disfigure you, but our recommended amount that we artificially add to your water will never harm you. If we keep doing what we’ve always done, we’re going to get what we’ve always got. You don’t need fancy degrees to figure it out. Just let the experts on their golden thrones of authority tell you what’s good for you. They’ve done such a masterful job so far. I hope this does not come across as a rant, but an awakening. Cheers mates.
LikeLike
Yabba yabba they already control your mind yabba yabba Think you’re too smart to be under mind control? drool errp You don’t need fancy degrees blah yabba experts on their golden thrones of authority yabba yabba All by design. A weak and dysfunctional population is easier to govern. drool slobber
Actually, Dean seem quite fold of the term “fancy degrees”, he has used it in more than one comment.
The anti-intellectualism of the foil-hat brigade.
If I may indulge in anecdote, I’ve generally found a strong correlation between Dean’s sentiment and those who didn’t do too well at school.
LikeLike
Just before any cause&effect connection is discovered, there was no cause&effect connection, regardless of or in spite of all the testing/research that might have been done. After that point, all those who argued that there was no connection offer up a mea culpa (or not) and life goes on. You can prove a connection exists via evidence, but you cannot prove that a connection does not exist because there is no evidence of a connection. We don’t know what we don’t know… and arguing things based only on what we do know is a potential waste of time.
LikeLike
Rick, I hope you are not advocating we should only argue things based only on what we do not know! 🙂 That way lies and incredible waste of time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m advocating that it is possible that flouride is dangerous even though there’s currently no evidence that it is and vice versa. Arguing that current evidence does not support it being dangerous is a waste of time. Expecting folks to find evidence that shows it is dangerous before accepting that possibility is no different that expecting folks to find evidence that shows it is not dangerous. There are too many variables at play to be thorough, not enough time to ensure the effects of time are adequately considered and both of these resulting in too much inconclusiivity ?!? :).
Bottom line… while all the comments above were an interesting read, those who came in on the left departed on the left and likewise for those who came in on the right. Nothing concluded since the the human body and the environment in which we live is a little too complex for any of us to completely wrap our minds around.
LikeLike
Rick, humanity didn’t get where it is today by sitting back and moaning that “the environment in which we live is a little too complex for any of us to completely wrap our minds around.” We have got stuck in, taken some risks, and created a better life for everyone.
It is a cop out to advocate:
Surely one simply goes with the evidence that we have at the time – which is quite a lot of the efficacy and safety of community water fluoridation. Meanwhile keeping our minds open and continuing monitoring and research.
As for you claim:
1: That is often the immediate case with online discussions.
2: Anyway, how do you know. I probably have more contact with these people than you and I would never be so definite – especially in the long term.
There must be a name for the philosophy you advocate of doing absolutely nothing because we can’t know anything completely.
Mind you, it is hypocritical to advance such a philosophical approach here when your very presence indicates that you don’t apply this in the rest of your life.
LikeLike
I did not advocate doing nothing. I suggested that arguing is a waste of time.
LikeLike
Why are you arguing then – especially as you are refusing to look at evidence or take a position. Surely that is doing nothing but produce hot air?
LikeLike
Unlike myself, you are clearly passionate about the subject and have much more time on your hands to sift through material to support your points which you do in an eloquent and articulate manner. I have no interest in getting sucked into a time-wasting pissing contest. I concede. You can piss further. You win. Over and out.
LikeLike
Rick, for someone who pretends to not be interested enough in the issue to bother considering the facts you do take a questionable partisan position.
It is not a matter âsifting through material to support oneâs points.â Surely it is a matter of considering all the material (well, as much as practically possible) to enable one to derive some, often provisional, conclusions.
The debate then comes from collective consideration of these conclusions â and at this stage one often does alter the conclusions.
So, in fact, the debate can be an important an integral part of coming to conclusions.
Fact based discussion and debate is not wasted.
LikeLike
This issue has been a HOT topic for decades and now with the net more and more are waking up to it. More and more anti F groups are out there and I bombard our city council about weekly with topics about the toxicity of what they did in 2009. Keeping it in their faces. They sold out. Costing our city over $100K annually add this toxin. A crime. So many do not have an awareness.
LikeLike
Keep up the good work, Joy.
It is this sort of unwarranted harassment by people like you that annoys councils. They see the whole issue as a poisoned chalice which they should not have to take responsibility for as they do not have the skills to make proper decisions, even when both sides get to present their arguments. They end up wishing governments and health authorities would step in. That would probably be the best as the lies and misinformation of Connettâs crowd have far less influence when presented to bodies that do have the skills for understanding the issue.
LikeLike
“Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Examine everything. Examine everything means to test everything to see that it is genuine and true, to discover for ourselves between what is true and false, rather than simply parroting what we’ve been taught to believe.
LikeLike
A scientific training helps us look for evidence and judge beliefs and hypotheses – not to parrot beliefs or accept claims on faith rather than evidence. It involves testing and experiment combined with logic and reasoning. Blind quoting form one’s “holy” book is the exact opposite of the scientific approach.
LikeLike
Through the above, I have determined that water with artificially added fluoride is something to be avoided. To be convinced otherwise, I would like the following answered first. Hopefully then, richard Christie will like me. By the way, he continually proves my point. He equates my sentiment to those who didn’t do well in school. I did great in school, have two advanced degrees, but school never taught me to think. School is simply a sorting tool for government to move the obedient up the ladder and the divergent down a different path. The smartest thinkers I know were all self-taught, self-educated free thinkers. But richard’s comments make me lol and I love them. On to the questions:
Where does the fluoride come from that is used in fluoridating community water supplies?
Is the fluoride pharmaceutical grade or are there other substances in the compound, and if so, where do I find an official list of these?
How many kinds of fluoride are there?
How many are naturally occurring fluorides, and how many are manmade?
Why is there a poison warning on the back of fluoride toothpaste tubes?
How do you define “safe” in regards to fluoride in water, or fluoride toothpaste?
How much fluoride is too much fluoride for an infant, toddler, teen or adult?
How does fluoride affect a person internally, their brain and organs, not just their teeth?
What is the optimum daily dose of fluoridated water, in order to ensure too much is not consumed?
Where can I find a complete list of fluoride sources and amounts in toothpaste, food and beverages, water, dentifrices etc, to determine the total exposure to fluoride?
Why are parents recommended to NOT use fluoridated water when mixing powdered baby formulas?
Where do I find published scientific reports proving that teeth in fluoridated communities really are better than teeth in unfluoridated areas?
Why does the EPA say fluoride is a “chemical with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity”?
What does the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say about fluoride?
Cheers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dean – here is some information on water treatment chemicals https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/water-treatment-chemicals-why-pick-on-fluoride/
None of the chemicals used in water treatment are pharmaceutical grade – that would be completely inappropriate.
You seem to be firing out questions randomly – why not pose a specific question and support your concern or request for information by citing studies or evidence.
I am sure people here will have good answers – but let’s do this properly.
By the way, good to see you have abandoned your previous silliness of claiming there is no point to discussion. 🙂
LikeLike
What an amazing position for the fluoridationists to be in — knowing what is best for we the people. What a pompice pitiful position (PPP).
LikeLike
I think I would believe the research from the Scientific Community, Before I believed the misquotes, cherrypicking and proven untruths from the Natural Health community
LikeLike
Yeah well, Chris.
You just prove Dean’s point.
Unlike Dean, you probably learned something at school, therefore you are under mind control.
Unlike Dean, whose degrees are not fancy, yours probably are fancy, therefore you are under mind control.
See how every thing fits together?
It is so spooky.
To prove you are thinking for yourself you have to copy paste a list of questions and start JAQing off. Which is also known as a gish gallop for the lazy.
LikeLike
Hhhaaaahahahaha. Natzis were using Fluoride in concentration camps to dumb down prisoners and there still are people who doubt in the fact that it’s dangerous. It is soooo sad! Also what is this thing supposed to do in a drinking water? Why are they adding it? For your teeth? Come oon, it must not be working then!!!
LikeLike
It sure ain’t working, I have a mouthful of dental work and a body full of arthritis and I was born and raised in the STUFF. Science!!@#$$%%$$$
LikeLike
Mavs
the nazi connection has even been dispelled by Connett And as further proof
Andy Hollinger, who handles media relations at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, tried not to laugh as we explained our fact-check. “I can almost guarantee you that is indeed an urban myth,” he said. “… That sounds like Conspiracy Theory 101.”
Joy So what is the link between arthritis and your medical conditions?
I find this ” There is no definitive research evidence to support claims of
a causal link between fluoride intake and arthritis, but it is known that long-term exposure to high levels of
fluoride may cause skeletal fluorosis.”
Health effects of water fluoridation 2015
LikeLike
I have a hard time believing that the ruling families allow themselves or their children to drink the water they provide for the lower classes.
Eugenics, the belief that the elite of a society have the right to cull the herd of the lesser halves, the genetically unfit and the moron classes etc has been going on for much longer than the general public believe. They find that the easiest way to cull the herd and poison the lower classes into a state of dysfunction or an early grave is to invent massive propaganda based systems, like fluoridation and vaccination, so that the lower classes readily accept and even demand their poisoning, eugenic extermination and down regulation of the DNA they pass on to their off spring. Regardless of what point in history we take, there are always brave men and women who try to warn the herd. Sorry Ken, its how I feel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess, Dean, the fact you feel the need to apologise for such stupidity is a slightly positive sign.
Perhaps you should seek help.
LikeLike
Dean, NEVER say you are sorry for your opinion and how you feel. Gives Ken and others an opening to knock you down. And believe me they will take any opening or no opening.
LikeLike
Hi Folks, hard to know IF I will still be alive to see the END of this mess. but it’s getting closer. Damage has been done to me for sure and millions more to their unknowing.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fluoride-killing-us-softly
LikeLike
So to back up your statements you quote the rants of a nutritionist. Why am I not surprised. It gets sad when you cant find any quality research to quote
LikeLike
And you guys go to your STUPID science rant. It’s great science to keep adding toxic waste to our bodies.
LikeLike
And of course you have to research to say that fluoride is toxic waste at .7PPM?
LikeLike
Why .1ppm or .7ppm why do we needed treated….why should the industries get rid of their waste in our public waters, lakes, oceans….it all gets there….$$$$$$$$$$$$
LikeLike
The usual lies from the activist. So tell me how all the fluoride in the oceans and waterways got there?, and what industry put it all there.? I would love to know
And I,m still waiting for your quality research, about fluoride being toxic at .7-1PPM,or as usual, you have none
LikeLike
This talk of “waste” just shows how irrational you are, Joy. How can a product be a waste if it has a market? And fluorosilicic acid from the US phosphate industry can actually get a higher price for sales to the fluorine chemical industry than sales to water treatment plants. Fluorine is a valuable element for industry and used in the manufacture of many things we use in our lives, from electronics to medicines.
It’s benefits are far wider than teeth and bones.
LikeLike
What are the benefits other than the supposed bones and teeth?
I use no teflon products. I use NONE of the drugs with fluoride in them like the cipros and levaquins and prozacs….
What benefits would I get. I know the industries benefit by getting rid of their waste.
I’m not a researcher but MANY have been in this FIGHT for decades…why it has not been torn down is the CDC, FDA, EPA as they are as corrupt as pharma and they are HUGE but slowly it’s happening as MORE and MORE are aware. And learning of the dangers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joy, you are using a computer and are surrounded by electronic products. You are probably completely unaware of the molecular compostion of any medicines you use – or the chemistry involved in their preparation. And I am guessing you use a refrigerator.
Of course industries profit from selling a product – what the hell do you expect? Especially for such an important product. It is idiotic to rant on about “waste” in such situations.
LikeLike
Oh Ken, there is fluoride in my computer??????
Tell me PLEASE beside the supposed info that it’s good for my bones and teeth, what good is it for my body.
My grandgirl has fluorosis…..I have a mouthful of dental work and a body full of OA from decades ingesting this stuff.
I know everyone is in business for profits…so don’t make it sound like I was born yesterday….but again waste from china and the u.s. and who knows where else going into my water to rid the waste byproduct from these industries. I’m done here today. Useless talking to you pro Fer’s…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can be very cruel to the ignorant.
If you are pro-fluoride, you are an endocrine-ignorant moron and should be a poster child for Fluoride’s IQ-damaging effects. Fluoride displaces the essential Iodine in your endocrine system, leading to sickness and disease. Can’t you get it through your thick skull? Fluoride is HALOGEN and competes with IODINE in your body’s GLANDS. Are you paid by the industry to promote cancer-causing endocrine disruptors? How can you sleep at night knowing that you are supporting a dangerous poison which leads to disease? How can you sleep at night knowing how many people are getting sick and dying because of this trash people allow into the water supply and they think it is okay because of people like YOU? Didn’t I try to tell you that you are doing a grave disservice to humanity by spreading propaganda saying Fluoride is good to ingest. You know how many countries have banned Fluoridation outright? I bet you think climate change is a myth too. And sugar is just fine as well, right? What about fracking? Are you a member of the AMA, ADA, or are you just a general GOP crony? Just keep trumpeting your own nonsense and you will get what’s coming to you: death by glandular disruption. Do you even know what the endocrine system is?
And before you judge me for my language, i tried to show the pro-poison brigade the science and I destroyed your argument so utterly, you couldn’t refute it. All you could do was whine about how i copy and pasted the actual data instead of wasting my time writing what has already been proven. How about getting a real job and stop being a cartoon troll? People like you make me sick, literally.
FLUORIDE FLUORIDE FLUORIDE!!!
IT’S GREAT FOR BONES AND TEETH!! LET’S ALL DRINK IT AND GET SICK AND DIE!!!
Well guess what? I drink distilled water (no F), eat raw food, and i feel like a golden god. Your argument supporting mass-Fluoridation is irresponsible and shameful. You should just give up, nobody believes you but other idiots. If you still don’t get it, then perhaps you should study endocrinology. I might come back if i feel like tearing into someone about this BS, but the honest truth is that I ignore most of the crap comments on this thread supporting this mentality of defending mass-poisoning because they are not worth wasting my time with. It’s really not a shame that I’M not being paid to say this. I am arguing against mass-poisoning by Fluoride as a service to humanity. What’s your excuse for supporting mass-poisoning of the water supply? I don’t know what’s more sad, you being paid to have this position, or you not being paid.
Don’t expect me to return anytime soon. I don’t enjoy wasting my time trying to talk sense into pro-poison wallflowers. You could have all the F you want in your own table salt if you want to. I’m sure your industry supporters would even make you some and ship it to you for free! No, wait, you would die, and they need you alive to lie to people and spread the misinformation that poison is good for you. Have a nice F-ing day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joy, concentrate. We were talking about whether fluoride and fluorine chemicals are “waste.” You are attemptimg to avoid the fact that fluorine is a very useful element and companies would be mad to dump a useful source like fluorosilicic acid. There is a market for these chemicals precisely because thay are not “waste” products.
LikeLike
Vulgar – you “feel like a golden god’ do you?
I think you need to get help as this sounds dangerous. 🙂
LikeLike
Ken, I don’t think she gives a rat’s ass how useful Fluorine is to the industry. She just told you her grand daughter is physically sick from it and she herself has suffered from exposure to Fluorides. You seem obsessed. Have you considered satirizing your beloved element? You might still get paid for talking about it. At this point, you just sound like an insensitive jerk.
Eating healthy is dangerous? Wow. I hope everyone is seeing the “logic” being used here…
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is what Joy wrote:
yet how can a product that is sold and used – and, in fact, is the source of a very important range of chemicals used in industry and society, be a waste?
LikeLike
To begin, I am not taking a position on whether or not fluoride is beneficial or harmful. It would seem futile to attempt to do so, as either side can mount a series of salient points or studies or citations to support their case, yet I would be surprised to see anyone acknowledge a counterpoint or be converted to the benefits or detriments of fluoride consumption.
My concern is the compulsory consumption of fluoride by way of our water supply. There are many people concerned with consuming fluoride, yet they are being compelled to do so through their water supply. It has been implied in some of the comments that it is irresponsible to deny providing a potential health benefit through fluoridation due to the scientifically unsubstantiated claims of fluoride being toxic. It feels like it comes across this way…
Anti-F: I believe fluoride consumed through our water supply can be toxic. I would prefer that it not be added to our water.
Pro-F: You are wrong as is validated by verifiable clinical studies and scientific research. You will consume it for your own good.
If fluoride is indeed highly beneficial for dental health, why should it be forced on people? If dental health is a priority for people they will be proactive in taking all the right steps to keep their teeth and gums healthy. If that means they are purchasing fluoridated water to drink so they can get the benefits from fluoride, let them do so.
It does not seem right to compel people to consume fluoridated water if they believe it could potentially cause them harm. It seems less reasonable to expect people to pay more or go to greater extreme to avoid what they believe is harmful than to have those who want its benefits pay more or go out of their way to obtain it. In essence we’re deciding what is good for everyone’s personal health and imposing on them through the largest delivery method. It is no different than going around and adding a chemical to a primary food source of a given population because studies said it had health benefits. Let the consumers choose how they manage their health care rather than imposing it on them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David, I do not understand your claim that something is being forced on people. A minority of people object to aspects of their water supply – chlorine tastes, organic matter or fluoride. If they are responsible they take action – use a water filter or different supply. It seems that only those who have an ideological objection to F want to impose their will on others by denying something that is accepted as safe and effective.
If there is democratic support for a social policy like free education, free healthcare or water treatment then the responsible thing for the minority is to make their own arrangements. private schools, private hospitals, water filters. Democracy is then a win-win situation and let’s face it water filters are a hell of a lot cheaper than private health insurance and private school fees.
In my experience, I have found opponents of community water fluoridation already take their own steps such as filters or alternative supplies which make me wonder why they still wish to deny CWF for others.
We have just had a local situation where voters have supported community water fluoridation in a recent referendum yet the council by a small majority decided to stop it. Surely that is undemocratic and we should be complaining about that – not whining about something being imposed when we already make our own arrangments.
LikeLike
David, good to read your comments…my thoughts pretty much the same.
Personally I will believe forever that my body does not need fluoride added to my system.
Our city added “F” waste material into our public waters in 2009 after being an environmentally sound city for the 50 yrs I’ve lived here…a true CRIME…
LikeLike
Joy, someone who âbelieves foreverâ is wilfully ignorant because they reject facts in favour of âbelief.â
LikeLike
I’m having trouble understanding how those who want fluoride removed from the water supply are imposing their will when those who support fluoridation are not imposing their will.
The introduction of fluoridation was not always introduced through democratic process. Often it was introduced by decision of the local government or municipality
As you support the democratic approach to the fluoridation issue, Portland Oregon put an end to fluoridation by popular vote. They had previously voted to end it successfully, but the city council overturned it. If you support voters asking for fluoridation through democratic process then I hope you support voters asking to end fluoridation through the same democratic process. If you feel having the voters’ decision overturned by municipality Portland’s previous action should concern you as well.
There are multiple cities in the U.S. that ended fluoridation by popular vote. Are you in support of or opposed to the ending of fluoridation in cities that have voted to do so? My question is, do you believe the benefits of fluoridation of drinking water are remarkable enough to maintain the practice whether or not people want it done in their cities?
LikeLike
David, follow the money trails…money is so powerful and controls the AMA, CDC, pro F groups, Alcoa, Mellon, DuPont, Monsanto you name it …our city council, ADA, hard to walk away from money once so many have had good tastes of MONEY..
LikeLike
If you really want to follow the money http://www.health-liberty.org/sites/healthliberty/about-healthliberty.aspx
LikeLike
I thought I had made clear, David, my support for a democratic process when there is a controversy like this. Even if the results is motivated by misunderstanding rather than facts it is still the will of the people. Mind you, these same voters often feel very angry about having to bear the cost of referenda when there is clear expert support for a safe and effective social health policy. They feel that cost is imposed on them by extremist activists.
In this country health authorities recommend CWF – but their approach is to win support for it. Referenda are proving the best way to win that support as several councils have made decisions, against the will of their voters, which they do not have the expertise to make.
My question to you, David, is do you support the people’s right to make that choice, even when the decision disagrees with your bias? I ask because you seem only concerned with situation where voters or councils agree with you bias.
Finally, I see you have accepted my arguments ridiculing the whining about people being forced to drink fluoridated water. Good on you.
LikeLike
Ken, I wasn’t sure you made it crystal clear. I wanted to confirm that you were not doing what you perceive I might be doing by your statement “you seem only concerned with situations where votes or councils agree with your bias.” We should both be honest enough to raise our hands and plead guilty to perceiving that from the other. No harm there.
To clear up any confusion, I support the people’s right to support legislation by vote whether I agree with the issue or not. I believe in democracy and would absolutely love to see this country actually function as one, but let me not get tangential there. There are many laws passed by vote of the people which I do not agree with, but I respect and support because I support a democratic system. What I believe is best for me may not be best for the majority. That’s the way democracy works. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.
If you believe I have accepted your argument based on my previous statement:
“I’m having trouble understanding how those who want fluoride removed from the water supply are imposing their will when those who support fluoridation are not imposing their will.”
…then I must apologize for not stating myself clearly. I was pointing out what felt to me like a double-standard. Let me rephrase: Those who want fluoride removed from the water are imposing their will on those who want it, but those who want fluoridated drinking water are not imposing their will on those who don’t? Either both are imposing their will, or neither are. Otherwise, it’s a double-standard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David, I think you are still mired in the confusion of your original approach which claimed that the minority who did not want fluoride were being forced to consume it against their will. Hopefully, I had thought you had accepted my arguments about their need to be responsible for their own actions and that no one was being forced to do anything.
You are attempting to create an equal situation with your paraphrasing but of course there is no equality.
We have the following factors.
1: CWF is accepted as safe and effective by health and scientific authorities.
2: In NZ health authorities would like to see CWF extended (it is not suitable for all locations) and they proceed to win public approval for this.
3: This is usually done by consultation with local bodies who control water treatment and often referenda are used (although councils can rely on polling).
4: Ideally where there is public support councils will go ahead with CWF – after all they do not have the skills to make decisions about health or safety and should rely on experts for that. Their prime concern should be to represent their voters.
5: Where referenda or polling show majority of voters oppose CWF then it should not go ahead – health authorities in NZ would only pursue that case with continued education but in the meantime would rely on alternatives such as fluoride varnishing, etc., (which already happens anyway).
I think that should be clear.
But what about the situation where voters do support CWF and the experts agree it is suitable.
5: If the councils decide to stop CWF then they are acting undemocratically6 and imposing the unscientific beliefs of a majority of councillors on their voters. That is not their prerogative.
6: If a “consultation” results in the capture of a council by extremist activists opposing CWF and they vote against it then they are also acting undemocratically.
7: In reality councillors are more concerned with political issues and political infighting than science or truth. This happened in my own city and the council voted to stop CWF. After protests and petitions, they were forced to hold yet another referendum and had to change their decision. The Council discredited themselves and made the city look silly.
If a council makes a decision that accords with the wish of voters then they are not imposing their will. If the decision conflicts with this wish and there is no justified reason for ignoring the voters will (such as costs, unsuitability of treatment plant, etc.) then the council is imposing their will on voters.
If activists attempt to get councils to make a decision that is undemocratic then they are attempting to impose their will.
Anti-fluoride activists should do as the health authorities do – accept the democratic decision of voters. Not try to use back-door methods to change the decisions. And simply resort to education. If they can not “educate” voters to change their minds then so be it.
But, unfortunately, our experience is that anti-fluoride activists do not give a stuff about democracy – they simply want to impose their will even when people reject them.
LikeLike
I see there are several bullet points in this badminton set we are playing…
The first is of my reckless single use of the word “force” in my original comment. I spoke to my attorneys on this matter and they clucked their tongues and shook their heads at me. I did my best to avoid using that word, but it slipped through the cracks like a stick of butter through a set of rotting floorboards on a hot summer day. Clearly I thought I did my best and it wasn’t good enough.
I am and was at the time aware that both pro and anti F-ers are not forced in either scenario, as there are options to consume drinking water that does and does not have fluoride (at least as of today). I am aware that drinking water does not enter our bodies in the matter of geese being fed for producing foie gras. My wife is making me wear a scarlet F around the house for the use of the word “force” in my original post. To drive the point home, she is forcing me to wear it.
Now… I see your main points in your recent comment:
• Fluoride is good for teeth at .7ppm cuz science tells us so.
• Democratic process should be favored no matter the public opinion held.
• Local government should respect and uphold voter consensus rather than go against voter demand.
• Activism should be in the form of education vs. protests.
• Councils should not cowtail to protesters.
I can appreciate most of those points. To be completely candid I’m on the fence on the pros and cons of fluoride and whether or not it is beneficial or harmful. Don’t worry about linking studies and clinical trials and stats and what have you… I don’t subscribe to the infallibility of science or the scientific method and I cannot be convinced to adopt it as my personal lord and savior. Nor do I relish at responding to whatever fear bell is being rung with the latest and greatest toxic boogeyman, be it fluoride or gluten or caffeine or television game shows. I respect your belief in the health benefits of fluoridation and I say go forth and continue to proselytize. I can’t swear on a stack of peer reviews at this juncture.
Now if you want to do it there like it’s done here in the U.S., have the industries that produce fluoride contribute obscene amounts of money to the campaign funds of the public officials that are making the laws. That method of making legislation is impervious to activists and protesters. Works like a charm here in the States. Shoot, you won’t even need science to back you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only a few issues with what you say, David.
1: Your attitude towards science. You seem upset that we should accept the effectiveness and safety of CWF “cuz science tells us to.” Can I ask what alternative you prefer? Surely science gives us the best empirically-based description of the situation at the moment. If you have a better method please tell us.
You say you “don’t subscribe to the infallibility of science or the scientific method and I cannot be convinced to adopt it as my personal lord and savior.” As a retired research scientist I can assure you neither do I. Science is not infallible – and that is one of the things that makes it so effective in understanding reality. The “infallibility” of religion is surely the reason why it is so hopeless at describing reality. As for Lords and Masters – surely that is for children and servants. It has no meaning in this day and age.
2: You say – “the industries that produce fluoride contribute obscene amounts of money to the campaign funds of the public officials that are making the laws. That method of making legislation is impervious to activists and protesters. Works like a charm here in the States. Shoot, you won’t even need science to back you.”
That is a serious charge – do you have any evidence to support it. 🙂
I certainly have not seen anything that would back your claim. In fact, the only big business groups I see getting involved in this issue is the “natural”/alternative health industry. They have funded anti-fluoride actions in NZ with several hundreds of thousands of dollars for High Court Cases. And Mercola funds the US Fluoride Action Network, paying the wages of the Connett family.
perhaps your wife should get you to wear something saying you should avoid conspiracy theories.
3: You seem to draw a distinction between democracy and public opinion that I can not understand.
LikeLike
Clark Kent – personal attacks, swearing and threats to my life don’t exactly endear me to your comments. Until your behaviour changes, your comments will be treated as spam.
LikeLike
Upset? Hardly. Glib? Possibly. Do you disagree with the statement I made? I thought it echoed your sentiment on the matter. You stated it eloquently, I went the glib route.
The quote was actually “lord and savior” as in, “Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior?” as the evangelists are fond of inquiring. I say no, I do not. Neither religion nor science will save us. We can only save ourselves, if we can save ourselves from ourselves that is.
Too bad I had to fire my proofreader for wearing my socks without permission. Again, I did not state my point clearly. I was not at all trying to say that fluoride producing industries are financing campaigns here in the U.S. What I was attempting to say was that fluoride producing industries in NZ should take the approach that other types of industries in the States take regarding how they influence legislation. It was an attempt at a flippant commentary on our broken political system. I’ll stick to the points at hand.
Yeah, my wife knows better than to try to get me to avoid conspiracy theories. I love a good conspiracy theory, most of which I take with a grain of salt and consider them “for entertainment purposes only”. A ham sandwich could be spun into a conspiracy theory. I do not believe fluoridation of drinking water is in any way a conspiracy theory. I do believe our congress is bought and paid for. No conspiracy regarding that in this country as it’s plain as day. But again, I digress. I blame Shiny Metal Object Disorder.
Your third point… I don’t follow…
LikeLike
Fair enough Ken, this sort of behavior is standard procedure when they have no valid arguments, Mind this time there was no capital letters, that is usually stage 1, but this time we have a new stage Shall we call; death threats stage 4?
LikeLike
David – “We can only save ourselves,” – very true but it avoids the issue. What methods will we use to understand our situation and develop alternatives? If you claim science does not work what is your suggestion?
LikeLike
I did not claim science doesn’t work. I said I don’t believe science to be infallible.
Is fluoride good for me? Is it bad for me? I don’t know. Many are certain it is, as validated by science. From where did the idea that fluoride is a neurotoxin arise? I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to have been scientifically proven that it is, as the sources of those assertions have been dismissed by the scientific community.
Nonetheless, the possibility that it is a neurotoxin arose from somewhere. I admit, it makes me wonder. I still consume fluoridated water provided by my city. If I was terribly concerned I would be picking up the non-fluoridated water that my municipality is kind enough to offer its customers. And that’s the thing… they address those who feel fluoridated water is beneficial and they address those who have concerns about it. They offer both.
While the science is enough to validate its safety to those who embrace it, the information that challenges that, even with its ambiguous and murky origins, doesn’t make me necessarily say “oh yes, it’s horrible and deadly”, but it makes me say “did the scientific research miss something?”
I don’t have an answer to what methods we can use to understand our situation beyond what science can offer. In a great number of cases I am perfectly happy with what science concludes. There are some cases, the fluoride debate being one, where the seeds of doubt have been sown, whether or not they take root and grow is another matter. I suspect you will feel compelled to challenge or question my assertion and my doubt, but that’s all I’ve got.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David, you appear confused. You say on the one hand:
Now you say:
So it seems that you are going to have to use science – despite the universally agreed fact that it is not infallible.
There is no credible evidence that F is a neurotoxin at the levels used in CWF – but that story has been promoted by the big-business financed Fluoride Action Network. I have written several articles in this – for example Cultural and ideological bias in scientific literature reviews
Whether or not the seeds of doubt take root is up to you. Always approach these claims critically and intelligently and you usually can’t go wrong.
LikeLike
David, I don’t know how many fluoride sites you’ve read but here is one I never read before now:. Deep long Dark history.
Click to access How%20did%20the%20Flouride%20Scam%20Begin_.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
David, You are wasting your time. Ken is deep-rooted and clearly has lots of time on his hands to pick away at what others choose to believe when it does align with his own beliefs. He either take pleasure in endless debating or he fails to understand that people are free to believe what they wish and need not have to prove it to him or anyone else via the scientific method or otherwise. He may dislike that, but that is the democratic process.
Should he have progeny, I hope he never has to see them suffer from the mistakes mankind makes today. Should he not, I understand why.
LikeLike
The problem with this article is that it reverses the proper “burden of proof”. Similar example in the past are cigarettes and margarine. When cigarette consumption was mainstream the burden of proof was reversed in a similar manner. Those promoting cigarettes said, “there is no evidence that cigarettes are unhealthy”. And they were right. Those who base health decisions on this reversed burden of proof paid with their life. More recently a similar story was seen from margarine, where science created a new fat that tasted great and didn’t need refrigeration. Again the burden of proof was reversed with makers of margarine correctly stating that “there is no evidence that margarine is unhealthy”. How many people have died early deaths from trans-fat clogged arteries – we will never know. THE POINT IS THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THOSE THAT MESS WITH NATURE! Adding a DIFFERENT FORM of fluoride to water than that which is found in nature IS potentially the next cigarette or the next margarine. To say that there is no evidence of harm misses the point entirely. DO NOT REVERSE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
LikeLike
Fred, you say “The problem with this article is that it reverses the proper “burden of proof”.”
But you do not in any way specifically refer to the content of my article to show that you comment is at all appropriate.
This article described a paper, and its problems, which is promoted widely by people who, on most cases, have never read it (have you read it it, Fred). I explain the nature of the paper and its problems. I give examples.
Now how does your criticism regarding burden of proof apply specifically to my article? Or are you “reversing the burden of proof” by demanding a response to something in this article which you don’t even refer to?
Perhaps you are really wanting to discuss and issue quite unrelated to the article?
I wish an honest answer from you as I am keen to discuss it – but I need specifics.
Look forward to your reply.
LikeLike
Fred – you say “Adding a DIFFERENT FORM of fluoride to water than that which is found in nature” – which is, of course, completely irrelevant to my article as it did not discuss forms of chemicals (although I have done so in many of my other articles).
Yes, water treatment involves adding chemicals which are not found in that form, that concentration, etc., in nature. Chlorine, aluminium sulphate, ammonia, sodium hydroxide, high-quality lime, etc. And yes, the fluoridation chemical.
But the point you completely ignore is that the chemical form of fluoride that comes out of your tap is completely the same as that occurring in natural water – the hydrated fluoride anion. With the difference in areas of CWF that the concentration is controlled so that safe levels are not exceeded (as they are in nature) and the anion is not accompanied by toxic impurities (as they are in nature).
LikeLike
http://wakingscience.com/2016/02/fluoride-officially-classified-as-a-neurotoxin-in-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journal/
LikeLike
Eb, posting a link to a clearly ignorant article is not a sensible response to my article. Did you not read my post?
LikeLike
Can anyone point to a study showing the difference between fluoridated vs non fluoridated water on the gut microbiome ?
I’m sure there must have been some research but I can’t find it
LikeLike
Paul – have you tried doing a literature search on google scholar? I would have thought any research would show up there.
LikeLike
I appreciate your commitment to science, however the mainstream is often slow to catch on. You may already be aware but the Lancet called out Fluoride as a neurotoxin about a month after you wrote this blog.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/fulltext
LikeLike
NSV – I suggest you read the article above.
It is specifically about the paper by Grandjean and Landrigan that you linked to. And I may have been quick off the mark but I certainly did not make my comments a month before the paper’s publication
And, no, the Lancet is not capable of “calling out” or “official designating” fluoride as anything. It is purely a journal for papers to be published in.
I suggest you read my article and take in my criticisms of this paper.
Then come back and we can discuss it. 🙂
LikeLike
They never come back, they never discuss, they never read past the headline, they never fact check, they simply swallow regurgitated opinion.
LikeLike
Proving fluoride as toxic is very simple. All you need to know is that high doses are bad and that 50% of fluoride is excreted during ingestion. By the time you’re 80, all those micro (non-toxic and safe) doses add up. The older you get the more of it you have in your bones and connective tissues, leading to osteoporosis, arthritis and other conditions people see as normal for the elderly. Fluoride occurs naturally in many sources of foods and drinks so you can’t completely avoid it. Yes, you normally get 1ppm in your water, too low to hurt you if you drink it on the spot. Where science fails here is avoiding that bio-accumulation problem all together. In fact you won’t find studies showing the accumulation in old people. It’s great that people try to show that fluoride is safe at low doses (that is true) – but seems silly when it comes to avoiding the long term invisible problem. I’d love for the author of this article to do the math and see what he comes up with. Otherwise the bad science label definitely applies to this blog post too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marc, as you don’t directly take issue with the content of my article I can only assume you accept its main points. That Grandjean & Landrigen’s paper, and its publication in The Lancet, is not an official ruling that F- is a neurotoxicant. Nor do you seem to disagree with my criticisms of the paper itself.
Now for your comments:
1: High doses of water are bad, – the high dose assertion is not an argument against the normal ingestion of fluoride.
2: Your point about 50% excretion is simplistic as it ignores the fact the human body is a dynamic system.
Have a look at this image from the book “Fluoride and the Oral Environment” edited by Buzalaf:
There is a fairly rapid equilibrium between soft tissues and plasma and a longer term equilibrium between hard tissue and plasma. This means that F absorbed into calcified tissues like bones is not retained irreversibly.
3: Could you please supply evidence that “osteoporosis, arthritis and other conditions people see as normal for the elderly” are caused by fluoride as you claim. A simple scan of the literature shows a number of causes for these conditions.
4: You claim “Where science fails here is avoiding that bio-accumulation problem all together.” – but again a simple scan of the literature does show research into the accumulation of a number of elements (including fluorine) with age.
5: Something that does cause problems with age is the accumulation of calcium and phosphate in calcified tissues – arteries, etc. This is caused by calcium, phosphate and old age – not by fluoride. But because calcified softer tissues contain reactive forms of calcium (often amorphous calcium phosphates) they act as sites for adsorption of any fluoride around. This fact is used disingenuously by many anti-fluoride campaigners to claim F is the cause of calcification – it just isn’t.
One example is the observation by Luke that the pineal gland in 11 aged cadavers contain high amounts of F – that was associated with the calcification of these glands . Again – that calcification is caused by Ca, PO4 and old age – not be F. (The amorphous CaPO4 provides sites for F absorption.
6: I don’t know how you can consider the long-term problems faced by the aged as “invisible.” They are not invisible to the sufferers or to researchers – just scan the literature.
7: Regarding mathematical calculations – these are only as good as the assumptions, the models used. Your faulty claims would lead to a faulty prediction. In such matters. it is always best to actually measure such things rather than rely on a mathematical prediction.
In fact, your suggestion to “do the maths” is actually very bad science.
LikeLike
You’re either totally poisoned and pacified with fluoride, or you are an utter moron if you are seriously trying to make out that fluoride is in any way safe. Seriously.. wake up.
LikeLike
The thing that confuses me is why people are so for flouride in the drinking water. Surely it’s not a big issue to not put flouride in drinking water? Then people that want to use flouride can through dental products and those that don’t don’t needs too. We don’t add flouride to the water in my country and its really never been a problem lol if someone suggested it be introduced I would imagine people would be fairly wary due to it never being an issue before… Is there any real reason people are so zealous in the defence of forcing people to use flouride? Surely people should have a right to choose without giving up their right to drinking water.
LikeLike
Zach, what are the natural levels of fluoride in the drinking water in your country? (What country is it anyway?)
Perhaps CWF is not an issue because it is not necessary.
LikeLike
It really annoys me when people spread misinformation about ADHD and Autism.
LikeLike
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/fulltext
LikeLike
Oana Brandus – what is your reason for posting in this comment exactly the same link mentioned in my article?
Or did you not bother reading the article? 🙂
LikeLike
Fluoride is a neurotoxin. It is not good for you in any way, shape or form. I am not here to debate. These are the facts. If you believe otherwise, you are denying the facts. Facts speak for themselves. Your beliefs are not facts. PERIOD!
LikeLike
Mark – I did consider not releasing your comment from moderation. After all, if you are not here to debate and just wish to present your beliefs as facts – what is the point? Why comment? Why should anyone respond? Why should I allow such comments?
But you are welcome to join the discussion. For a start – can you tell me where you got the word “neurotoxin from? It does not appear in the body of the paper being discussed (only used a search term) and it certainly doesn’t describe what the paper discussed.
Then perhaps you could tell us what the paper says about fluoride and what evidence, citations, they use for it.
But, please, no more unsubstantiated declarations of belief. That will just lead to you being put back into moderation.
LikeLike
Read this: http://wearechange.org/fluoride-officially-classified-neurotoxin-worlds-prestigious-medical-journal/
LikeLike
Bartos, surely you didn’t fail to notice this article is specifically about the Lancet paper?
However, if you think the article you cite has any relevance here perhaps you could present the arguments for your case?
At the moment you just come across as a driveby troll.
LikeLike
I arrived here after a friend posted a link to the Lancet “expose” on Facebook. Something smelled a little funny about the whole thing, and the article shed very little light on it, other than a click-bait headline. I figured it would be relatively simple to find actual science-based answers, and… it was!
So just a thank you to Ken, Richard and the other sensible science posters here for providing more than enough information on the topic, and for having seemingly inexhaustible (one might even say masochistic) patience with the non-stop parade of reactionaries that seem unable to string together a coherent argument (or understand one). I spent a good afternoon reading this entire comment thread, and being flabbergasted at the lack of understanding of what science even means, never mind how it works. Not to mention the hypocrisy of people who claim nothing will ever change their minds accusing scientists of being closed-minded.
Anyway, great article. Even better comments.
LikeLike
Even better comments.
Yes, thanks mostly go to Steve and Ken.
The rest of us mostly just pick at the delicious low hanging fruits that the anti science loons deposit here.
I’m still missing ‘our’ Cedric (almost two years gone). It’s a shame he has taken the pip because he disagreed with Ken and me over the reliability of NATO as a source of non-politically biased information.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Give it up already! The dangers of fluoride have been scientifically proven time and time again! Even if there were no proof that fluoride was dangerous if there were even any QUESTION of its safety then it should be removed from the water supply. We are not Guinea pigs! Hey, 30 years ago my mother went through dental school where she would mould Mercury with her bare hands and was told it was perfectly safe. What do these anti-Flouride people you refer to have to gain from pushing their views? Nothing. Thankfully it appears you are fighting a losing battle here!
LikeLike
The Lancet has officially classified Flouride as s neurotoxin. The Lancet is one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals. They have just put fluoride in the same category as arsenic, lead and Mercury.
I get the feeling that you have made up your own mind in what you want to beleive, and you would deny the evidence otherwise regardless. Thing with science is, it’s constantly changing. By clinging onto your old beleifs so tightly that you refuse to entertain any contradicting information you are in effect anti-science.
LikeLike
Joanna – could you please quote the text and link us to the “official: Lancet classification that fluoride is a “neurotoxin?I can not see it anywhere. 🙂
Could you also cite and link to the science that has changed recently regarding fluoride?
LikeLike
Joanne – where is “here?” All recent referenda in New Zealand show majority support for CWF.
LikeLike
This could be interesting
LikeLike
Maybe Joanna is correct about “Flouride”, but hasn’t realised the discussion is about fluoride?
I tend to ignore woo supporters that can’t even manage to spell the substance they are trying to discuss.
LikeLike
Joanna,
“mould Mercury with her bare hands”?
Mercury is a liquid at room temperature. It’s just as mouldable as water is. I think the word you are after is “pour”.
LikeLike
Joanna is just another drive-by troll. What amazes me is these people have come to an article which critically analyses the Grandjean paper and think they are debating it by linking or referring to the paper.
That just tells me they haven’t even bothered to read the article and do not realise it is about the paper they are promoting.
I don’t expect the hear from her again – she has driven by, tossed off her bit of wisdom and done her duty for the day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Stuartg, the dentists (assistants) used to mix together some mercury liquid with varying amounts of other metals like silver or copper to form an amalgam which they moulded with their fingers and pushed into the prepared cavity in a tooth before it became hard. “A 42-year-old woman had been a dental surgery assistant for at least 20 years, and during this time had regularly handled mercury in compounding a dental amalgam which contained just under 40 per cent of metallic mercury.” “The hazard of mercury poisoning in the dental surgery has been frequently discussed and there have been several investigations into this problem. It has, however, been stated (Grossman and Dannenberg, 1949; Frykholm, 1957) that volatised mercury in the air of the dental surgery, which is the main route by which mercury is absorbed, presents no serious risk to dental surgeons and their nurses.” http://www.oocities.org/researchtriangle/2888/dentalasst.html
I think Joanne’s point is that science is never complete.
LikeLike
Don’t be silly, Brian.
Joanne did not have a “point.” She was just a drive-by troll, hadn’t read the article, thought she was clever to refer to The Lancent and obviously has no concept of science, let alone understanding it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AT least she has a sense of Humanity .
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Open Parachute wrote:
> Ken commented: “Don’t be silly, Brian. Joanne did not have a “point.” She > was just a drive-by troll, hadn’t read the article, thought she was clever > to refer to The Lacent and obviously has no concept of science, let alone > understanding it.” >
LikeLike
I disagree, Clark. She may not even be human. Drive-by trolls have all the characteristics of bots. Humans will at least respond and discuss.
LikeLike
Calling someone a troll, non-human or a bot appears to not align with the request for no ad hominems. At a minimum it’s not polite. Joanne/Joanna?? seems to be human as she has concluded that it’s not worth her time to continue the discussion…. something a bot would fail to do.
LikeLike
Calm down, Rick.
I did not call anyone non-human.
I simply pointed out she may be a bot. I guess, if she is human she will participate in the discussion.
As for being a troll – what else do you call someone who makes a comment of the sort she and others have been doing. Coming to an article about the Grddnjean paper and telling me I should read the paper as if I knew nothing about it!?
That, surely, is a sign that the person or bot has simply responded to the word “fluoride” (which a bot can do – yes many humans, too, but the lack of discussion does make one suspicious, doesn’t it?) They have not read the paper.
Anti-fluoride trolls have a real thing about the Grandjean paper. None of them have bothered to read it, they make obviously false claims about it (Lancet doesn’t “officially” classify chemicals), and they get very upset when they are challenged to discuss.
As Joanne is very unlikely to return perhaps you could take her place and justify that sort of behaviour so we can discuss the paper. 🙂
LikeLike
Ken: “..obviously has no concept of science, let alone understanding it.”
Joanne pointed out that it took a while for mainstream science to accept that mercury could be poisoning dentists. And she is saying she believes in the case of fluoride, mainstream science is still in the transitional state of belief exhibited in dentistry when some dentists were starting to use machines to mix amalgam but others still thought them unnecessary.
LikeLike
And yet, Brian, you have to make assumptions and speak for her!!
She clearly does not understand the issues and is not even aware of the content of the article she was commenting.
Why do these people keep making claims that are patently untrue, yet run away when there is any chance to actually discuss their assertions.
LikeLike
Joanne can believe whatever she likes.
Brian Sandle may believe whatever he likes and indeed he often does.
None of their beliefs have anything to do with the scientific method nor with its conclusions.
LikeLike
Richard: ” None of their beliefs have anything to do with the scientific method nor with its conclusions”
Nor does a lot of what is using the perception of science. On a more recent thread:
Stuartg: “and that the woo-masters blame science for social mistakes made by governments, business interests or other opinion drivers in society?”
Please refer me to average science not influenced by them.
LikeLike
soundhill,
Please note, that was a direct quote from Ken’s original comment. Attributing it to me suggests that you did not read Ken’s original blog.
“Please refer me to average science not influenced by them”. Difficult to answer that, and certainly impossible to answer to your satisfaction. What do you mean by “average science?” Who is “them” – woo masters, governments, business interests, or other opinion drivers? To satisfy your own beliefs, you would have to cherry pick among many, many articles (which, of course, you are going to do, anyway).
LikeLike
Brian – do you realise what you are implying with your question – “Please refer me to average science not influenced by them”?
This is the guilty until proven innocent approach used by tyrants. And it takes the load off you to provide evidence for your claims.
LikeLike
Science and Innovation Minister Steven Joyce: “It is important to note that the research [Motu paper] relates only to Marsden Fund funding decisions made up until 2008,” he told the Herald.
“Since that time there have been significant changes including a sizeable increase in the size of the fund, and the objective of the fund extended to require funded projects to be of ‘long-term benefit to New Zealand’.”
LikeLike
So this is your “evidence,” Brian?
As I said:
“Typical conspiracy theory nutter. Determined to discredit the only effective way we have of understanding reality just so weirdos can insert their own mythology.”
You are the guy who clutches at all sorts of flimsy straws to avoid evidence on issues like CWF, who allies himself with big business like Mercola, yet will happily use the products of a science he is attemtpi9nmg to discredit.
Pathetic!
LikeLike
Ken you were trying to separate science and some of the influences on scientists. Now, no, it seems.
Yes I use cars if you call them products of science. But the science is taking a long time to “self correct” in terms of climate change. And it has set in motion processes that may not be correctable.
If ” the only effective way we have of understanding reality” involves our so-called independent funder helping along GMO companies as
I demonstrated on the other thread, then I assert it may not be trusted. For GMO companies are in it for profit and control, so will try to suppress whistle-blowers who are bringing public-good science.
LikeLike
Brian, you demonstrated nothing – except your incredible bias and motivated anti-science propaganda.
Science works by checking ideas against reality – not against gods, the requirements of “natural”/alternative health industry or other big business. Reality is what keeps us honest.
Yes, commercial interests (like the “natural”/alternative health industry) often do try to suppress the science (I have experienced exactly that). But that is not a fault of the scientific method. And in my case, the problem was suppression of the science for commercial reasons, not me changing my conclusions at all. They still stand because they have objective support in reality.
Where the hell are you getting the idea that science is “self-correcting” in terms of climate change? And where is your “long time” comi9ng from. Similalry, you confuse the issue by saying “science” sets something in motion. You are blaming search for understanding and knowledge for causing our problems when in fact they are the solution.
Yes, there are influences on science – and on all of us. For example, the influence of pseudoscientific big business represented by Mercola is clearly seen in your behaviour. And you do nothing to protect yourself from such an unhealthy influence.
LikeLike
Ken on the other thread you wrote or quoted:”Science had already concluded that cigarettes were unhealthy a half century before those ads.”
“Once real epidemiological studies were published in peer-reviewed journals, the attitude about smoking changed almost immediately in the medical and general scientific community. And that’s how real science works–it self-corrects.””
Can you apply that logic to climate change and fossil fuel science?
Mercola is not very big business. I see he also refers to Ioannidis which you do not seem to be commenting on.
LikeLike
soundhill,
“Can you apply that logic to climate change and fossil fuel science?”
Yes.
I was taught about fossil fuels and climate change in primary school. The change of attitude of science to climate change occurred decades ago. It’s people with unchangeable belief structures that are preventing science from solving the problem.
“Mercola is not very big business.” At least you’re now acknowledging he is big business, even if not “very” big. How many tens of millions a year turnover does he have to have, in your belief structure, before he becomes “very big business”?
LikeLike
“It’s people with unchangeable belief structures that are preventing science from solving the problem.” So science hasn’t solved it by publishing in peer reviewed journals, unlike the smoking issue. Maybe it is not the journals which do it, after all.
““Mercola is not very big business.” At least you’re now acknowledging he is big business,” Stuartg trying to bend the English idiom. “I am not very wealthy,” in normal English idiom does not mean, “I am at least wealthy.” It could mean, “I am quite poor.”
Here is one estimation of Mercola’s business: his website: http://www.freewebsitereport.org/www.mercola.com
LikeLike
soundhill,
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html – Mercola ordered to refund over US$5 million on tanning beds alone
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/joe-mercola-alternative-health-merchant-promotes-quack-cures-funds-organic-and-anti-gmo-groups/ – estimated at US$4.5 million per annum on only one of his multiple web sites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/four-biggest-quacks-plaguing-america-their-bad-claims-about-science
– all from the first page of my Google search for Mercola, lots more in similar line. Of course, you would not have read these because they contradict your belief system.
However, If you consider Mercola as “quite poor” or even “not very big”, I would be fascinated to find out what your definition of high income for an individual would be.
LikeLike
How the “quite poor” and “not very big” live:
http://newportbeachinteriordesign.com/project/dr-mercola-residence/
Pseudoscience appears to pay very well.
LikeLike
Suartg if you were really a science person you would relate both or all sides.
Mercola would not have been able to publicly continue discussing the benefits of UVB if he were to have gone into a long appeal process.
Last year he agreed not to sell more sunbeds and not appeal. The way the news has been more recently written has considerable unscientific hype.
Do you think “science based medicine” has really left behind the sort of publicity organisations that worked for the tobacco industry?
LikeLike
Mercola did a science degree before his medical degree. He admits he sometimes suggests approaches which have not been proven in a double blind test, which is why some of his products have been stopped. But note Ioannidis how so much (medicine) science has to be corrected, and has been doing iatrogenic damage in the mean time.
LikeLike
Brian, you are super-sensitive to any criticism of Mercola (who we know is financing the anti-science Connett crowd), leaping to his defence at the drop of a hat.
At the same time, you seek to attack and discredit respected scientists.
Are you sure you are nit selling Mercola’s products or similar products? 🙂
LikeLike
Ken, I try not to be two-valued. I do not believe everything Mercola says. But that does not mean I have to totally reject him. Sometimes I put comments on his site.
You say now you are retired you are more free about what you may say publicly. You said scientists can have pressures put on them.
I think “distinguished scientists” may not be strong enough to avoid such pressures as I describe here: Stephen Joyce said that since 2008, funding to and from the “independent” Marsden Fund, has to take into account “long term benefit” to NZ. My feeling is that “long term benefit” is starting to mean “be friendly to the big corporates when you can.” If they will supply a bit of help for a project that may benefit them in a few years, something in transgenics, then add to that. Think more of economic “long term,” than environmental.
On your new “Public discussion of science” thread I quoted, “The objective was to denigrate people by creating “favorable interpretations” to the following questions. “Were these climate skeptics qualified? Were they doing any research in the climate change field? Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry?” This doesn’t answer skeptics questions about the science.”
So that is criticism about my aiming money aspertions, when perhaps I should be trying to get by on people’s understanding of science as I explain it. But it is also criticism of your “distinguished scientist” basis, isn’t it?
Of course we know Mercola funds FAN. Their logo with those of some 14 other organisations he supports is at the bottom of his web pages.
As I have said before I am here to discuss fluoridation, not to campaign for or against it. And I want to be sure the research is tested as strongly as that testing which puts several published scientific articles into the retraction bin every day.
LikeLike
soundhill,
As a scientist, I look at the science.
As a non-scientist, you see two sides to the fluoride/tobacco/AGW discussion… and then claim not to be “two-valued”.
There aren’t two sides to science at all, there is only the science.
Unfortunately some people do not want to follow the science (for whatever reason, often monetary), so invent pseudoscience, then they use the invented pseudoscience, advertising and heavy censorship in order to try to prevent the science becoming common knowledge. Examples are Mercola, Connett and FAN.
These people have believers (example: soundhill1, Joanna, Bartos, many other commenters on this thread) who have been persuaded, by the advertised pseudoscience and other methods, that science is permanently full of errors and is amenable to discussion. They have been made to believe that science is a form of lying by big business, big pharma, big tobacco, big government… (choose your own conspiracy theory here) and that there are lots of “brave maverics” who have the secret knowledge to contradict the science. (Their belief/faith prevents them from seeing that the “brave maverics” often contradict one another with their pseudoscience).
Science does make errors. But the process of science is self correcting and will eventually eliminate those errors. Pseudoscience is full of errors, never acknowledges those errors, is never self correcting, and heavily censors anyone (such as Ken) who tries to point out those errors.
soundhill, we can’t change your beliefs in pseudoscience, because they are beliefs, rely on faith, and have nothing to do with science. Your beliefs in Mercola’s pseudoscience, anti-fluoride, anti-AGW, etc, can never be changed simply because the way you arrived at them was contrary to the scientific method.
We try to point out to others the pseudoscience in your beliefs in order that they may recognise the beliefs for what they are – faith in fantasy. Thus we hope to educate the people who have not yet been fully sucked (suckered?) into the fantasy world of pseudoscience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stuartg: “As a non-scientist, you see two sides to the fluoride/tobacco/AGW discussion… and then claim not to be “two-valued”.”
Indeed. Try not to come to a conclusion before looking at the arguments people are using, frequently to push one side or the other.
“There aren’t two sides to science at all, there is only the science.”
But so often it is done not as an exercise in finding out but to sell something. (Ioannidis.) Because there is so little funding for finding out stuff for fun now.
“Unfortunately some people do not want to follow the science (for whatever reason, often monetary),”
Exactly
“so invent pseudoscience, then they use the invented pseudoscience,”
Or else they just publish studies which gave positive results, and hide the others.
“advertising and heavy censorship in order to try to prevent the science becoming common knowledge. Examples are Mercola, Connett and FAN.”
If I am suspicious about something on Mercola’s website, then I comment. One is the amalgam fillings thing where I believe the risk of amalgam removal may be worse then leaving it in the tooth: replacing with a composite filling which may have to be large to fill the big undercut cavity the amalgam left. Composites shrink and cause pain , pull away at the margins if large and decay sets in. Besides the contain dimethacrylates things like BisGMA which can be constantly leaching out their xenoestrogens.
The composite sellers say the amalgam sellers are making too much money. But personally I imagine amalgam replacement is ver big business. But my little voice is not much. I may have encouraged some people to look for better types of replacements: procelains &c, which are tough on opposing teeth and expensive, gold.
“been persuaded, by the advertised pseudoscience and other methods, that science is permanently full of errors and is amenable to discussion.”
I think you are trying to conflate the process of science with the results of scientific experiments.
Of course particular experiments’ results are up for discussion.
There “science” has bigger problems because being a pure scientist ad getting it right is quite hard.
Is the process of science itself up for discussion?
There is the branches of epidemiology vs experimental science which I expounded on some months ago.
But beyond that science can be slow. Genetic modification, which many try to sell as science, claims it is great but is being outdone by another form of science, conventional breeding. And I suggest there is dishonesty in claiming a GMO crop is GMO when the main part of its drought resistance is from conventional breeding and a maybe Roundup resistance has been added making the whole crop easy to trace for patent purposes.
Have you followed the Marsh case in Australia where a farmer was selling organic canola and his neighbour went to GMO, which wind below into the organic crop. So the organic farmer sued the GMO farmer for $80,000, and it went to a very high court with Monsanto lawyers involved and he ended up losing and with $800,000 court costs.
People buy organics for may reasons, freedom from herbicides, support for biodiversity, soil structure storing CO2 budget.
As for science against pseudo-science in other aspects, I note sceptic James Randi’s challenge to diviners. It turns out the challenge was not whether they could do better than chance, but twisted into how well they could predict how well they could do.
LikeLike
Ken: “Science works by checking ideas against reality – not against gods, the requirements of “natural”/alternative health industry or other big business. Reality is what keeps us honest.”
An example:
“To his credit, Cannon, who is executive director of cardiometabolic trials at the Harvard Clinical Research Institute, was quick to note in an interview with STAT this week that “we have not seen any clinical benefit” from the drugs. Instead, he said, emerging evidence suggests that “mechanism matters” for LDL — in other words, it’s not how much the blood fat drops but why that’s important for reducing cardiovascular risk.”
https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/19/cholesterol-drug-cetp-inhibitors/
LikeLike
No Brian, my comment on checking ideas against reality did not refer to cherry-picked newspaper reports.
Come off it. Is this you concept of reality?
LikeLike
Ken if science is being corrected the retractions must be reported somewhere. Where else do you know than Retraction Watch which linked to that?
LikeLike
look over there, squirrel!
LikeLike
soundhill,
You said: “I think you are trying to conflate the process of science with the results of scientific experiments.”
Where on earth did you get that thought from? Certainly not from the sentence you only partially quoted. Perhaps repeating it will enable you to realise what I said:
(Pseudoscience inventors) have believers (example: soundhill1, Joanna, Bartos, many other commenters on this thread) who have been persuaded, by the advertised pseudoscience and other methods, that science is permanently full of errors and is amenable to discussion.
I suspect that your faith/belief structure has prevented you from reading what was actually written.
LikeLike
Brian, retractions are used in cases of proven mistakes in data or proven fraudulent studies. They are not a mechanism of “correction” of science.
What you seem incapable of understanding is that most ideas in science are wrong – in some detail or other. No idea corresponds exactly to reality. Hence, the constant development of science leads to improving that correspondence, correcting the mistaken details, etc.
It is silly to consider ideas which are valid, supported by existing evidence, but some detail or other is corrected by later work as requiring retraction.
Mind you, it provides fertile grounds for cherry-pickers wishing to confirm their bias.
As I keep saying – one must approach the scientific literature critically and intelligently.
But with a few commenters here this just falls on deaf ears – perhaps because it does not confirm their biases.
LikeLike
But Ken it seems that the Broadbent study is claimed as “the one” about no affect on IQ of fluoridation. So it cannot be said it is supported. And they are sketchy about the water drunk by the 100 controls as to nitrate and other possible confounders.
LikeLike
Strange, Brian.
You never raised the issue fo a nitrate confounder with all the Chinese studies you favour! And given they produced significant relationships one would think that is the right time to do so. 🙂
LikeLike
soundhill,
Community water fluoridation has been used for decades, for millions if not hundreds of millions of people. If CWF was capable of altering IQ, then it has had plenty of time to demonstrate the effect in those many communities.
For some reason, although IQ is routinely measured in CWF and non-CWF communities around the world, no decrease in IQ has been able to be measured in any of those communities that have adopted fluoridation. Maybe it is because there is no measurable effect on IQ of CWF?
You claim that CWF reduces IQ – well it’s up to you to produce the evidence.
You can look up the IQ distribution, exam pass rates, other indicators of IQ, in thousands of communities before and after CWF. Do so. Show us the communities that have decreased IQ after CWF. Minor papers from communities with naturally occurring high water fluoride don’t say anything about CWF.
Broadbent is one paper that looked at CWF and IQ. It merely supports the worldwide decades of experience of the thousands of communities, millions of people, who have CWF.
LikeLike
Ken, the Chinese study I was talking about related to fluoride levels related to fluoridation *in combination with low iodide.* I am across the nitrate matter when studying the Dunedin water constituents since then. It would be interesting if nitrate data were available for the Chinese study. It could intensify if not trigger thyroid trouble when iodine is lowish. And of course low iodine can produce cretinism which goes with low IQ. Stuartg may think it is all quite OK if we are not seeing the severe deficits of advanced cretinism.
LikeLike
Brian, you are simply straw clutching. Anything you can invent to raise doubts about a high-quality study like the Otago one and you simply fight hard to prevent any critique of the poor quality studies you, Mercola and FAN promote.
Look at your silly reaction to the Korean studies – simply because they showed what almost every other study has shown that CWF works.
You just come across as slavishly silly. You biases stick out like an extremely sore thumb.
LikeLike
Stuartg: “For some reason, although IQ is routinely measured in CWF and non-CWF communities around the world, no decrease in IQ has been able to be measured in any of those communities that have adopted fluoridation. Maybe it is because there is no measurable effect on IQ of CWF?”
I think scientists would report if they could not find any effect. If doing an epidemiological type study they would need to allow for such subtle matters as whether populations with higher IQ, therefore more likely to be literate, are more susceptible to apparently-convincing health information, and persuaded to fluoridate.
LikeLike
Ken in the consideration you gave of that Chinese study you looked at the overall fluoride picture without allowing consideration of divergence in the low iodide tail of it.
Broadbent said in an AJPH letter after being challenged by some FAN people, I think, on teh Mosgiel water, that they re-ran their study, taking into account suburb and distance from city centre and found no difference.
Interesting that they had to put in distance from city centre, it seems to quell suburb effect.
LikeLike
soundhill,
“I think scientists would report if they could not find any effect.”
Yesterday, I watched a road for an hour. No-one was speeding, no-one was driving dangerously, no-one was driving too slowly and holding up traffic. As a matter of fact, no cars travelled along that road within the hour. I didn’t report that, either.
LikeLike
soundhill,
You say that CWF does all sorts of nasty things.
So it’s up to you to demonstrate that. It’s not up to everyone else to demonstrate that you are wrong.
None of those nasty things that you assert happen have been reported in the millions of people with CWF over the decades that CWF has been used. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. All you have given is the claims – so where is your evidence?
LikeLike
My evidence could be the football results.
LikeLike
I’ll see your football results and you raise some Lotto results.
LikeLike
It’s a bit of a lotto whether CDHB will require Christchurch to fluoridate. If it does then betting on the rugby results will be harder on the more even playing field across NZ.
LikeLike
Brian – why don’t you contact Paul Connett and pass on to him you research on the effect of fluoridation on NZ rugby?
It could become his 51st reason on his list. 🙂
LikeLike
Ken, what list? And do you reject every point on it with equal force of the binary approach?
LikeLike
Brian, I am happy to discuss each point on Paul’s list of 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation with you. In fact, I have covered most of them in my debate with him. Perhaps you should read it instead if making silly comments about binary approaches and out-of-hand rejection. That is not how science, or scientific discussion, works.
LikeLike
Binary approach?
You mean like the belief: “fluoride bad, no fluoride good”?
soundhill, Ken follows the science wherever it may lead. Your own beliefs demonstrate the “binary approach” you appear so concerned about – faith/belief in an idea and then cherry picking with rejection of anything that contradicts that belief.
LikeLike
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/fulltext
LikeLike
Marilee – did you not read my post? did you not see it discussed this paper you link to and also provided a link to it?
What the hell is the purpose of your comment except to waste space?
LikeLike
Ken: “Brian, I am happy to discuss each point on Paul’s list of 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation with you. In fact, I have covered most of them in my debate with him.”
I don’t see you reply to Tony about Baby Bottle tooth decay.
In his Christchurch address Connett said how in Queensland, parliamentarians were each sent a post card of baby bottle tooth decay just before they voted about fluoridation. The upper teeth get eroded whereas the tongue protects the lower teeth, not fluoride. Education is needed not fluoridation says Connett.
LikeLike
Brian – let’s have the discussion at https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/07/22/the-putin-diversion/#comment-76293
LikeLike
Hitler gave high fluoride water to the people in his camps coz he cared so much for their health and teath, right? NOT !
He administered them with it as regular exposure to fluoride makes people more docile like a flok of sheep !
Judging by so many of the comments on this page and all the idiots supporting hillary or trump rather than abstaining from voting – I see it works !
LikeLike
Pingback: NHMRC Fluoride paper: Relax, Australian citizens, your pineal glands are safe - News blog
let’s be realistic. the fluoride is a chemical that has the function to make the cleanest water as crystal clear and little more than that … but being that fluoride is an anti-limescale (some say) it itself is extremely corrosive, it is not reason especially that fluoride is stored in special containers, if not dangerous would not be necessary … plastic is corroded by fluorine in no time, the metal is corroded by fluorine in no time, only the shells made of resin treatment special is tough for a while. They banned the use of bleach because it was dangerous !! but studies done, and that went unnoticed to most of the world show that the bleach used in drinking water in equal amounts to the fluoride used is more effective and less dangerous to public health. the difference is that it is cheaper than fluoride and it is not appropriate for the industry !!
LikeLike
Yes, Martim, let’s be realistic. Please provide your evidence, citations, etc., that fluoride at the concentrations used in community water fluoridation (about 0.7 ppm) is “extremely corrosive,”is stored in special containers,” corrodes plastic and metal “in no time.”
Or is this just a naive attempt to distract attention from my article?
LikeLike
yes you are quite right, Ken !! But plese !!!! do yourself a favor and search for (hydrofluoric acid in drinking water) that is what you know as fluoride, that is supposed to be added to drinking water . actually is one of the known more corrosive acids existing … which is used in thermonuclear plants … but find out for yourself !! I personally worked in places like the one described above (due to my line of work, which is not relevant to you) and saw its destructive capacity … but that’s just me and is my opinion. you believe what you want !! and no, I’m not trying to untwist the article, everyone is free to give your own opinion. you ask me for facts … here is only one!!! against facts there is not arguments …
LikeLike
Martim – I am a chemist so know about hydrofluoric acid. It is definitely not used in the fluoridation of drinking water so is irrelevant here.
You seem to have been misinformed.
LikeLike
ok, let’s provide some education here. Fluoride in its natural state is labelled F- and is very rarely found alone, it is mostly found attached to other elements so it needs to get extracted. Now the “fluoride” found in city water is mostly hydrofluorisilic acid which is a CHEMICAL WASTE by product of the phosphate mines like the ones in Florida. This is very toxic and less than a cup is deadly if ingested. It is highly corrosive and city employees who handle that stuff have to wear a full hazmat suit. Mercury is poisonous, I don’t care if you dilute it in water, it’s still is poisonous. let’s stop calling things the wrong thing, fluoride in city water is not FLUORIDE!!!!! Freedom of speech is a great thing but most should really do their research before opening their mouth.
LikeLike
Steve, I find your comment weird. You are arrogantly undertaking to “provide some education” yet see completely unable to- you seem completely ignorant of the chemistry of fluoride and fluorosilicic acid.
I have provided a simple explanation of this chemistry in my article Fluoridation: Some simple chemistry. I suggest you a read it.
But some relevant aspects:
1: Fluorine occurs naturally as the fluoride anion in minerals like apatite (yes the same mineral that is in your bones and teeth) and fluorite. When these dissolve in water the fluoride exists as the hydrated fluoride anion (read the article if you do not understand that). In solution it is not normally “attached” to other elements – although soluble complexes can occur. If the concentration of Ca2+ and F- is high enough then CaF2 will precipitate – but these ions are not “attached” in solution. (By the way, although relatively insoluble “natural” CaF2 will support a concentration of fluoride in water [naturally] much higher than the extremely low concentrations used in community water fluoridation).
2: The fluorine in your tap water (and in unfluoridated water) is the self-same hydrated fluoride anion – irrespective of the compound used for fluoridation. Fluorosilicic acid, for example, decomposes when diluted with water to form silica and the hydrated fluoride anion. Fluorosilicic acid cannot exist at the extremely low dilutions used in community water fluoridation and it is simply just not found in tap water.
3: Irrespective of how fluorosilicic acid is manufactured it can only be a waste if it is unused and requires disposal. If it is sold as a useful material it is a product. Yet, a byproduct of the phosphate industry (just as phosphate would be a byproduct of the fluoride industry when manufactured this way.
4: Only a fool would drink a cup of fluorosilicic acid, or of chlorine, aluminium sulphate, permanganate or any of the myriad of concentrated chemicals used in water treatment. And by using that argument you are also identifying yourself as a fool.
5: To conclude – fluoride in drinking water is fluoride, the hydrated fluoride anion. It is not fluorosilicic acid. It is not hydrofluoric acid. It is fluoride.
Now I suggest you yourself show some humility and do a bit of reading (or as you arrogantly call it – research) before attempting to teach others.
LikeLike
so what you are saying is that because of hydrofluoric acid’s high solubility in water, instead of keeping millions of gallons of that stuff in open ponds in Florida and waiting for the next big ecological nightmare, we could just dump it in the ocean and waterways! It would be a safe way of disposing of this deadly chemical?
LikeLike
No, I am not saying that. Read my comment again – right through this time, Steve. It would be impossible to keep millions of gallons of hydrofluoric acid in open ponds.
I was simply correcting some of your chemical mistakes and suggesting you do a bit of basic chemical reading before pretending to “educate” others.
LikeLike
Ken do you disagree with Paul Connett when he says it not to be OK to dispose of “the stuff” in sea or waterways?
Organisms are affected by such small changes in their environment. They have learned that a small change may foretell of a larger one so to start immediate avoidance.
With the tiny change of sea temperature of the Atlantic Ocean fish are moving north.
Something as minimal as presence as a fewer extra minutes of light can start animals to moult or change coat colour. “They know” hotter days to be coming.
What change in oceanic fluoride concentration may be a biological signal?
Response adjustments may be possible over long duration. But what stress is placed?
LikeLike
Yes, I disagree with Connett. Once again he is completely wrong.
it is possible to dump waste into oceans â provided the regulations are fulfilled.
There is no blanket ban on such things. But it is regulated.
LikeLike
soundhill1 forgets that most oceans have a fluoride concentration of 1 PPM or slightly more. Fluoride at .7PPM would make no difference
LikeLike
But Ken I fear the advisers of the regulators are not sufficiently trained.
An example is Roundup herbicide which has been said to be safe because its “principal” ingredient, glyphosate, is said to be safer than other herbicides.
Tests have been based on glyphosate’s use in isolation of the surfactants which are in Roundup formulation and which allow the glyphosate across the cell wall.
The advisers only understood additive effects and not interactive effects.
(I don’t know where they are with Monsanto being taken over by the chemical company Bayer. Weed resistance to Roundup has been getting bad and new GMO crops have been introduced resistant to 2:4-D etc. I think they are trying to sell their old technology in NZ for a few years till the resistance develops here. Hopefully we avoid TPPA.)
Besides interactive and additive (confounding) effects there is also mediative effect.
I think an example of a mediative effect is that if you catch cowpox you are less likely to later catch smallpox.
I am not sure if low iodine mediates fluoride toxicity which could happen in a river, or whether there be interaction: something like halogenic competition.
LikeLike
Chris if fluoride were dumped in the sea it would increase the local concentration above 1ppm or whatever the local figure is.
You are like saying when the night and day are both 720 minutes each a change of only 20 as spring comes is not going to cause any difference. But the hormonal changes in animals start.
I think the fish will start to move away when they feel the beginnings of an increase, just the way they are doing with such a small change in ocean temperature.
LikeLike
how can it increase the level ,when it is below the level already there
LikeLike
Chris Price, Steve wasn’t talking about sewage outfall from a town supply which is fluoridated. He was asking that if it be safe to have the town water supply dilute the fluoroslicic acid why not a river or the sea be allowed to be used to dilute it/get rid of it.
A lot has gone into the west Christchurch air from the superphosphate factory, and windows in the area have got cloudy from the attack on them.
LikeLike
So really that is the factory problem, all super contains fluoride After all it is a natural mineral. And this scenario has nothing to do with C.W.F
LikeLike
Chris, Steve is suggesting that it is a factory problem and they have found they can pass the gas through water to clean it, but then what are they to do with the cleaning water? Dump it in river or sea? Form a calcium compound with it and bury it away from ground water? Or get going with the propaganda machine to get cities to buy it and dilute it in the drinking water?
LikeLike
soundhill,
I have to agree with Chris.
If CWF (F concentration ~0.7ppm) is dumped at sea (F concentration ~1.1ppm, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/fluoride/fluoridetoo-01.html ), how can that raise the concentration of fluoride in sea water?
LikeLike
Brian â this is pathetic: âOr get going with the propaganda machine to get cities to buy it and dilute it in the drinking water?â
More than pathetic it is idiotic.
Can you cite even one example of a phosphate factory issuing propaganda like this?
Of course not.
It is idiotic.
LikeLike
Ken I think it would be conglomerates. These people have not got the rest of this public: “IFA : International Fertilizer Industry Association – Nutritional value …
http://www.fertilizer.org/layout/set/print/HomePage/…/Human-health/Nutritional-value.html
In its fluoride form, fluorine (Fl) is beneficial for dental health, but it becomes toxic at fairly low levels. Iodine (I) is primarily needed for the healthy functioning of”
In amongst other things being promoted, cement…
LikeLike
Yes, Stuartg, but why would Chris be thinking of 0.7 mg/L as the amount a fertiliser plant would be emitting?
Your cite was interesting: “Wastewater from aluminum, stainless steel and phosphate fertilizer plants can contain 8-70 mg/L of fluoride (Rose and Marier, 1977). Stack emissions, spillage and fugitive dust from these various industries release fluoride to the environment (McNeely et al. , 1979; and McKee and Wolf, 1963) and very high local concentrations may occur as a result (Warrington, 1987), causing damage to forests, grazing lands and aquatic habitats”
LikeLike
And thanks for the data on ratio of fluoride to chloride. This would be characteristic for each river mouth, I would guess and be part of fish instinctive navigation, same as birds use smell sense, and they may both use magnetic fields.
Near the outfall the water would not be quite as low in F/Cl ratio as the fish knew from the past. I suppose some of them may adjust a bit.
Say again it is not just an additive thing, interactions happen between constituents.
Note about the fungicide prochloraz commonly used in NZ interacting on with other chemicals on sea creatures:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-009-0284-4
LikeLike
Ken, thank you for the chemistry class. I see that you are pro fluoride and the knowledge you have on the subject could either be the thruth or only based on beliefs and what you have red. You see, in today’s information age, people just don’t question fear anymore, they question things that does not make sense. They question things because science says otherwise. Autism rates in the US went from 1 in 10 000 in the 80s when the vaccine schedule was about 7 vaccines to 1 in 50 today when the vaccine schedule iso more than 70 doses of which a child receives about 20 by the time they reach 15. Pure coincidence when it is proven that those vaccinewho all have neurotoxin and the only studissue performed are from the pharmaceutical companies who all got sued at one point of another for false safety claims on many drugs!?!?! To quote Dr. Hirzy,former head of the EPA, “if fluorisilic acid is dumped in the rivers or environment it is called a environmental disaster but when dumped in the water supply it is called a health benefit, amazing!”. I don’t know where you get your fluoride in NZ but in North America it mainly come from the phosphate mines in Florida. Fluorisilic acid is taken as is from the huge cooling ponds which contains many other toxic waste byproducts like arsenic, uranium, mercury and more and then dumped as is in city water. This alone is pure mad science!!! Who funded the studies you rely on? Other studies shows the exact opposite. Find me a country where tooth decay was such a big problem that fluoride helped solve. Fertilizer plants are some of the biggest pollutants of this modern world and we have given then a free way of getting rid of their waste by-product which actually we are paying them to get that crap. This is not done for our health, it is pure evil capitalism in action. A life long exposure to fluoride and chlorine from city water just increases the toxic load on the human body proven by the yearly increase of deaths by cancers.
LikeLike
No Steve, I am not “pro-fluoride” any more than I am “pro-oxygen” or “pro-carbon.” But I am definitely pro-science.
I have simply corrected some of your misleading scientific claims.
But you continue to make outrageously incorrect statements:
Bill Hirzy was never “head of the EPA.” Never. He was simply a union official. He has no scientific credibility.
In fact, he has published 2 paper on fluorosilicic acid – the second paper was an embarrassing withdrawal of the claims in the first paper. He now works for Paul Connet’s fluoride action network as a paid propagandist. He is financed by big business – the “natural”/alternative health industry.
Your naive claims about toxic waste products in fluorosilicic acid are easy to make but you simply cannot justify them with quantitative evidence. I have actually measured contaminants in fluosilicic acid as part of my own research and found them to be incredibly low. (This is one of the reasons I decided to use my blog to counter the unscientific claims being made by anti-fluoride propagandists).
Have a read of my article “Chemophobic scaremongering: Much ado about absolutely nothing.” This shows that any contribution of these contaminants from fluoridation chemicals is generally less than 1% of the contribution of these contaminants from the source water itself.
Research in many countries does actually show that fluoride in drinking water decreases tooth decay. That is a scientific fact. Fluoride is a normal and natural component of bioapatites – the mineral in our bones and teeth.
Your comments are not facts. They are simply the unfounded rantings of the anti-science community.
LikeLike
Brian, your “link” is just pathetic. You made an outrageous claim and simply cannot justify it.
But, typically, instead of withdrawing that silly claim you no desperately search for anything to support it. You have not found any single example at all.
LikeLike
I am not anti science. But science can be manipulate to tell what you want like the tobaco industry have been doing for decades. I give you that, you did your research. That being said please forward me some of those beneficial studies so that I can improve my knowledge !
Thanks
LikeLike
Yes, Steve, science can be manipulated – misrepresented and distorted. And that is exactly what the “natural”/alternative health industry ais doing – just as the tobacco industry did.
You can get an idea of the studies available from my aarricles on fluoide – which usually cite and link to the original research. Just browse through the list.
Alternatively, you could access one of the excellent reviews in the subject – which also cite the original research.
I highly recommend the New Zealand fluoridation review carried out on the commission of the Royal Society of NZ and the Office of the NZ Prime-minister’s Chief Scientific advisor.
The citation (which you can download) is:
Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidence. Retrieved from http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/commissioned-reviews/yr2014/health-effects-of-water-fluoridation/
LikeLike
Ken: “He is financed by big business – the “natural”/alternative health industry.”
You are often trying to simply things, two-valued, leave out interactive effects, balances, only look at chemical damage rather than biochemical-sense triggering/ hormonal effects in an organism.
Connett warns against accepting “natural” stuff. As he says fluoride is natural which does not make it safe. Therefore he warns of organic food when grown with rock phosphate high in fluoride, or bone meal which also will be, or maybe sodium fluoride or other fluorine compounds like cryolite insecticides.
As for my “link” I suppose you mean the removed IFA link which Google still shows a few words of. They seemed now to want only login members to read stuff.
Tell me about the Waikato farmer who had been on the regional council but has just missed getting on to the DHB. I can think of good reasons for him to have tried but also the possible reason of Ravensdown superphosphate producer being a farmer shareholder business. Ravensdown have been recovering but wouldn’t they be wary of a DHB which is antifluoride in the new expectations of DHBs having the say about fluoridation?
LikeLike
Complete fail, Brian. You have failed to provide even one example of this propaganda you claim is coming from fertilsiwer companies. Nothing at all.
But of course the absence of facts do not worry you â so you now create a conspiracy out of farmers standing for local bodies!
I would have thought you would keep well away from such conspiracies seeing there are many examples of people from the ânaturalâ/alternative health industry (and anti-science groups like FFNZ) actually standing for (and some getting) positions on DHBs with the clear contention of creating obstacles to any moves on increasing coverage of a well-accepted, safe and effective social health policy â community water fluoridation.
And the fact is that Connett and his activist group is financed by the ânaturalâ/alternative health industry â your friend Mercola being an obvious and open financer.
LikeLike
Mercola may not be correct about everything.
He supports action against Monsanto.
Since you are against some of the Middle East actions of USA what do you think about this connection of what they are doing in association with their company Monsanto destryong 1000 year old seeds banks and the right of Iraqi farmers to repair them?
LikeLike
Brian, stop this clumsy attempt at distraction.
You made a claim that fertiliser factories were issuing propaganda promoting fluoridation. You have not been able to produce on single case to back up your claim.
You have failed.
LikeLike
Ken I thought I had read about collusion between the aluminium industry and the US Public Health Service somewhere.
The topic of costs of getting rid of fluoride wasste compounds seems prety conspicuous by its absence from internet.
I read a suggestion that because uranium can also be extracted from phosphate ore that it could all be under military secrecy. They can do what they want, cover up what they want with impunity.
LikeLike
Brian, you âthought you had read . . â
No, there was no thought involved. This is purely bias and assumption.
You have made a claim which you can not support with a single piece of evidence.
An honest person would withdraw it and apologise.
But no â you go further and claim there is a cover up and that explains why you cannot support your idiotic claim.
And then you pretend not to understand why no one takes you seriously!
LikeLike
Ken I wrote that with a bit of a smile. But look at this list:
“The “research science” done to support water fluoridation was underwritten by these massive companies:
Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA)
Aluminum Company of Canada
American Petroleum Institute
Dupont
Kaiser Aluminum
Reynolds Steel
US Steel
National Institute of Dental Research”
Perhaps you may contradict that,
http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/fluoride-is-poison/
LikeLike
Brian, looks like you have gone from âwith a bit of a smileâ to a completely manic laugh.
I referred to credible evidence. Not that promoted as a smear by the ânaturalâ/alternative health industry big business.
LikeLike
the only thing missing from the link soundhill1 posted was a interview with a martian
LikeLike
It looks like I be winning.
LikeLike
When did scientific debate become competitive? When did it acquire winners and losers?
LikeLike
Stuartg’s ref: “Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, …”
Stuartg I put in humor and wit.
The humor is in taking on board about talking to Martians and overcoming it.
The wit is pointing out that Chris’s resorting to the Martian assertion really labels the sort of debater which does that. They are trying to create a perception of the other side rather than debate with them, and are losers, ha ha.
LikeLike
Do we research or study discover ‘ fluoride is a natural component’ of the chemistry of bones–given that calcium and fluorine is perhaps the closest we recognised elements–might get to proposing natural elements and chemistry tables? ‘ Fluoride is actually an normal and natural component of bioapatites, our bones and teeth’.
LikeLike
Sound hill1
When you take along hard look at the website the best evidence he can produce is at least 70 years old
Even the recent stuff is wrong
The Mullenix story is completely wrong after submitting her finding she was not “promptly fired”
According to this document, her fluoride had little, if anything to do with it. The reasons she cited for her “unlawful termination” were sexual harassment, sexual discrimination in regard to pay, hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliatory action. Basically, she claimed, maybe justifiably, that she was paid less than male employees doing equal work, and that her firing was partly due to her threats of legal action over her pay, which would be retaliatory. Forsyth claimed that her grant funding, from which her salary was derived, erratic. The conditions of her appointment to Forsyth were temporary, then permanent, then temporary, dependent on whether or not she could secure adequate grant funding. Her appointment was not renewed once or twice, at which time she sought and received unemployment compensation, renewed with “no enthusiasm” by the Trustees, and finally she was just terminated altogether, along with another female employee who had secured another job or something. Whether justified or not, fluoride was not the cause.
The only reference to how fluoride might have been a “cause” was a reference to her research only being “tangential” to the mission of Forsyth, certainly not a major factor in her final termination. This seems to be just typical cherry-picking by Paul. Connett He’s taken one issue, her fluoride research, which had little or nothing to do with her firing and turned it into the sole reason she was fired.
just to give an idea of the real reasons for her firing. Here’s the site of the entire document:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19961085965FSupp120_11059
“It is illegal to dump fluoride into our lakes and rivers, but it is perfectly fine to put in our drinking water and toothpaste.”
The point to remember here is C.W.F is at .7PPM and if that goes into a lake or river it will in most cases be below the natural levels already there. Most are around .7-1.5 PPM So this is just scaremongering.
Not forgetting the “Hidden sources of fluoride’ that have been around since time began. And no data to back anything up. Normal situation with anti fluoride/vaccine people.
He then goes on to mention that” 98% of Europe has rejected fluoride”
According to the State of oral health in Europe report by Patel 2012. Europe fully supports fluoride in all is delivery forms.
And now at the bottom of the page we see the contents of his water filter Wow And do we see the chemical analysis of these contents. No. Well if the case is so strong Where is the scientific evidence??
Looking at this as a paper that can be quoted as evidence of the dangers of Fluoride is a joke
And as such I stand by my comment . “The only thing missing is an interview with a Martian” Mind that could be next week
LikeLike
I am not a scientist, but I can read. I read so many published research studies that Ken listed above and all bad-mouth water fluoridation. I’d like to read research studies that refuted above mentioned published studies from reputable universities. Ken, could you please recommend a book with lots of good research data to support water fluoridation for Singapore government? They are using an excerpt from the book, “The Hundred-year Lie” to support their water fluoridation practice. I feel that the book is too weak and we need a better book to support our water fluoridation practice. By the way, how can an individual calculate one’s daily fluoride intake to reduce risk of fluorosis? Thank you.
LikeLike
Sorry, irene, for the delay. other issues had got in the way.
I book I can recommend is Buzalaf, M. (2011). Fluoride in the oral environment. Monographs in Oral Science, 22. It ocntains a number of review articles abotu different aspects. Here is the Contents List:
Contents
IX List of Contributors
XI Foreword
Robinson, C. (Leeds)
Fluoride Intake, Metabolism and Toxicity
1 Fluoride Intake of Children: Considerations for Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis
Buzalaf, M.A.R. (Bauru); Levy, S.M. (Iowa City, Iowa)
20 Fluoride Metabolism
Buzalaf, M.A.R. (Bauru); Whitford, G.M. (Augusta, Ga.)
37 Contemporary Biological Markers of Exposure to Fluoride
Rugg-Gunn, A.J. (Newcastle upon Tyne); Villa, A.E. (Santiago); Buzalaf, M.A.R. (Bauru)
52 Historical and Recent Biological Markers of Exposure to Fluoride
Pessan, J.P. (Araçatuba); Buzalaf, M.A.R. (Bauru)
66 Acute Toxicity of Ingested Fluoride
Whitford, G.M. (Augusta, Ga.)
81 Chronic Fluoride Toxicity: Dental Fluorosis
DenBesten, P.; Li, W. (San Francisco, Calif.)
Impact of Fluoride in the Prevention of Caries and Erosion
97 Mechanisms of Action of Fluoride for Caries Control
Buzalaf, M.A.R. (Bauru); Pessan, J.P. (Araçatuba); Honório, H.M. (Bauru);
ten Cate, J.M. (Amsterdam)
115 Topical Use of Fluorides for Caries Control
Pessan, J.P. (Araçatuba); Toumba, K.J. (Leeds); Buzalaf, M.A.R. (Bauru)
133 Systemic Fluoride
Sampaio, F.C. (João Pessoa); Levy, S.M. (Iowa City, Iowa)
VII
146 Oral Fluoride Reservoirs and the Prevention of Dental Caries
Vogel, G.L. (Gaithersburg, Md.)
158 Fluoride in Dental Erosion
Magalhães, A.C. (Bauru); Wiegand, A. (Zurich); Rios, D.; Buzalaf, M.A.R. (Bauru); Lussi, A. (Bern)
171 Author Index
172 Subject Index
VIII
As for ones daily intake – I would have a look at documentation held by your health authorities.
LikeLike
You saved the best joke for the end!
Here’s how I think you do it Irene, sorry I’m a bit late. https://twitter.com/turizemptuj/status/1153476426714079232
As for your intake, I’m pretty sure the health authorities in fluoridated Lincoln never knew what I was having for dinner, if that saves you from asking yours.
Ken omits the very obvious source on estimating fluoride intake, Environmental Fluoride 1977 by Marier and Rose, because it contains this and other information about, and you might say a whole wokeness, to fluoride through its pan-disciplinary approach, unmatched since then unfortunately. None of this is useful to the fluoridation religion.
It isn’t clear why he defends it, and anyone who contributes here is definitely being scoped, although I am not quite at the point of doubting his sincerity. He speaks to the topic of confirmation bias.
The order in which events occur often shape our value judgements into a lens through which later information is viewed, and the related problem of sunk cost error is underestimated.
LikeLike
I’d believe the following is how results should be expected and then science reviewed:: “If artificial fluoridation causes deaths among individuals who are for one reason or another more sensitive to fluoride toxicity than in the total population taken as a whole, then the controversy over whether fluoridation does or does not reduce caries becomes purely academic because it is criminal to implement a so-called public health measure which kills certain people even if it does reduce tooth decay in some of the survivors.”1
We have been told that fluoridation is economical because it lowers the cost of dental care. But, even if that were true, “let us get our priorities right. If it is economic to poison people, then there must be something wrong with economics.”
http://www.fluoridation.com/schatz.htm
Did we only have capable persons before closed borders~~thanks
LikeLike
Mcpherson Robert – could you present some evidence for your claim that community water fluoridation “causes deaths among individuals who are for one reason or another more sensitive to fluoride toxicity than in the total population taken as a whole”?
LikeLike
turizemptuj – this article discusses problems with the Grandjean & Landrigan paper – I do not discuss fluoride intake at all. So I have no idea why you have made this comment.
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=aso&authuser=0&biw=1853&bih=900&ei=Nl06XbX8NMyb9QOo246YAg&q=dean+burk+fluoride&oq=dean+burk&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l10.39638343.39648929..39659777…1.0..0.259.1746.0j9j1……0….1..gws-wiz…….0i67j0i131j35i39j0i131i67.CJZN1q1Zw_I
LikeLike
Mcpherson, Robert
Dean Burk? I believe you misinterpreted Ken’s request. In all likelihood he meant valid evidence to support your claim of “deaths fro fluoridation”……not unsubstantiated nonsense.
Burk was educated in the 1920s, went off the deep end in regard to water fluoridation in the 1960s-70s, and put forth absurd, unsubstantiated claims about the initiative that are soundly refuted by the peer-reviewed science.
I repeat Ken’s request with the caveat of your evidence being from legitimate, respected sources, not affiliated with little antifluoridationist websites.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Schatz, A. Increased death rates in Chile associated with artificial fluoridation of drinking water, with implications for other countries. Journal of Arts, Science, and Humanities 2:1-17, 1976. http://www.fluoridation.com/authors.htm#Albert%20Schatz
LikeLike
Your link does not connect to the paper.
As a scientist, I am interested in the data (which enables me to make a critical assessment) not an unconnected link, title of CURRICULUM VITAE!
Please present to me the evidence. A proper link to the paper could help. Have you read it yourself?
LikeLike
Mcpherson Robert – I asked for evidence, not a result of your google search.
Come on. You made a claim. What do you have to support this claim?
For myself, despite a wide reading of the scientific literature, I have never seen a single bit of evidence that normal community water fluoridation has caused any deaths – except the one incidence in Alaska where a fault in the automatic water supply caused very excessive poisoning leading to one death.
Evidence please – put up or . . .
LikeLike
Tohyama E, Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan., J Epidemiol, 1996 Dec, 6 (4), 184-191.
The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. The main findings were as follows. (1) A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities (r = 0.626, p < 0.005). (2) Even after adjusting for the potential confounding variables, such as tap water diffusion rate, primary industry population ratio, income gap, stillbirth rate, divorce rate, this association was considerably significant. (3) Furthermore, the time trends in the uterine cancer mortality rate appear to be related to changes in water fluoridation practices.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~As for Albert Schatz Rutger by agreeing that Dr, Schatz was the co-discover of streptomycin it also would be feasible –that offering his verbatim statements — is hardly a third party who purportedly is — then making claims (??) –[CITATION] Increased death rates in Chile associated with artificial fluoridation of drinking water, with implications for other countries
A Schatz – Journal of arts, science, and humanities, 1976 – bases.bireme.br
Base de dados : REPIDISCA. Pesquisa : 155947 [Identificador único]. Referências encontradas :
1 [refinar]. Mostrando: 1 .. 1 no formato [Detalhado]. página 1 de 1, 1 / 1, REPIDISCA, seleciona.
para imprimir. Fotocópia. Id: 155947. Autor: Schatz, Albert. Título: Increased death rates in Chile
associated with artificial fluoridation of drinking water, with implications for other countries. Fonte:
Journal of arts, science, and humanities;2(1):1, 1976. Idioma: En …
LikeLike
Mcpherson Robert – I notice you did not provide a link to Tohyama’s paper. I wonder why? Have you read it or do you only have access to the abstract you quoted?
Nor do you answer my question about the evidence.
I do have the paper in my database. It refers only to a statistically significant relationship between Uterine Cancer mortality rates and drinking water F concentration. That concentration ranged from 0.02mg/l to 0.37 mg/l. This is lower than the concentration used in community water fluoridation (their Figure shows the concentration during fluoridation of about 0.7 to 0.8 mg/L. CWF fluoridation stopped in 1972 – the data used was collected between 1968 and 1980. This indicates that most samples were taken after CWF ceased – and explains the lower concentrations).
In effect, the study investigates the relationship between Uterine cancer mortality and the natural levels of F in drinking water. It is not a study about community water fluoridation.
However, more significantly, a statistical relationship is not evidence for causation. This is a fundamental point and should be considered whenever studies like this are considered.
The lack of inclusion of significant risk-modifying factors is common.
I refer you to my paper critiquing the Malin & Till ADHD paper – Perrott, K. W. (2018). Fluoridation and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a critique of Malin and Till (2015). British Dental Journal, 223(11), 819–822.
I showed that the statistically significant relationship reported by Malion and Till disappeared once altitude was included as an important risk modifying factor.
Similarly, you could check my article Fluoridation and cancer. There I used =data from Takahashi et al., (2001) which had reported statistically significant relationships of various cancers with fluoride. When geographical data is included the relationships with fluoride disappear.
I quote my conclusion:
Simply put, these sort of studies should always be assessed critically and the data examined. That is the normal scientific approach. Un=fortuantely, too many people simply look to confirm their biases. This is always the case with anti-fluoride and other activists who are ideological driven.
Finally, you did not provide a link to the Schatz paper as I asked. Unfortunately, I do not have this in my database (possibly because it wasn’t published in a credible scientific journal) so I cannot comment on any evidence he/she may have provided.
However, consider this figure apparently originating from Schatz (or at least in one link you provided):
Simple observation tells me there is no statistically significant difference between SIDS in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas n- only someone with no scientific sense would claim there is.
This sort of argument is really desperate. We have lots of information on possible causes of SIDS and its decline in New Zealand – none of it shows F as a cause.
LikeLike
Before we have the world of supposed ultimatums and the logics of rigour calling upon the published and propositional evidences—YOU regards the discovery of the nuclear bomb must totally FAIL to realise that Fluorine rather than the synthetic produced fluorides ALWAYS displays radioactivity. ~~~~~~In turn and for 50 years now THERE never has been a safe dosage argument concerning fluoride actions. . -~~~~We science might barter or quibble over such as –is J Epidemiol, 1996 Dec, 6 (4), 184-191. a link ?? or not and promote our own chosen endeavours instead but imagining that fluoride safety might be established –is by union of scientists congnition an exercise in nonsense and 50 years behind even the understood discovery of uranium . Schatz, A., and Martin J.J. The importance of paradoxical effects of fluoride with respect to fluoridation and the toxicology of fluoridation. Pakistan Dental Review 14:1-16, 1964
LikeLike
Mcpherson Robert – you are burbling. You seem unable to engage in normal scientific discussion.
I looked at the data in Tohyama’s paper and made a scientific assessment of its relevance. Now you seem lost.
why the hell rave on about the nuclear bomb and misrepresent the nature of F isotopes?
And no, my request for a link to the sole paper you rely on is not a quibble. How else can I assess the paper’s relevance without reading it?
Have you bothered to read it or do you simply rely on an abstract?
LikeLike
Obviously The Union of Concerned Scientists must also burble by your logic; so apropos the delight of reading lets be pro-actively or bona-fide smart and for relevance instead enquire–when assessing Tohyama’s (or for that matter any other conducted research on fluoride) -what else as PHYSICAL effects do you think –you might find regards non linear Petkau radiation. ~~For example if you carcinogen or mutagen part per million cannot fathom –that all KNOWN methods of fluoride manufacture release liberated fluorine (which in turn performs ‘radio-mimetically’ sufficiently to be awarded the European World Chemistry Prize 1970 A. Mosca) — and RATHER– would prefer to propogate that it is beyond question demonstrable -that the discoverer of U238 misrepresents the Fluoride ion–then the local dentist might enjoy the crossword and goobledook– but for chemists and chemistry–there is a fluorine ion–but certainly not a FLUORIDE (sic) ION –~~~~~I hardly can see how ‘one track of any known nuclear isotope is carcinogenic’ –could be associated as raving –if ageed by even under graduate text books but– to borrow a term–that is an entirely different question of science than water quality and the viablility of safe consumption.
LikeLike
Mcpherson Robert – you really are not making sense. Just spouting rubbish.
There is indeed a fluoride anion – but not a fluorine ion. Elemental fluorine exists in the molecular form as F2 – not as an ion. All this is simple chemistry.
But, come on. You are not sensibly interacting here.
LikeLike
Interesting and wordly concept ‘rubbish’ when only the US would maintain that hazardous waste determinations– are a safety requirement of assumed sensibilities . So other than hypothetically responding that–an anion ‘in vito’ is not an evidence to support that simple chemistry ‘can know’ — that the Manhattan project teams misrepresented the symbol F then perhaps known and actual would state — that it is EVIDENT from John Goffman’s medical work with hexafluorides to the disclosures of the SOURCES of the water products H FS and H2SiF6 THAT a geiger counter takes over in assessing those substances rather than the chemistry of additive expectations.
As literally and to accomodate the investigation of these observable phenomena the scientific term “supra-linearity” was agreed to be ” the designation whereby ‘paradoxical effects’ displaying radiomimetic properties’ applies to numerous researched substances. By similarly repeated agreement the 1964 conclusions of Schatz regards mortalities applying even to low dosage– still validate today:
” The books by Gofman and Gofman and O’Connor are replete with reports which prove that low doses of radiation are in many cases more harmful than higher doses. These data fit what is called a supra-linear dose response curve, which is significantly different from a linear curve. Gofman and O’Connor conclude that the “linear model may actually underestimate the risk of getting cancer and leukemia. There is, unfortunately, evidence which is accumulating and growing ever stronger that the cancer risk per rad of dose is worse in the low-dose range than in the high dose.” .. Moreover, during the nearly four years of extraordinary scrutiny and widespread peer review of the book in professional journals, scientific symposia and in trials concerning radiation injury, no one has made a single scientifically valid refutation of any of its data, methods, or conclusions. Probably no work in this field has received more review by peers.” .Gofman, J.W., and O’Connor, E. X-Rays: Health Effects of Common Exams. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. 1985
Rather than the supposedly informative that others need to read all the papers that you merely ‘find pertinent’ rather than books – I’d meta -hypothesise that perhaps New Zealand and her science scions appear more comfortable with the Murdoch press as to ‘scientific discoveries’ (and hence ” the apparent importances”) if only due to sensibly “What is complicated with geiger counts and responses” (??) .
LikeLike
Mcpherson Robert – you are away with the birds, I am afraid.
None of your comments here are relevant to the post – or to science in general. You are simply spouting rubbish.
LikeLike
Believe what you like–but as the scientists and persons who World War Two saved the western world by bringing to fruition U 238 when later challenged regards their integrity — openly proposed: ” If you claim that we’ve misrepresented the Fluorine symbol then why not go fully ahead and establish that simple idea?” .
(Would that) be sufficiently relevant to encompass the logic of a subject claiming BAD SCIENCE and dependent only on birds and rubbish as the invocations.
LikeLike