Fluoridation and horses – another myth

Readers following the fluoridation issue have probably come across claims fluoridated water can poison horses. This is just another case of scaremongering by anti-fluoride propagandists – but what is it based on?

The claims go back to Cathy Justus, a horse owner from Pagosa Springs, Colorado. She lost eight horses and four dogs and blames it on their consumption of fluoridated water – which she describes as a “virulent cumulative toxin.” She also claims to “have the sad distinction of owning the first horses to ever be diagnosed with “chronic fluoride poisoning” from artificially fluoridated municipal water.”

Of course, her claim to owning the first horses diagnosed with poisoning by fluoridated water sets off alarm bells straight away. What happened to all the other horses which have consumed fluoridated water? And how could her diagnosis be so different?

What to the experts say?

According to Associate Professor Cynthia Gaskill, toxicology section chief at the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at the University of Kentucky (see Expert discusses fluoridated water and horses in Horsetalk.co.nz):

“A casual internet search of this topic can uncover alarming reports purporting fluoride poisoning in horses from fluoridated municipal water.

“These reports typically are published in non-peer reviewed sources and are missing important information necessary to confirm the diagnosis, to rule out exposure to other fluoride sources, and to eliminate other potential causes.

“A careful review of the peer-reviewed literature in reputable scientific journals showed no published reports documenting fluoride poisoning in horses due to ingestion of fluoridated public water.”

An expert with the Sonoma County Horse Council, Ted S Stashak, concluded in his article The Effects of Artificial Fluoridation of Water (AFW) on Horses:

“Evidence to date indicates that F concentrations allowable in US public water systems are well tolerated by horses and do not cause fluorosis. Supporting this, is a fact that many horses nationwide drink AFW as their major source of water and fluorosis is a  very rarely reported condition.”

Why is Cathy Justus so convinced?

It doesn’t take much background reading to see Cathy Justus may be suffering a bit of confirmation bias. In a long letter to the Baltimore Post Express in 2012 she describes her own beliefs and the symptoms of her animals (see Poisoned Horses: Fluoride debate continues). Have a read of at least some of it and you will get the idea.

Cathy is a dyed in the wool anti-fluoride propagandist. Her letter is full of all the “arguments” and relies on the usual anti-fluoride bibles like The case Against Fluoride, The Fluoride Deception, etc. The letter’s tone is typical of someone with these extreme views. So it comes as no surprise to find she is also Fluoride Action Network’s (FAN) National Spokesperson against Fluoride Poisoning in Animals.

She is convinced that her  animals’ problems were caused by fluoridated water (as are all the health problems humans currently have) and, in her own mind, that this is not observed by other horse owners just indicates their ignorance and brainwashing.

But wait, there’s more

Cath Justus searched around until she found a veterinary expert who agreed with her bias – in this case, Dr. Lennart Krook, Professor Emeritus, Cornell University. So this whole incident got into the “peer-reviewed” (?), “scientific” (?) literature. To be exact, 2 papers and an editorial in the journal Fluoride – which she describes as the “fluoride bible.” You can check them yourself:

  • Krook, L. P., & Justus, C. (2006). Fluoride poisoning of horses from artificially fluoridated drinking water. Fluoride, 39(March), 3–10.
  • Justus, C., & Krook, L. P. (2006). Allergy in horses from artificially fluoridated water. Fluoride, 39(June), 89–94.
  • Sauerheber, R. (2013). Racehorse breakdowns and artificially fluoridated water in Los Angeles. Fluoride, 46(December), 182–191.

As you might expect from that journal these papers are of poor quality – and, in particular, they present no evidence for the firm beliefs that fluoridated water was the cause of the problems described. Or their equally strong assertions that there is no possibility that feed contamination or other usual causes were absent. As Stashak says, these papers:

“are missing important information necessary to confirm that AFW alone was the cause for the signs of chronic fluorosis in these horses.”

A strongly held, motivated, anecdotal opinion is not evidence and would not be accepted as such by any self-respecting scientific journal. For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone could claim such papers are “peer-reviewed.”

All three authors are organisationally connected with the anti-fluoridation movement. Jutsus through here FAN position.  Krook through his membership of the anti-fluoride group Second Look‘s Advisory Board and his membership of the Editorial Board of Fluoride since 1990 and Associate Editor since 2003 (as described in his 2010 obituary of Fluoride).  Saueheber is part of James Deal’s (Attorney Deal) anti-fluoride Fluoride Class Action group.

Conclusion

This is just another example of the way anti-fluoride propagandists attempt to convert their biases into “facts.” They have produced multiple articles in the friendly “natural”/alternative health media, and even a video, to support this particular claim. Their tame “scientific” journal, Fluoride, has been dragged in to give academic credibility – and it is unlikely any reputable journal could have been used for this, given the lack of evidence.

In a rather pathetic footnote, Richard D Sauerheber, author of the editorial referred to, gives his institutional affiliation as University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. He also did this in his one other published paper referred to in my post Calcium fluoride and the “soft” water anti-fluoridation myth. In our discussion there he admitted he does not work at that institution, although he did study there many years ago. This is the first time I have come across an author using their university of study as an institutional affiliation in this way. It is deceptive and aimed purely at attempting to claim credibility to himself and any article where he does this. I would be interested to know what officials at that university think of this practice.

 

35 responses to “Fluoridation and horses – another myth

  1. The pathetic part here Ken is that you can’t see how extreme your views are as you continue to attempt to normalise the sycopathiic tendiencies shown by those who would force others to imbibe their prejudices whether they agree with them or not . . . sad . . . :{

    Like

  2. Steve slott

    YES, Ken!!! The “Horse Tale”………one of my most favorite, antifluoridationist yarns!!

    Ok, so, this woman had no fewer than 6 vets, including one from the University of Colorado School of Veterinary Medicine, tell her that fluoride was not the cause of her horses’ sicknesses and deaths. Undaunted, convinced by her extensive “research” of “both sides” ………..consisting of reading the books of antifluoridationist Chieftain Connett, and “investigative reporter” Bryson……….that her horses had indeed been doomed by the wicked fluoridated water, she shopped around her list of symptoms until she found the good Dr. Krook who had apparently spent the better part of his career chasing fluoride. Naturally Krook agreed with her extensive “research”………and they were off and running to “YouTube” glory and “Fluoride” fame!

    In Justus’ own words:

    “Six vets were consulted (two of which were at CSU) starting in 2000 for my most precious mare Perfectly dun Bonanza (Baby Doe). She had many, many various symptoms; some of which were reproductive, continuous infections, thyroid problems, Cushings (Equine Metabolic Syndrome), lameness, bone deformity, breathing problems, etc. Even though I mentioned to all of these vets that I thought her problems were caused by the fluoride in the drinking water, all of them poo-poo’d me.”

    “I was distraught. I was determined to find the answer. Baby Doe was the fifth horse we had lost and we had lost four dogs too, all with mysterious ailments. During the last 15 years I have done an intense study of fluoride and what it can do to the body. I have read both sides of the issue and there is an overwhelming proof, over 60,000 worldwide independent studies, that fluoride was the culprit of our animals’ illnesses. I got on the phone and started calling from coast to coast to find a lab or a fluoride expert who could help me find the truth, one way or the other, of what was killing my animals. After over a week and a half I contacted Dr. Lennart Krook, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biomedical Sciences, at Cornell University in New York. He is a world authority on fluoride toxicity in animals. He has spent his career of over 50 years studying fluoride and has written 15 peer reviewed articles published in prestigious journals on this subject. I described the many varied symptoms we had seen through the years and he said they all could be related to fluoride poisoning but he would have to have a bone to check for the fluoride content to give a scientific analysis”.

    —–http://www.slweb.org/ftrcpersonalstories_cathy.html

    In regard to Krook’s “15 peer reviewed articles published in prestigious journals on this subject”, a memorium to Krook in that bastion of credibility, “Fluoride”, listed 21 of “selected fluoride publications” of Krook’s. Of these 21, ten were in “Fluoride”, 7 in the “Cornell Veterinarian” a publication of the Vet school at which he taught, 3 in Journal of Nutrition, and 1 in Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health.

    AWESOME bedtime story!!!

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Liked by 2 people

  3. David Fierstien

    As I understand it the horses that were lost were worth millions of dollars. Please correct me if that is wrong. And yet, as air-tight as this case supposedly was against Community Water Fluoridation, there was no lawsuit. This is not the America that I know! Any self-respecting law firm would have been drooling at the prospect of retrieving millions of dollars in compensation for a client.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I agree totally with David. If there was any proof to the claims then there would have been a lawsuit for millions of dollars. That the lawsuit doesn’t exist years later speaks droves about the (lack of) veracity of the claims.

    Also: consider that someone with those beliefs, and worth that amount, deliberately allows the horses to drink fluoridated water because they can’t/won’t buy a $200-$300 water filter to remove fluoride. It almost suggests they were setting up for a court case.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. This simplistic set of claims regarding fluoridation of horses neglects salient facts. The Pagosa Springs water supply is ultra soft with barely detectable calcium. Essentially all ingested fluoride is assimilated from fluoridated soft water in the absence of coincident feeding. There are other factors that of course may have been involved int he poisoning, but the idea that substantial fluoride was ingested from other sources was examined with the reasonable conclusion that other possible sources were minor compared to that from water. The water trough that contained the water for extended periods of time was metallic. Any leaching of aluminum by the fluoride would have exacerbated the poisoning as well. The studies by Varner and coworkers published that aluminum and fluoride together in water are far more injurious to mammals that either separately. aluminum ion is not assimilated well except when fluoride is also present to form aluminum fluoride complexes in the acidic stomach.
    The racehorse breakdown study was no a simple anecdotal note. in fact the data summarized the results of nearly one quarter million horse racing starts over a 12 year period. When water was about 0.3 ppm, the horse breakdown rate was 0.3%. At 0.7 ppm fluoride, the breakdown incidence was about9..7%. And at 1 ppm fluoride,the incidence rate was 1%. How else would one discuss these data other than the reasonable conclusion that fluoridation of horses which produces hydrofluoric acid in the acidic stomach is responsible for missteps that caused bone breaks requiring being euthanized? If you think I’m going to retract the conclusion for reasons listed in this wordpress note, then you are barking up the wrong tree.
    As far as suggesting my affiliation with my alma mater UCSD is somehow wrong, understand that Dr.Benson as my UCSD employer first taught me prior to graduate school that all industrial fluoride compounds lacking calcium are toxic calcium chelators. I worked with Dr. Benson while he operated his lab at UCSD until he passed away early this year at age 96. He helped through the duration of the racehorse study until it was published. Why would I not list this affiliation with UCSD? Because the author of this wordpress piece deems it should be so? As stated before, is this some kind of threat? I remain a member of the UCSD Alumni Association, and I continue to train students who go on to be accepted at UCSD, and I remain in contact with the Chemistry Department. So what?
    The bottom line here is shoot the messenger and don’t discuss the message in significant detail. And for a fluoridaionist this is quite simple. It’s just as simple as what is done routinely already by those who do not oppose whole body fluoridation of man and animals. The action is ineffective, harmful, and illegal, so ignoring facts is no more strange than promoting whole body fluoride dosing in the first place.
    And no mention is made here about the fact that horse teeth do not have enamel surfaces, but instead have cementum organic layering where no vet in his right mind would suggest should be treated with fluoride compounds. Fluoride has no use whatsoever in the horse, just as it has no functional purpose in the bloodstream of man.

    Like

  6. This post corrects typographic errors in the earlier one which can be neglected.
    This simplistic set of claims in WordPress regarding fluoridation of horses neglects salient facts. The Pagosa Springs water supply is ultra soft with barely detectable calcium. Essentially all ingested fluoride is assimilated from fluoridated soft water in the absence of coincident feeding. There are other factors that of course may have been involved in the poisoning, but the idea that substantial fluoride was ingested from other sources was examined with the reasonable conclusion that other possible sources were minor compared to that from water. The water trough that contained the water for extended periods of time was metallic. Any leaching of aluminum by the fluoride could have exacerbated the poisoning as well. The studies by Varner and coworkers published that aluminum and fluoride together in water are far more injurious to mammals than either separately. Aluminum ion is not assimilated well except when fluoride is also present to form aluminum fluoride complexes in the acidic stomach.
    The racehorse breakdown study was not a simple anecdotal note. In fact the data summarized the results of nearly one quarter million horse racing starts over a 12 year period. When water was about 0.3 ppm, the horse breakdown rate was 0.3%. At 0.7 ppm fluoride, the breakdown incidence was about 0..7%. And at 1 ppm fluoride, the incidence rate was 1%. How else would one discuss these data other than the reasonable conclusion that fluoridation of horses which produces hydrofluoric acid in the acidic stomach is possibly responsible for the missteps that caused bone breaks requiring being euthanized? If you think I’m going to retract the conclusion for reasons listed in this wordpress note, then you are barking up the wrong tree.
    As far as suggesting my affiliation with my alma mater UCSD is somehow wrong, understand that Dr. Benson as my UCSD employer first taught me prior to graduate school that all industrial fluoride compounds lacking calcium are toxic calcium chelators. I worked with Dr. Benson in his elder years while he operated his lab at UCSD until he passed away early this year at age 96. He helped through the duration of the racehorse study until it was published. Why would I not list this affiliation with UCSD? Because the author of this WordPress piece deems it should be so? As stated before, is this some kind of a threat? I remain a member of the UCSD Alumni Association, and I continue to train students who go on to be accepted at UCSD, and I remain in contact with the Chemistry Department. So what?
    The bottom line here is to shoot the messenger and don’t discuss the message in significant detail. And for a fluoridationist this is quite simple. It’s just as simple as what is done routinely already by those who do not oppose whole body fluoridation of man and animals. The action is ineffective, harmful, and illegal, so ignoring facts is no more strange than promoting whole body fluoride dosing in the first place.
    And no mention is made here about the fact that horse teeth do not have enamel surfaces, but instead have cementum organic layering where no vet in his right mind would suggest horse teeth should be treated with fluoride compounds. Fluoride has no use whatsoever in the horse, just as it has no functional purpose in the bloodstream of man.

    Like

  7. Richard D., I don’t know where you got the idea that I am advocating you retract that editorial. It is of sufficient standard to be published in the journal Fluoride so I don’t expect the sit or to have a conscience about it.

    But it does illustrate why Fluoride is not considered a reputable journal or that it has a proper peer review system. Your editorial is of such poor quality it discredits itself, and I think should remain there as a warning of the depths to which anti-fluoride propagandists are prepared to sink. You pretend that your personal assurance are evidence, and the journal accepted your assurance.

    With that as an example I am not surprised you have been unable to publish in a proper scientific journal. And I suspect the UCSD would be very unhappy about you dishonestly using them and their reputation in your deceitful list me as your institutional affiliation.

    >

    Like

  8. understand that Dr. Benson as my UCSD employer first taught me prior to graduate school that all industrial fluoride compounds lacking calcium are toxic calcium chelators.

    Be specific. Where you on the University payroll or listed on their academic staff during that period?

    I remain a member of the UCSD Alumni Association, and I continue to train students who go on to be accepted at UCSD, and I remain in contact with the Chemistry Department.

    Bully for you, but that’s not an academic affiliation.As a music teacher, my students go on to study at the university that I also attended, that doesn’t make me an academic associate of the university. I’m in contact with my Member of Parliament, that doesn’t make me an affiliate of Parliament.

    I worked with Dr. Benson in his elder years while he operated his lab at UCSD until he passed away early this year at age 96. He helped through the duration of the racehorse study until it was published. Why would I not list this affiliation with UCSD?

    Be specific. Where you on the University payroll or listed on their academic staff during that period?

    Like

  9. Heather Hastie

    This women says she lost her “precious” horses that she loved because of fluoride in the water supply, and speaks at length of how they suffered. However, she continued to to use that water for her horses. If I had animals I was convinced were suffering because of fluoride in the water supply, I would make sure they were getting unfluoridated water. She is supposed to be the spokesperson for animal health for her organisation – why would they want someone who demonstrates such cruelty to animals (according to their own beliefs) as a representative? This is not an organisation I would want to be a part of even if I agreed with their claims about fluoride.

    Like

  10. “Also: consider that someone with those beliefs, and worth that amount, deliberately allows the horses to drink fluoridated water because they can’t/won’t buy a $200-$300 water filter to remove fluoride. It almost suggests they were setting up for a court case.”

    I think you need a better filter for fluoride, and though they suspected the water when winter came and the horses chose snow and got better they said they did not know the water had been fluoridated. They had trouble getting water from neighbours. 10 horses will need a lot in hot weather. Besides if left in troughs it may evaporate down and concentrate.

    If using reverse osmosis which wastes 85 to 95% of the water then for 10 horses in hot weather you will use of the order of 10 cubic metres per day of water, maybe more dependent on your filter and the evaporation.

    Who knows about these things?

    Like

  11. David Fierstien

    Dr. Sauerheber, I am confused by this statement that I have heard you repeat time and again: “The action is ineffective, harmful, and illegal, . . ”

    1.) This action is ineffective. Answer: Of course it is effective. The roots which led to the initiation of CWF was the effectiveness itself of fluoride in water. This is common knowledge and based on historical fact.

    2.) This action is harmful. Answer: Can you show me one person, of the millions of people who have consumed AFW over the past 70 years, who has gotten cancer, skeletal fluorosis, or any of the other health ailments attributed to CWF? Since there has never been a successful class action lawsuit for health reasons I believe the answer is going to be no. CWF is not harmful.

    3.) This action is illegal. Answer: This is my favorite. Of course CWF is legal. But to play devil’s advocate for a moment, I presume you are basing your statement on the idea that water fluoridation is a drug, and therefore violates the ethics of informed consent. My answer is that this is nonsense. Can you show me one court case which defined artificial water fluoridation as a drug, or medicine? I believe the answer is going to be no. If any issue is worthy of the Supreme Court, it would be the idea of a local government “mass drugging” its citizens against their will. And yet, 13 times the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of this issue for lack of merit. This is scaremongering, plain and simple.

    So my question to you is why do you intentionally attempt to frighten people against a proven health benefit? You sound like an intelligent man. The only answer I can imagine is that there is money in it for you. Can you tell me straight out that there is no money in this for you?

    Like

  12. David Fierstien

    More on the definition of Community Water Fluoridation as a “drug.”

    This is the definition that the Fluoride Action Network uses to define Fluoride as a drug: “Fluoride, when used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal, is a drug . . ”

    Of the many definitions of the word, this is, without doubt, a “cherry picked” definition that works for them. By this definition that FAN uses, cocaine is not a drug. Would FAN object if cocaine was added to a water supply? If so, not because it’s a drug. So, cocaine is ok, but fluoride is not?

    But by the definition itself, I got Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, to admit that Prune Juice is a drug because people use it to treat Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Likewise, Cranberry Juice is a drug, because people drink it for Urinary Tract Infection. Seriously – would any normal parent object if their child was served cranberry juice in school on the basis that their child was drugged? Has a school ever been sued for mass medicating its students by serving juice of any kind?

    Actually, by the definition that FAN uses, water itself is a drug because it is used to treat and prevent dehydration. Is dehydration a disease? Of course it is, by this definition: “a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally.”

    You cherry pick the definition you like for “drug” and I’ll cherry pick the definition I like for “disease.” See – we can both play that game.

    So water is a drug. Municipalities are mass drugging their citizens by giving them water. Do you now understand how ridiculous your argument becomes when pushed to the limit of its logical conclusion?

    Like

  13. David Fierstien

    One more thought on your comment, Dr. Sauerheber. Your quote:

    “As stated before, is this some kind of a threat? . . . .

    The bottom line here is to shoot the messenger and don’t discuss the message in significant detail. And for a fluoridationist this is quite simple. It’s just as simple as what is done routinely already by those who do not oppose whole body fluoridation of man and animals.”

    You must be joking. I have seen anti-fluoride websites in which the admins encourage readers to go to Dr. Steve Slott’s (a pro-fluoride advocate) review and give him a negative review. I have seen negative reviews of him by people who are not his patients. In my opinion this is worthy of a lawsuit, and if it was me I would go after them.

    I have seen pro fluoride advocates called murderers, rapists, child molesters, criminals, pedophiles, freaks, any any number of other vile names by anti-fluoride activists. People’s children have been threatened.

    And you are objecting because people here are questioning your credentials. My answer to you is clean up your own camp before you start finding fault in others.

    Like

  14. I agree with what David Fierstien said. I had never had any contact whatsoever with either the pro or anti fluoride people when I wrote a blog calling for CWF in my own area. I was immediately called a “liar”, “dishonest”, “a freak who loves nothing more than poisoning people against their will”, and accused of “looking down on people” amongst other things. I was shocked by the personal attacks directed at me just for expressing an opinion others don’t agree with and am extremely appreciative of the support I received from other pro-fluoride people in that situation.

    Like

  15. Cathy Justus

    Mr. Parrott, Mr. Slott, Mr. Fierstein, and Stuartg have done it again. You all have blatantly revealed that you have no idea how to do any sort of research. You accuse anti-fluoridationists of cherry picking and misrepresentation when that is exactly what you have done with your ramblings above about what fluoride did to our horses and others. I find your opinions hugely amuzing and entertaining in their flagrant and deliberate misinformation, manipulation of facts, leaving out of pertinent facts, perverting of facts, ignorance of the facts, telling half truths to change the facts, preconceived notions, and your lack of integrity of not at least calling or contacting me to get the facts straight before you put your trash and non-sense out to the public. This action alone reveals that your self proclaimed title, Mr. Perrott, of researcher is merely wishful thinking. An old adage says, “You may think someone doesn’t know what they are talking about and then they open their mouth, or in this case write it down for all to see, and remove all doubt”. You guys did an excellent job of that. Congratulations!

    Now for the truth. Mr. Parrott”s question: What happened to all the other horses who consumed fluoridated water. They are getting sick and dying. Of course not all of them at one time, as our’s didn’t, but little by little since fluoride is a cumulative toxin. The problem is that dentists, doctors, and veterinarians are not taught what fluoride is capable of doing to the body systemically so the they treat symptoms. They think, like you obviously do, that a product that has never had a single safety study done on it, is fine for all to take, no matter the dose, or any other factor figured in such as health, weight, other sources, etc. that may increase the possibility of harm. You also never use the core principal of science which is “dose verses concentration.” Yes alarms should be set off since so many chronic degenerative ailments, proven scientifically to be caused by fluroide consumption have increased significantly since fluoridation began in the U.S. Take a look at the bodily systems affected by fluroide consumtion that he National Research Council’s (NRC) 3 plus year review of recent science on fluoride revealed. Spend the money and buy the book this review generated called Fluoride In Drinking Water. Do your best to understand it. This was the first time the NAS had an unbiased panel of scientists look at the real science of fluoride.

    Colic, for instance, is the number one killer of horses in the U.S. A very easily researchable fact. It was the first chronic symptom to manifest in our horses and many, many others in our town. It was also the first symptom to cease once fluordation ended. Ironic? No! Since fluoride has been proven to do harm to the digestive system and horses have a very delicate one, removing the cause of the disturbance ceased the symptom of chronic colic.
    Obvioulsy since Mr. Parrott and the others didn’t take the time to contact me for further information, you didn’t know of the many other horse owners across the U.S. who have contacted me about their horse’s undiagnosed ailments by many vets. Ailments which abated once their consumption of fluoridated water ceased. Most horse people don’t have or won;t spend the thousands of dollars to have a necropsy done. They would rather spend that money on getting another horse. This especially since their vet was clueless about the cause of the many and varied symptoms that manifested. But when this keeps happening to their horses, they get on the ball and find the truth. Not something any of you have done. Then you add to that if their vet happens to be knowledgable about fluoride poisoning, there are no public fluoride testing labs available. So we have horses dying without a diagnosis of cause of their ailments. We found that out the hard way, time and time again. All of the vets who did necropsies for us only took soft tissue and serum. They didn’t even know to take bones for testing. Cornell University was the only lab we found who knew how to do the research properly to find the truth and reveal it scientifically.

    WHAT DO THE EXPERTS SAY?
    Cynthia Gasgill’s expertise (as you call it) is nil. She had to make a search of the Internet to get any information about fluoride poisoning. Why didn’t she know about it if she is an expert? Because she was never taught about it and does what almost all vets do, treat symptoms, not the cause. She had no clinical or practical knowledge of this subject, which why she had to make “a causal internet search of the topic”. Her quote saying “These reports are typically published in non-peer reviewed sources…” and “A careful review of the peer-reviewed literature in reputable scientific journals showed no published reports documenting fluroide poisoning in horses…” reveals a lot. She totally missed the fact that the two manuscripts on our horses were in the peer-reviewed journal FLUORIDE The Quarterly Journal Of The International Society For
    Fluoride Research. This journal was the journal that was chosen to supply the lion’s share of recent peer-reviewed science on fluoride for th NRC review mentioned above. Do you think that would have been the case if it wasn’t a “reputable scientific journal”? I think you both put your foot in it there. She also never mentions anything about the 1971 cover article on the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association called “Clinical Aspects of Fluorosis In Horses”. Ms. Gasgill and you should have found this if a “causal search” was indeed done. This article details many of the very same ailments our horses manifested but when it came to the amount of fluoride a horse can consume without harm, that amount was highly exagerated at 60 ppm. Why? Further research would have revealed to you that this “guessed at amount” of 60 ppm was repeated in the 1974 NAS-NRC publication “Effects of Fluorides in Animals” and this time the “tolerance level” defined was said to be on the basis of “published data” for the species. So they are taking a guessed at level of 60 ppm in the first paper and repeating it as if it were true and doing so without any justification. On page 52 of this 1974 NRC Animal Nutrition report it says: “No carefully controlled studies have been conducted to determine the effects of excess fluoride ingestion in horses”. Yet, three pages later, Table 4 lists “tolerance level” of 60 ppm F in horses based on published data fo that species. The second statement contradicts the first, and is in obvious conflict with the truth. The Subcommittee promulgating this false data consisted of four biochemists and one veterinarian, at least four of whom had financial support from the fluoride polluting industries. It was on the basis of “research” sponsored by these industries that the tolerance levels of fluoride for horses and cattle were proposed by this committee. By sending out the skeletal material for description by a pathologist, the subcommittee acknowledged its inability and lack of knowledge of how to examine the most important experssion of fluoride intoxication in animals. The only beneficiaries of this NAS-NRC (mis)information are the fluoride polluting industries for which it was written and paid for by. Ted Stashak, your other so called expert you mentioned, has done the same thing as Gaskill and referred to this bad science that has been promulgated through the years and even is printed in the MERC Veterinary Manual for all vets to reference. So if the material veterinarians reference is false, then there will be no good diagnosis or even a suspicion, and as Stashak said, “Fluorosis is a very rarely reported condition”. No doubt just as the promoters of fluoride planned it isn’t it? Add to that there are no public testing labs in the U.S. who know how to test for chronic fluoride poisoning in people and animals, and you have a seemingly perfect plan in line to keep your lies and deceit going. Well the truth is leaking out faster and faster and will be fully revealed soon.

    WHY IS CATHY JUSTUS SO CONVINCED?
    As far as my confirmation bias, as you put it Mr. Perrott, you should have gone to my letter’s referenced site: http://www.myspace.com/poisonedhorses and read the necropsy and tooth reports there, and the scientific reasoning, in pictures in black and white and living color, of why the diganosis of “chronic fluoride poisoning” was reached. It is quite obvious that you can’t understand the words from your comments, so maybe the pictures would help you out.

    As far as me being, as you said, a dyed in the wool anti-fluoridationist propagandist, nothing I say is propaganda. It is what we experienced and was revealed first hand. What first hand experience do you have? You would be against fluoridation too if you had experienced the decades of hell that fluoridation caused not just in our animals, but in many other’s and in so many of our friends. Experince and proven scinece trumps your paid propaganda any day of the week, Mr. Perrott. The fact that our horses were healthy before fluoridation, all the horses we had purchased and boarded during fluoridation got sick and many died, and since fluoridation ceased all the horses we have purchased and boarded have remained well, reveals a lot. This is completely without any other changes.

    Mr. Perrott, you talk of my extreme views when your views are so uneducated, unscientific, random, misguided, short sighted, misinterpreted, unresearched and far from the facts, as were Mr. Slott’s, Mr. Fierstein’s, and Stuartg’s. All of your functional roadmaps go along with pro-fluoridationists practicing the technique of “don’t look, won’t see, doesn’t exist”. Even though you typed in parts of my letter and the links to the peer-reviewed manuscripts on our horses, you obviuolsy never opted to read all the information or couldn’t comprehend what you read if you did read them. That was quite obvious. You say there was no evidence in these manuscripts, yet even if you couldn’t read or comprehend the writing, the photos tell the whole story. And my contact info was at the end of these manuscripts. More proof you never took the time to really examine their contents. And you say you are a researcher. Your opinions and coments have no credence on the content of these manuscripts because your opinions and comments are not science.

    I have always said that I know that fluoride is not the cause of all ailments, but it is the number one most consumed and one of the longest consumed toxins and therefore could very well be the cause of many of today’s chronic degenerative diseases that have increased in incidence since fluoridation began. The real science of the periodic table of hallogens reveals that toxicity. Again Mr. Perrott, you are changing facts by ommission of what I said. As far as ignorance and brainwashing, you are a perfect example of this. Money, I have no doubt, has closed your mind to the truth. And I think that is fine for you if that is the path you choose to follow. But everyone does and should have a choice of what they put into their body and fluoridation ceases that choice. The U.S. Federal court case of Doe vs Rumsfeld upheld that right and fact. Maybe you should do some research on that.

    BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE:
    No I didn’t search around until I found a veterinarian who agreed with my bias. That again is twisting the truth. Again, I searched until I found a veterinarian who knew how to test for fluoride poisoning. Something that not one of the other veterinarians we consulted with knew how to do. We paid thousands of dollars to these veterinrians and got no diagnaosis of anything at all. They were all stumped.

    Your statement that the manuscripts on our horses are of poor quality are in your opinion only. You not comprehending the science is blatantly revealed by this comment. Because you don’t believe that there were no other sources of fluoride contamination present or that other causes were not present, again, reveals your lack of comprehention and lack of your due diligence in finding further facts you needed. There is a mailing address and email address for me listed on the bottom of both manuscripts you reference. You could have contacted me for further information but you decided to write lies and deceptions instead. Again, I can clearly see that your working orders are “don’t look, won’t see, doesn’t exist”. Anecdotal opinions are what you all are spreading. No facts at all. No science or facts to back up anything you say.

    As far as your complaint of the connection of the authors of these manuscripts to FAN, Second Look, Fluoride Class Action, I would put money on the fact that you have ties to most, if not all pro-fluoride organizations. And why wouldn’t we who are against fluoridation all be organizationally connected with the anti-fluoride movement? Are you just trying to take up space making this rediculous statement?

    CONCLUSION:
    It is quite obvious to me, Mr. Perrott, that you have no idea what a “reputable journal” would look like if it bit you. How many manuscripts have you written, had peer reviewed, and had published in reputable journals?

    Mr. Perrott, you criticize Dr. Krook’s credentials. Well Dr. Krook’s credentials would make your credentials fully transparent in comparison. Dr. Krook’s Curriculum Vitae that I have, current until 2004, is a full 24 single spaced pages long. Downgrading Dr. Krook’s reputation does not increase your credibility. All of you have, in your own words, so blatantly revealed your lack of knowledge and your poor reseraching skills on this subject of fluoridation and it’s internal effects.

    Mr. Fierstien, you have highly exaggerated the worth of our horses and also done so without further research to find the truth. That amount never came from me at any time. Yes our horses were expensive but not worth millions as you said. We did have a huge monetary loss, besides the horses though, in vet bills, necropsy fees, breeding fees lost, boarding, hauling, etc. You also need to check with the FDA on your comment about fluoride being a drug. The FDA states that all fluoride products meant for ingestion is an unapproved DRUG.

    Mr. Fierstien and Stuartg both make the assumption that everyone will bring on a lawsuit in this case. That is putting their own inclinations on others and working on speculations, not facts. Our sole goal was to cease fluoridation and we told our municipality that if they did that we would not pursue a lawsuit. With the amount of documentaiton, expert witnesses, and science we had of fluoridation doing harm, they knew we were serious and had an iron clad case against them. Also the citizens of our county revealed to the municipality, at a forum, that they knew the municipality was mass medicating, without signed medical consent, with a non approved FDA drug that had never had a single safety study done on it, without the municipality having a medical license to do so. The public was ready to take them to taks on this angle of personal choice and medical mal-practice if they didn’t cease fluoridation. Fluoridation was ceased just week later in 2005.

    I would like to know what water filter Stuartg knows of for $200. – $300. that would take all the fluoride out of over 150 gallons of water a day? It does not exist. Yet another false statement. Ms. Hatie also makes the unsubstantiated and unresearched assumption we did not look for a non-fluoridated water source. The assertions that we were stupid enough to not search for a filter or other water source and that we were setting up for a court case is, again, not doing your research before you write something down and speculating without having the full story or the information needed. You two didn’t contact me either for the facts.

    Dr. Sauerheber has revealed, time and time again, that he has the backround, knowledge, and credentials to know what he is talking about. You guys have removed all doubt that you have any of this.

    Mr. Perrott, you say anti-fluoridationists cherry pick and misrepresent research when this is excactly what you all have done and put into print here. And Mr. Perrott, you says you are a researcher? That is funny! I think maybe you should work full time on your artwork which fully reveals your twisted view of reality. That would be a good outlet for this instead of taking your frustrations out on those who are trying to give people their health and choice of what they put into their body back.

    Like

  16. Cathy, I realise you are angry at being called out. But let’s just answer one question you put here:

    It is quite obvious to me, Mr. Perrott, that you have no idea what a “reputable journal” would look like if it bit you. How many manuscripts have you written, had peer reviewed, and had published in reputable journals?

    I do have a publication record but like most researchers cannot give you an exact number of my publications in peer reviewed journals (reputable ones at that). I think it is in the 70s but do a search on Google Scholar and you well get the idea. Yes I have experience at publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals and, probably more importantly, I have quite a bit of experience in peer reviewing papers submitted for publication.

    My judgments on the papers I referred to, and the journal Fluoride, are based on that experience.

    One key criticism I can make of the papers you were involved in is that no adequate evidence of the fluoride content of available feed was presented. You provide data for fluoridated water and that is all! If I had been reviewing these papers I would have rejected them until all the data was provided. The fact that the journal published these papers shows what a poor quality journal it is without any proper peer review.

    Like

  17. David Fierstien

    Cathy Justus, thank you for including me in your comment.

    I only asked one question. Why didn’t you pursue a lawsuit for compensation of damages. Dr. Sauerheber gave two answers on this. First he said that after all the vet bills you didn’t have enough resources for that. Then he said that it would have been pointless, you would have lost the suit. After all, every U.S. Surgeon General since Kennedy has endorsed Community Water Fluoridation. His answer is that you would have lost.

    Your answer is that it was “iron clad.” You would have won a lawsuit, but instead you wanted the municipality to end water fluoridation and that was enough. Just the threat of a lawsuit resulted in the municipality ending CWF.

    I don’t believe you. If you had pursued a lawsuit against the municipality, or the EPA for that matter, you would have undoubtedly caused the municipality to end water fluoridation, which is what you wanted, and you would have had compensation for damages, probably millions of dollars. Instead, you chose the same result, the municipality ending CWF, with no compensation. You are obviously a materialistic person. You owned “expensive horses”. You didn’t own them just for the love of horses, because less expensive weren’t enough for you. And you lost your expensive horses because of something you are dead set against! Didn’t you want to send a message? You obviously went to extraordinary lengths after the loss in getting your story out. But a lawsuit was out of the question.

    Sorry, Cathy, on the believeability meter you get a ZERO.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. David Fierstien

    By the way, Cathy, this comment which was intended for me is incorrect: “You also need to check with the FDA on your comment about fluoride being a drug. The FDA states that all fluoride products meant for ingestion is an unapproved DRUG.” This is parrotted endlessly by anti fluoride activists, like yourself, with no thought whatsoever. We are talking about community water fluoridation here over which the EPA has authority. The FDA has no jurisdiction over CWF. Bottled water, on the other hand is considered a “food,” therefore the FDA does have regulatory authority over bottled water. In 2006, the FDA approved the following to be put on bottled water with 0.6-1.0 ppm of fluoride in it: “Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of dental decay.” The main purpose of bottled water is human ingestion.

    Like

  19. Heather Hastie

    There are many causes of colic in horses, most to do with diet and management. Drinking water too fast could cause it, whether or not that water contained fluoride, but that’s about the only link I can make. Although I am not a veterinarian, I do have some experience with horses, and I find it difficult to see how fluorosis could cause colic. I would like to see an opinion from a spokesperson of an organization representing that profession before I could accept a link between fluorosis and colic.

    I am sure you are sincere in your belief that fluoride killed your horses. I have yet to see any evidence that your belief is warranted.

    Like

  20. David Fierstien

    “I am sure you are sincere in your belief that fluoride killed your horses.”

    That may be true, but I doubt it. I think you’re being kind, Heather. She’s a lady who buffaloed a municipality into ending CWF with the threat of a lawsuit: “With the amount of documentaiton, expert witnesses, and science we had of fluoridation doing harm, they knew we were serious and had an iron clad case against them.” Yes, she threatened a lawsuit, but had no intention of carrying it out.

    Even Dr. Sauerheber, whom she praises above, as someone who, “has the backround, knowledge, and credentials to know what he is talking about,” admitted, ” . .the owners were then part of a homeowners association lawsuit and it was blatantly clear how corrupt the court system is non this issue, . .” The Courts are corrupt. That’s why she didn’t sue. . . Please. I guess that goes down a little easier than admitting her case wasn’t provable.

    She buffaloed them and she’s trying to buffalo you by throwing out citations like “Doe vs. Rumsfeld” when arguing against CWF.

    In further attempts at belittling and intimidation, in one breath she says, “You all have blatantly revealed that you have no idea how to do any sort of research.” and in another breath, “This action alone reveals that your self proclaimed title, Mr. Perrott, of researcher is merely wishful thinking.” Wow! Open mouth, insert foot. Dr. Perrott’s response to her was spot on.

    I think it’s becoming increasingly clear what happened in Pagosa Springs. It’s a shame that a scary lady, who has demonstrated here the scant amount of research she does, was able to intimidate a municipality into ending a proven health benefit.

    Like

  21. David Fierstien wrote:
    “And you lost your expensive horses because of something you are dead set against! ”

    David could you please elucidate for me why you think she knew about fluoridation problems before her horses got trouble?
    You might rather have written: “And you lost your expensive horses because of something and so you are now dead set against it! “

    Like

  22. It is not a matter of “knowing,” Brian but of believing. Read her screeds (rants) and you will certainly see she is a dyed in the wool anti-fluoridationist from way back and does not think rationally on the subject.

    The fact that no attempt was made to find the real causes of the problems (as exhibited by the lack of evidence in the papers) shows this too.

    Like

  23. Ken I feel that the way David wrote that was intended to reinforce a belief.

    I listened to a 2011 interview and from that her worry about fluoride and her horses stemmed from after that time of their illnesses

    Are you and David saying that she was anti-fluoride before that? That was my question.

    Then David’s comment might be written, “We know you were antifluoride in the year (state year) which was before your horses became ill, and we believe your story is an anitfluoride set up.”

    Like

  24. Yes, Brian, thta is what I am saying. Read her rants.

    Given that skeletal fluorosis in horses is only known to occur with high dietary intake (eg in rock phosphate amended feed) any objective person would lave looked for such sources instead of blaming the low fluoride water.

    Like

  25. Ken you quoted from a 2005 article if you call this her rant: Justus: “During the last 15 years I have done an intense study of fluoride and what it can do to the body.”
    Which takes her study back to 1990. but fluoridation in Pagosa Springs started in 1985

    Like

  26. David Fierstien

    I’ve said it before and I will probably say it again. Anti fluoride activists believe as they do because they can’t read.

    Soundhill1 writes: ” David Fierstien wrote:
    “And you lost your expensive horses because of something you are dead set against! ”

    David could you please elucidate for me why you think she knew about fluoridation problems before her horses got trouble?
    You might rather have written: “And you lost your expensive horses because of something and so you are now dead set against it! “”

    Really? That’s your problem with my comment? In the English language we have a concept called “tense.” It indicates a time frame. So, for example there is future tense (example: . . . because of something you will be dead set against). There is present tense as we see above ( . . . because of something you are dead set against). And there is past tense ( . . because of something you were dead set against).

    Now, I used the present tense ( . . something you are dead set against), and Soundhill1 is asking me, “David could you please elucidate for me why you think she knew about fluoridation problems before her horses got trouble?”

    That would be a great question, Brian, if I had used the past tense ( . . something you were dead set against).

    Are there any other concepts in the use of the English Language that you are having trouble with? Maybe I can help you with them also.

    Like

  27. So David what is your meaning. Cathy is dead set against fluoridation now. She has lost her horses as she thinks because of fluoridation. So wouldn’t you expect her to be dead against it now?

    Like

  28. Brian, you are trying to make excuses for a woman who is blatantly single-minded in her irrational opposition to CWF and determined to blame this for her horses problems – despite npo evidence.

    Like

  29. David Fierstien

    I’ve said it before and I will probably say it again. Anti fluoride activists believe as they do because they can’t read.

    Like

  30. Cathy,

    The majority of anti-fluoridationists are concerned about fluoride in their domestic water supply. A NZ$200-300 filter will suffice to remove it.

    With a larger requirement for water, your facility obviously requires a correspondingly larger filter capacity, with correspondingly greater cost. It would also be a business expense for you, rather than a domestic expense, and possibly tax deductible.

    Did you install a filter? If not, why not?

    Like

  31. lindarosarn

    The YouTube films of Ms. Justus’ horses notably show that she was feeding them herbs and other supplements. If those horses were made ill by anything they ingested, those would be my suspects, not the fluoridation.

    While we may not be sure of the value of Ms.Justus’ horses, we know that many extremely valuable race horses drink fluoridated water. Their owners would never give them fluoridated water if they had the slightest doubts about its safety.

    Like

  32. Did she start the herbs/supplements before or after they were getting sick? Science, please.

    Are other owners supplying fluoridated water doing anything different about leaving the troughs in the heat to evaporate and concentrate whatever is in the water? Are the troughs deep or wide and shallow with large evaporation surface?

    Is the water supplied at a low rate like a number of places in NZ to reduce use, so has to be stored locally in a tank with further chance of evaporation?

    How was the water treated to make it ready for fluoridation in that village?

    What proportion of their water was coming from fresh green feed in comparison to the other horses you state?

    What was the mg/l in that supply at the time?

    Science please.

    Like

  33. Brian, you should  direct  those questions  to Cathy Justis. Afyer all, she would have that information. 

    Her unwillingness to present full information is a noticeable  feature of her activity. For example she asks readers to accept  her assurance that CWF is the cause of her problem but refuses to provide  full information on feed. The paper  published in Fluoride is noticeable for this – it would never have been published in a credible scientific journal.

    Like

  34. lindarosarn

    More questions for Ms. Justus please:

    What are the “10, 12, 15 types of herbs” – your own mixtures – that you feed your horses?

    How old was your horse with Cushings? Were you treating the horse for Cushings?

    Did you put in an insurance claim for the horses? If so, did you claim fluoride poisoning? What else? Was the claim paid?

    Did you have the water in your stream tested?

    Liked by 1 person

  35. David Fierstien

    I watched the youtube video. Regarding the blend of herbs which includes garlic, whatever she is giving them now does not seem to be having negative effects. If this is the same mixture that was used before the horses became ill is something that only Cathy knows.

    The question that lindarosarn asks about insurance is an excellent point. Before making a payment on a claim, any normal insurance company would see if there was another party to blame and would go after the insurance company of that party. Did her ins. co. go after Pagosa Springs’ ins. co.? Since there is no confidentiality between an insurance company and a client (as with a Dr. or lawyer) perhaps this is something that could be checked. If there was an insurance payout, I would love to see the report.

    One more glaring thing in the video that I couldn’t help notice is that she said her horses and her “4 dogs” became ill and died. At the end of the video she showed the viewers a healthy dog she currently has. She said it is 11 years old and very healthy. Here she is saying, or at least implying, that if your dog drinks fluoridated water (0.7-1.0 ppm) it will become sick and die. (And probably won’t reach the ripe old age of 11.)

    Fluoridated cities all over America, Canada, NZ, Australia etc., are filled with dog owners who own happy healthy pets. If Cathy Justus’ claims were valid there would be an epidemic of sick/ill/dying dogs in every major city (except Portland) in the U.S. This simply is not the case. Something else, other than CWF killed her dogs, unless she can explain why only her dogs were affected, and other people who live in fluoridated communities have healthy dogs.

    My personal theory about her is that – as she said in the video – she suspected CWF before it was diagnosed by Dr. Krook as fluoride poisoning. She buffaloed Pagosa Springs with the threat of a lawsuit (which anti fluoride science advisor, Dr. Sauerheber, says she would have lost). She was successful in getting Pagosa Springs to end the practice. And now she is a Rock Superstar in the anti-fluoride community. There is no way she is going to back down now and admit she may have been wrong. She is milking this for all it is worth, and more.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s