Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Fluoride: Drinking, Showering, and Brushing with Poison

- Tilted Paranoia (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-paranoia/)

- - Fluoride: Drinking, Showering, and Brushing with Poison (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-paranoia/130978-fluoride-drinking-showering-brushing-poison.html)

Fluoride: Drinking, Showering, and Brushing with Poison

When a person has the choice to purchase toothpaste with or without fluoride seems like a fair practice. Similar to cigarettes, if a person decides to undertake a habit that increases the risk of contracting serious health problems, its their choice to do so.

Unless a large portion of the population decides to use a filter on their shower head and buy bottled water; they are begin dosed with levels of fluoride that are questionably toxic.
The CDC promotes community fluoridation as safe. After a minor amount of research I found irony in the fact it was much easier for me to find information on fluoride being harmful than dangerous.

If in fact the additional fluoride we receive from water (also in a lot of foods and carbonated beverages) is harmful, then why is the CDC promoting it?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Ys9q1cvKGk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Ys9q1cvKGk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gBmVY8lUcXg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gBmVY8lUcXg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KOJ0hhla0WA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KOJ0hhla0WA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I found this to be an interesting site. While its intentions are obvious, the collection of information has a wide span.

www.nofluoride.com/

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m...tled-1copy.jpg

If we didn't put it in the water how would the ADA control your thoughts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If we didn't put it in the water how would the ADA control your thoughts?

Since you bring them up; you were probably aware the ADA stated in Nov. 2006: "To prevent dental fluorosis, infant formula for children under a year old should be prepared with purified, distilled, or reverse osmosis water, containing no fluoride." Why?

Pertaining to research in this area, what organization is considered credable?

Your answer suggests to me that the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council is a fringe group offering no real conclusive data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

:rolleyes:

Which part of 'prevent fluorosis' didn't you get?

Do you know what it is?

Its how we discovered the anti-cavity effect in the first place and it has nothing to do with health its purely cosmetic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I certainly don't have the expertise that you do in this area; but all the definitions I found on it seem to point to the same theme. Discoloration resembling brown stains, etc, etc. Is an increase in porosity cosmetic? Is sounds like that can lead to chiping, breaking, and a general weakening. Besides fluorosis isnt limited to dental fluorosis. Ingesting a susbstance has systemic effects not just localized. Is it your stance that a child with dental fluorosis shouldnt have fluoride levels checked, and a possible rule out of skeletal fluorosis?

Do you find the link many professionals (dentists and doctors- articles not hard to find) are finding from fluoride to cancer to be unfounded?

Theres no reason to have the shit in the water supply. I understand your mindset on youtube videos. Theres good information out there and bad information. Are you saying that the information the dentist is presenting in the first video is bullshit?

I read an interesting article about Fluoride in Scientific American a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the whole article isn't available for free, but the first few paragraphs are available for the general idea: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...ts-on-fluoride

I don't think this is an urgent crisis or anything, but it seems recent research warrents thinking twice about fluoridation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

You can get too much fluoride if you are getting it from multiple sources, like anything there is a upper limit on the dose. Thats a far cry from calling it harmful. I stopped getting Scientific American a few years ago when it started to go down hill (it used to be pretty good, I still pick one up time to time), so I can't see more than your teaser either, which says, well nothing.

The funny thing is the dentists, who are the ones dealing with this every day and understand its value, would have the most to gain if its removed from the water, yet only the nutballs are in the anti-fluoride camp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I just want to be clear, you are stating any doctor or dentist the promote the halting of community fluorination is a nutball, or IYO- right? Including the dentist on the first video- he would classify as a nutball in your book.

This thread has confused the hell out of me...

Is flouride a bad thing?

Yes its awful.

And I want a new boat.

The two are related :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes its awful.

And I want a new boat.

The two are related :)

Is that your indirect way of answering a straight forward question? The professional of thirty years in the field with an additional Masters in Public Health is a prime example of what you would consider a "nutball" because of the research he finds in community fluorination to be accurate?

You do know the ADA has conflicting statements about the subject, right?

However, I understand that regardless of how many professionals and experts validate data showing the harmful effects as long as the CDC says its OK, thats where it ends. Which brings me back to the original question? While I should laugh- I dont think it is a conspiracy of the League of Evil Dentists bent on national mind control.

I hate typing fluoride because I always want to spell it "flouride". It pisses me off.

Anyway, fluoride is quite simply too prevalent in foods, milk and juices to warrant inclusion in drinking water. Have a bowl of cereal with milk and a coke, and suddenly you've gotten 230% of your fluoride for the day. So why do we need it in our water?

Well the answer is simple. Outdated pseudoscience. From the UK's DoH, peer reviewed study of water fluoridation:

Quote:

We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.
Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.

I get all my fluoride from tea and organic milk.

Let me get this straight.

You just cited the UK DoH on dentistry?

:lol:

I'll add that little bit says absolutely nothing important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Let me get this straight.

You just cited the UK DoH on dentistry?

:lol:

I'll add that little bit says absolutely nothing important.

It's hard to find a peer reviewed study on fluoride, because there are almost none available. The FACT is that you probably get plenty in your diet, and there is no real evidence to suggest that fluoride in water helps anyone. It's a joke, and moreover it's essentially forcing medicine on people. To me it seems a massive waste of time and money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

In that case why would the carries rate be lower in areas with fluoridated water?

I think the problem is you can't easily google a study on it, but they are out there, most were done prior to everything on the net.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In that case why would the carries rate be lower in areas with fluoridated water?

Link? And actually this would run contrary to reason. Fluoride works when it is applied topically (toothpaste, rinses), but there's no evidence (aside from outdated pseudoscience) to suggest that fluoride helps teeth when ingested.

"...laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children" (CDC, 1999, MMWR 48: 933-940).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I think the problem is you can't easily google a study on it, but they are out there, most were done prior to everything on the net.

Studies done in the 1940s and 50s are now outdated because they were done before any long term testing could be done to see the effects of water fluoridation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

And you get it from your organic milk...right.....

But anyways, I'll trust the California Dental Association, the American Dental Association, The American Medical Association, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the US Public Health Service and the World Health Organization on this one.

Quote:

Studies done in the 1940s and 50s are now outdated because they were done before any long term testing could be done to see the effects of water fluoridation.

70's, 80's, most of the 90's don't count?

Will I'm sorry but redoing a study so you can easily google it, isn't worth public funds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Because they've said... what? When they do say something, they cite the studies done before my parents were born. It's a joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

70's, 80's, most of the 90's don't count?

Will I'm sorry but redoing a study so you can easily google it, isn't worth public funds.

For shame. You didn't even bother doing research. There aren't really any studies of merit in the 70s, 80s, or 90s, cept for the UK study I listed above, of course.

Regarding the OP, that's why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol.

(Even though Charlatan beat me to it, I couldn't help myself).

I'm curious about research on either side of the issue. Just because a study was done before 1970, does not make automatically make it invalid. People in memory research still cite Ebbinghaus (1885).

Also, there are many, many, many studies on community water fluoridation done every year. I don't have the time or energy to read them, but a quick search of medline revealed quite a few. (Maybe a couple of hundred since 2005). The consensus does appear to be that fluoridation does reduce caries.

Quote:

Armfield, J M; Spencer, A J Community effectiveness of fissure sealants and the effect of fluoridated water consumption. Community Dent Health 24 (1) : 4-11 2007 Mar

The reduction in caries increment attributable to fissure sealing increased across fluoridated water exposure categories--a 36.4% reduction was found for children with 0% exposure (p > 0.05), a 55.0% reduction for children with intermediate exposure (p < 0.01), and an 82.4% reduction for children with 100% lifetime exposure to fluoridated water (p < 0.001).

Here's an abstract from a position paper by the American Dietetic Association in 2005.

Quote:

Palmer, Carole; Wolfe, Stanton H
Position of the American Dietetic Association: the impact of fluoride on health.
J Am Diet Assoc 105 (10) : 1620-8 2005 Oct

Abstract: The American Dietetic Association reaffirms that fluoride is an important element for all mineralized tissues in the body. Appropriate fluoride exposure and usage is beneficial to bone and tooth integrity and, as such, has an important, positive impact on oral health as well as general health throughout life. Fluoride is an important element in the mineralization of bone and teeth. The proper use of topical and systemic fluoride has resulted in major reductions in dental caries (tooth decay) and its associated disability. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have named fluoridation of water as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 20th century. Nearly 100 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental caries. However, by the year 2000, over one third of the US population (over 100 million people) were still without this critical public health measure. Fluoride also plays a role in bone health. However, the use of high doses of fluoride for prevention of osteoporosis is considered experimental at this point. Dietetics professionals should routinely monitor and promote the use of systemic and topical fluorides, especially in children and adolescents. The American Dietetic Association strongly reaffirms its endorsement of the appropriate use of systemic and topical fluorides, including water fluoridation, at appropriate levels as an important public health measure throughout the life span.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palmer, Carole; Wolfe, Stanton H

The proper use of topical and systemic fluoride has resulted in major reductions in dental caries (tooth decay) and its associated disability.

Are you aware of any research that specifically looks at the systemic use of fluoride, or any research that compares systemic to topical use? By my understanding, the use of fluoride by ingestion (in comparison to it's use topically) reduces it's effectiveness considerably.

In addition to that, as I posted above, so far as ingestion of fluoride, we get plenty in our diets already. Processed cereals, juice, soda, tea, wine, beer, fish, infant formula, and (fluorinated) salt all provide a ton of fluoride. The recommended daily intake of fluorine (fluoride) is like 3.5 mg. One cup of tea or one serving of shellfish usually is many times the daily amount. I remember reading a Canadian study a few years back that said the average tea has 4.57 mg/l fluoride. And I like mine dark.

will based on your past, I'd be willing to say no study or expert will ever be enough for you to change your mind on something once its made up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

will based on your past, I'd be willing to say no study or expert will ever be enough for you to change your mind on something once its made up.

Based on your posts, you're probably not a dentist.

But let's give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Based on your posts, you're probably not a dentist.

But let's give each other the benefit of the doubt.

:love:

Quote:

Dr. Kennedy Speaks out Against Fluoride

Dr. Kennedy, Past President of International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, a nationally and internationally recognized lecturer on toxicology and restorative dentistry as well as a practicing Dentist for 20 years, explains why fluoride has been scientificially proven to be harmful.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

David C. Kennedy, DDS
2425 Third Avenue
San Diego. CA 92101
(619) 231-1624

Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

RE: Drinking Water Fluoridation

March 1, 1998

Dear Supervisors,

I am David Kennedy, DDS. I am a preventive dentist. I have practiced dentistry in San
Diego for more than 20 years. My father and grandfather before me were also dentists.

I served on the board of the San Diego Better Business Bureau for over 10 years, and have been a member of the Centre City Optimist Club for 20 years as well.

I have been a member of the San Diego County Dental Society for over 20 years, and for three years elected to the Board of Directors. I have participated on numerous committees including. Senior Care, Speakers Bureau, Political Action Committee, and the Council on Dental Care.

In 1974 Eddy Oriole and I planned and built the Chicano Children's Dental Health Clinic at 1809 National Avenue. I care about children's dental health.

I am immediate Past President of International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, the author of a book on preventive dental health entitled How to Save Your Teeth, and a nationally and internationally recognized lecturer on toxicology and restorative dentistry.

I am intensely interested in the welfare of my patients and the community at large.

Although I am a member of the San Diego County Dental Society (SDCDS), The California Dental Association (CDA) and the American Dental Association (ADA), I must begin my statement by expressing my opposition to these organization's stances concerning the safety of fluoride and further clarify what an endorsement by any of these organizations represents.

1) CDA and ADA perform no research of their own.

2) These trade associations have successfully argued in court that they assume no legal liability for any harm that may result from their recommendations.

3) Dental organizations are not responsible for studying adverse systemic effects of water fluoridation. These issues are appropriately studied by medical researchers, epidemiologists and toxicologists.

4) CDA and ADA have never provided their members any large scale blinded studies which prove that fluoridation reduces tooth decay. An expert for the ADA testified in court that she was not aware of any blinded animal or broad based blinded human epidemiological studies that has ever found a reduction in tooth decay from drinking water with one part per million fluoride.

5) CDA and ADA have never polled their membership for their knowledge or opinion of
water fluoridation.

The two following examples clearly illustrate the depth and reliability of dentist's
understanding of this controversial issue.

A) Despite the local dental society's recommendation of water fluoridation, my conversation with the President of the San Diego Dental Society, Dr. Joel Berick, revealed that he was completely unaware of even the existence of numerous studies linking water fluoridation to hip fracture.

B) An elderly dentist from Chula Vista took umbrage with my position opposing water
fluoridation. He claimed that, over the last 50 years in his practice, he had personally
witnessed the tremendous benefit of water fluoridation in Chula Vista. When I pointed out that Chula Vista was a nonfluoridated community, he appeared disoriented and mumbled, "It had to be the fluoride. Tooth decay is not nearly as prevalent as when I began to practice 50 years ago."

The above summary is not intended to criticize the dental society, but rather to place the dental trade organizations endorsements in their proper perspective.

Increasing the fluoride intake of a patient without regard to established risk factors such as age, kidney function, weight, physical condition, water consumption, total fluoride intake, and mitigating dietary calcium is medical negligence. Although the courts have ruled that the state has the power to do so under police powers. mandating fluoridation for 25 Million Californians or the entire city of Mountain View is no less negligent.

Dental Fluorosis

The first visible sign of this negligence will be a doubling in dental fluorosis. The cells that produce the collagen matrix, which forms enamel, are poisoned to the point that they can no longer produce opalescent pearl-like enamel. Fluorotic enamel is irregular in texture, porous, chalky white to brown in color, and brittle. In severe cases, the enamel forms incompletely and corners easily break off the teeth.

All of the organizations promoting water fluoridation agree that dental fluorosis, which is the first visible sign of systemic poisoning, increases with water fluoride levels. The Legislative Office of Budget Management acknowledges that drinking water fluoridation would increase disfiguring dental fluorosis, but since treatment of this disease is not covered for children on welfare, calculated that there would be no additional. cost to the state. Clearly they are not considering the enormous legal liability for physical and psychological damage which accompany this disfiguring disease.

The fact that the state will not spend money to correct this defect does not alter the basic truth that fluorosis will have to be treated if the child is to be happy in our image conscious society.

Let's be clear about what children will be adversely affected. Bottle fed babies are most likely to develop dental fluorosis. Mothers milk has virtually no fluoride present. Those children who are deficient in intake of protein, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and Vitamin C are especially vulnerable to fluoride poisoning. The accumulation of fluoride is greatly increased if the person has impaired kidney function. In short, the weakest members of our society, the undernourished, the underfed, the very children that fluoridation was to allegedly benefit. In some poorer communities as much as 80% of the children have fluorosis[1].

The correction of this permanent disfigurement involves crowns, laminates, bonding, and bleaching. The physical, psychological, emotional, and financial costs of the repeated trauma necessary to correct this condition far exceeds any projected benefit that fluoridation can possibly produce. This is truly a case where the treatment is worse than the problem.

The incidence of dental fluorosis has steadily increased since the introduction of fluoride to the drinking water in 1945. Since the introduction of fluoride containing toothpaste the amount of fluorosis has dramatically risen[2]. Fluoride tablets which deliver in prescription form the amount of fluoride alleged to be beneficial for tooth decay, reduction cause dental fluorosis in 64% of the children (Pebbles 1974). These same tablets if swallowed provide no protection against decay. If they are chewed and dissolved in the mouth, they do appear to reduce decay[3]. The effect is topical[4].

Hip Fracture

Fluoride has been tested on humans for the purpose of treating osteoporosis. The theory was that fluoride would strengthen bones. What the researchers found was that it did increase bone mass; however, the bone was much more brittle -- leading to a dramatic increase in hip fracture[5]. Numerous studies have linked long term consumption of fluoridated water to increased risk of hip fracture.[6]

This is not a small matter, it is about life and death. The surgical cost of repairing a hip fracture is $35,000. 25% of the victims die in the first 30 days. Only 11% of the victims ever return to independent living. 100% of the victims are debilitated and few, if any, of the elderly ever regain their former ability to walk normally. The research clearly shows that water Fluoridation increases the number of people who will suffer this devastating injury.

Nine of thirteen studies show a correlation between hip fracture and fluoridation, including four published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in the last five years. In matters as serious as the health of our nation, no risk is acceptable if it is avoidable.

Cancer

Research has shown in numerous studies that fluoride is a mutagen (genetic damage), a carcinogen (cancer causing), and cancer promoting in laboratory cell studies, animals, and humans. In 1990 the Congress-ordered National Toxicological Program (NTP) found bone cancers in male rats.

The test animals, in the words of the board certified pathologists, "were awash with disease." The high dose animals had kidney failure and cancers of their lips, cheeks, throats, livers, and bones. The highest rates of cancer were found in the highest dose animals. The lucky rats and mice that drank the distilled fluoride free water had no significant disease. When the actual data indicated a causal relationship between fluoride and bone cancer the NTP down-graded the results to "equivocal."

Dr. William Marcus, former senior science advisor at the office of drinking water
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), concluded that the NTP studies proved fluoride was a carcinogen[7]. In July 1997 the National Federation of Federal Employees. the Union representing all of the scientists, toxicologists and
statisticians at EPA headquarters, also stated that "Our members review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiological studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiological studies linking fluoride exposure to lower 1.0. in children.[8]

Political protection for fluoride is not new. The Spin Doctors of fluoridation routinely
minimize the peer-reviewed documented scientific research by setting up biased review committees, which then publish their own opinion claiming that fluoridation is safe, without regard to the original findings. The US Public Health Service has been accused of scientific fraud by the National Federation of Federal Employees over the cover-up of the cancer/fluoride link.

After the NJ Department of Health documented a dramatic increase in bone cancers in
young men who resided in their fluoridated cities, New Jersey Assemblyman John V. Kelly asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the evidence they relied upon in approving prescription fluoride drops and tablets.

The FDA responded that no application for approval, or studies of safety or effectiveness, had ever been submitted and that they were not in possession of any such evidence. Ask yourself for another example of a prescription drug on the United States market (30 plus years) for which no FDA Application has ever been submitted.

When pressured as to why he did not remove the drops and tablets from the market Frank R. Fazzari, Chief of Prescription Drug Compliance reportedly expressed concern for his position and recommended Assemblyman Kelly sue him in order to have a Federal Judge make him comply with congressional law.

The new Food and Drug required warning should provide some clarification as to the safety of fluoride. The FDA now requires all toothpaste containing fluoride to have the following warning attached, "WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. In case of accidental ingestion, seek professional assistance or contact a Poison Control Center immediately." The amount to be used in brushing is a pea sized amount or about 1 milligram. One liter of water in a fluoridated community will contain one milligram.

Tooth Decay Costs Savings

All of the recent large scale studies have found no relationship to tooth decay and water fluoride levels. Earlier studies that are often cited by fluoridation promoters are transparently flawed. The examiners were not standardized or blinded. There are no randomized controlled blinded studies of animals or humans that have ever found a reduction in decay from ingesting fluoride. On the contrary, all of the recent large-scale studies have failed to show any significant reduction.

Studies of fluoride have confirmed that the effect it has on tooth decay reduction is not systemic. The effect is not produced by swallowing the toxic substance, but is in fact a topical effect upon the bacteria that live in the mouth and cause tooth decay. It poisons them. The design of the experiment leaves little doubt -as to the results. Cavity-prone rats were given fluoride in two ways. One group got fluoride in the mouth from a time release tablet bonded to the outer surface of the tooth. The other group got the same amount administered in a slow pump under the skin. The oral dose of fluoride produced some reduction in decay over controls, but the systemic exposure did not reduce tooth decay at all. However, the poisonous nature of fluoride does not change when ingested.

Animals fed sugar-water and fluoride fare no better in terms of tooth decay than animals fed sugar-water alone. Human tooth decay is linked to diet, sugar intake, tooth brushing technique, hours of sunlight, parental education, and family income. These variables must be considered in order to produce accurate results.

In the largest study of tooth decay in America, there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in that 84 city study. The decayed missing or filled rate in non-fluoridated Los Angeles was not significantly different than fluoridated San Francisco. In fact, the lowest decay rate was found in non-fluoridated Buhler, KS.

Comparing the State of California 1994 non-weighted dental costs for the 14 largest counties reveals that counties 90% fluoridated spent on average $121.93 per eligible recipient for treatment of tooth decay, and counties with less than 10% fluoridation spent only $118.33 per eligible recipient.

Weighted 1995 California per Eligible Welfare Recipient Dental Costs
CA Counties 90 -100 % Fluoridated $125.27
CA Counties 0.5- 10% Fluoridated $107.26

With less than 17% of the state fluoridated, California children have fewer cavities than the nation as a whole. Where is the alleged proof of safety and effectiveness? Why are the costs of dental care higher in fluoridated areas?

This public health fraud will result only in increased misery-- kidney disease, hip fractures, cancers and even death to its many unfortunate victims. Not only will fluoridation not reduce the dental care costs, it will exponentially increase the fluorotic damage to underprivileged children.

Sincerely,

David C. Kennedy, D.D.S.
DCK/hs

Enclosed: Fluoride Fact Sheet
America Overdosed

P.S. The attached Fluoride Fact sheet has the scientific documentation to back up each of the 6 proven effects of fluoride.

Upon request the actual studies to support each statement will be happily provided.

References

[1] Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, National Research Council, pg 37, (1993)

[2] D. Christopher Clark. DDS, MPH Appropriate use of fluorides for children: guidelines from the Canadian Workshop on the Evaluation of Current Recommendations Concerning Fluorides. J. Canadian Medical Association Vol. 149 #12 (1993)

[3] J.M. ten Cate & J. D.B. Featherstone Mechanistic Aspects of the Interactions Between Fluoride and Dental Enamel Critical Reviews in Oral Biology and Medicine 2(2.):283-296 (1991)

[4] J. D. Featherstone. The Mechanism of Dental Decay Nutrition Today May 1987

[5] Riggs BL, Hodson SF, O'fallon WM, et al. Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture
rate in post menopausal women with osteoporosis. NEJM 1990: 322:802-809

[6] References for Fact #6

[7] Marcus Memo May 1 1990 (enclosed)

[8] Letter dated July 2, 1997 to Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (enclosed)

1) Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Miles TP. Brody JA, et al. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fractures: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. JAMA Vol. 264, pp. 500-502
(1990)

2) Cooper C, Wickham CAC, Barker DJR, and Jacobsen SJ. Water fluoridation and hip
fracture (letter]. JAMA Vol. 266. pp. 513-514, 1991

3) Danielson C, Lyon IL, Egger M, and Goodenough GK. Hip fractures and fluoridation in
Utah's elderly population. JAMA Vol. 268, pp. 746-748 (1992)

4) journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 273, pp. 775-776 (1995)

5) Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Cooper C, and Lockwood SA. The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: A national ecologic study. Ann Epidemiol 1992: 2:617-226

6) Sowers MFR. Clark MK, Jannausch ML and Wallce RB. A prospective study of bone
mineral content and fracture in communities with differential fluoride exposure. Am J
Epidemiol 1991:133:649-60

7) Keller C. Fluorides in Drinking Water. Paper presented at the Workshop on Drinking
Water Fluoride influence on Hip Fractures and Bone Health. April 10, 1991 1, Bethesda,
Md.

8) May, DS and Wilson MG. Hip fractures in relation to water fluoridation: an ecologic
analysis. Presented at the Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fractures and Bone Health. April 10, 1991, Bethesda, Md.

www.nofluoride.com/kennedy_letter.htm

Like the doctor in the first video he sounds like a well versed nutcase.

I dont know why but the above post repeated itself. This is an edit.

Quote:

How Poisonmongers Work

The antifluoridationists' ("antis") basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that fluoridation causes cancer, heart and kidney disease, and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating them -- because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.

A variation of the big lie is the laundry list. List enough "evils," and even if proponents can reply to some of them, they will never be able to cover the entire list. This technique is most effective in debates, letters to the editor, and television news reports. Another variation is the simple statement that fluoridation doesn't work. Although recent studies show less difference than there used to be in decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, the benefit is still substantial. In fact, the Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills.

A key factor in any anti campaign is the use of printed matter. Because of this, antis are very eager to have their views printed. Scientific journals will rarely publish them, but most local newspapers are willing to express minority viewpoints regardless of whether facts support them. A few editors even welcome the controversy the antis generate -- expecting that it will increase readership.

The aim of anti "documents" is to create the illusion of scientific controversy. Often they quote statements that are out of date or out of context. Quotes from obscure or hard-to-locate journals are often used. Another favored tactic is to misquote a profluoridation scientist, knowing that even if the scientist protests, the reply will not reach all those who read the original misquote.

Half-truths are commonly used. For example, saying that fluoride is a rat poison ignores the fact that poison is a matter of dose. Large amounts of many substances -- even pure water -- can poison people. But the trace amount of fluoride contained in fluoridated water will not harm anyone.

"Experts" are commonly quoted. It is possible to find someone with scientific credentials who is against just about anything. Most "experts" who speak out against fluoridation, however, are not experts on the subject. There are, of course, a few dentists and physicians who oppose fluoridation. Some of them object to fluoridation as a form of government intrusion, even though they know it is safe and effective.

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPr.../fluoride.html

This is a locked PDF from the ADA, it has a lot of fun facts, such as there have been 60,000 studies on the safety of fluoridation.

http://www.ada.org/public/topics/flu...tion_facts.pdf

Quote:

CONCLUSIONS

* Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction in dental caries. Although the comparative degree of measurable benefit has been reduced recently as other fluoride sources have become available in non-fluoridated areas, the benefits of water fluoridation are still clearly evident. Fewer caries are associated with fewer abscesses and extractions of teeth and with improved health. The health and economic benefits of water fluoridation accrue to individuals of all ages and socioeconomic groups, especially to poor children.
* Since the addition of fluoride to drinking water in the 1940's, other sources of fluoride have become available, including toothpastes, mouth rinses, and fluoride dietary supplements. These sources of fluoride also have proven to be effective in preventing dental caries.
* Estimates developed for this report show that fluoride exposure is generally greater in fluoridated areas; however, there is fluoride exposure in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas because of the variety of fluoride sources besides drinking water. Beverages and foods are sources of fluoride, especially if they have been prepared with fluoridated drinking water.
* Optimal fluoridation of drinking water does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data available to date, including the new studies prepared for this report. While the presence of fluoride in sources other than drinking water reduces the ability to discriminate between exposure in fluoridated as compared to non-fluoridated communizes, no trends in cancer risk, including the risk of osteosarcoma, were attributed to the introduction of fluoride into drinking water in these new studies. During two time periods, 1973-1980 and 1981-1987, there was an unexplained increase of osteosarcoma in males under age 20. The reason for this increase remains to be clarified, but an extensive analysis reveals that it is unrelated to the introduction and duration of fluoridation.
* There are two methodologically acceptable studies of the carcinogenicity of fluoride in experimental animals. The Procter and Gamble study did not find any significant evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice of either sex. In the NTP study there was no evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and in female rats. Male rats showed "equivocal" evidence of carcinogenicity based on the finding of a small number of osteosarcomas. "Equivocal" evidence is defined by NTP as "...interpreted as showing a marginal increase in neoplasms that may be chemically related" (HHS, 1990). Taken together, the data available at this time from these two animal studies fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer.
* By comparison with the 1940's, the total prevalence of dental fluorosis has increased in non-fluoridated areas and may have increased in optimally fluoridated areas. Such increases in dental fluorosis in a population signify that total fluoride exposures have increased and may be more than are necessary to prevent dental caries. For this reason, prudent public health practice dictates the reduction of unnecessary and inappropriate fluoride exposure.
* In the 1940s, drinking water and food were the major sources of fluoride exposure. Since then, additional sources of fluoride have become available through the introduction of fluoride containing dental products. Although the use of these products is likely responsible for some of the declines in caries scores, the inappropriate use of these products has also likely contributed to the observed increases in the prevalence of very mild and mild forms of dental fluorosis.
* Further epidemiological studies are required to determine whether or not an association exists between various levels of fluoride in drinking water and bone fractures.
* Crippling skeletal fluorosis is not a public health problem in the United States, as evidenced by the reports of only five cases in 30 years. Crippling skeletal fluorosis, a chronic bone and joint disease associated with extended exposure to high levels of fluoride, has been more prevalent in some regions outside the United States.
* Well-controlled studies have not demonstrated a beneficial effect of the use of high doses of fluoride in reducing osteoporosis and related bone fractures.
* Genotoxicity studies of fluoride, which are highly dependent on the methods used, often show contradictory findings. The most consistent finding is that fluoride has not been shown to be mutagenic in standard tests in bacteria (Ames Test). In some studies with different methodologies, fluoride has been reported to induce mutations and chromosome aberrations in cultured rodent and human cells. The genotoxicity of fluoride in humans and animals is unresolved despite numerous studies.
* Chronic low level fluoride exposure is nor associated with birth defects. Studies also fail to establish an association between fluoride and Down Syndrome.
* There is no indication that chronic low level fluoride exposure of normal individuals presents a problem in other organ systems, such as the gastrointestinal, the genitourinary, and the respiratory systems. The effects of fluoride on the reproductive system merit further investigation in animal and human studies.

Quote:

Here are some national bodies that have endorsed fluoridation of water supplies:

* American Medical Association
* American Dental Association
* American Public Health Association
* American Pharmaceutical Association
* American Nurses Association
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* National Research Council
* National Institute of Municipal Law Officers
* American Water Works Association
* American Hospital Association
* U.S. Public Health Service
* National Congress of Parents and Teachers.

National Congress of Parents and Teachers....

That alone makes me not want to trust fluoridation of water supplies. Have you ever met anyone more idiotic than members of a PTA?

Quote:

How Poisonmongers Work

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Quote:

The antifluoridationists' ("antis") basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler,

Godwin fallacy (guilt by association)

Quote:

The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter...

... and this article is guilty of the same lack of supporting evidence. Also, burden of proof fallacy.

Quote:

A variation of the big lie is the laundry list. List enough "evils," and even if proponents can reply to some of them, they will never be able to cover the entire list. This technique is most effective in debates, letters to the editor, and television news reports. Another variation is the simple statement that fluoridation doesn't work. Although recent studies show less difference than there used to be in decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, the benefit is still substantial. In fact, the Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills.

Begging the question fallacy.

Quote:

A key factor in any anti campaign is the use of printed matter. Because of this, antis are very eager to have their views printed. Scientific journals will rarely publish them, but most local newspapers are willing to express minority viewpoints regardless of whether facts support them. A few editors even welcome the controversy the antis generate -- expecting that it will increase readership.

Appeal to common practice fallacy.

Quote:

The aim of anti "documents" is to create the illusion of scientific controversy. Often they quote statements that are out of date or out of context. Quotes from obscure or hard-to-locate journals are often used. Another favored tactic is to misquote a profluoridation scientist, knowing that even if the scientist protests, the reply will not reach all those who read the original misquote.

Strawman fallacy.

Quote:

Half-truths are commonly used. For example, saying that fluoride is a rat poison ignores the fact that poison is a matter of dose. Large amounts of many substances -- even pure water -- can poison people. But the trace amount of fluoride contained in fluoridated water will not harm anyone.

Guilt by association fallacy.

Quote:

"Experts" are commonly quoted. It is possible to find someone with scientific credentials who is against just about anything. Most "experts" who speak out against fluoridation, however, are not experts on the subject. There are, of course, a few dentists and physicians who oppose fluoridation. Some of them object to fluoridation as a form of government intrusion, even though they know it is safe and effective.

Ad hominem fallacy.

If they put Valium in the water, we wouldn't have threads like this one... ;)

No fluoride in the water here in Iceland... and people have fantastic teeth here. But on the American air base (from the 1940s until it closed last year), they actually fluoridated the water, to make it more like "home." Unbelievable. Icelandic water kicks ass all on its own, and they had to go and add fluoride to it. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

The mean dmft (2.9) of preschool children aged 3-7 years in the Murtomaa study and the mean decayed, extracted filled primary teeth (deft) in children aged 4 years of the 1993 national study (4.6) are higher than rates in the Nordic countries in general, where the mean dmft scores vary between 0.3 and 2.1 [9-13]. Iceland is an exception, with mean dmft scores of 2.4-4.1 for 4- to 6-year-olds [14,15]

Translation, Iceland has more cavities in children than the other Nordic countries.

Note, in young children social practices have a bigger influence than fluoridation, (such as baby bottle carries which are a problem in the US and England) and genetics too play a part. Iceland is so homogeneous genetically it makes the Swedes look diverse and I'd not be shocked to find out that Icelandic children have similar dmft scores if they move outside of Iceland.

I don't know what "carries" are in this context, but it seems a critical term. Little help, Ustwo or anybody?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Interesting. I must admit, I don't know anything about children's cavity rates, but all the old people I know in Iceland seem to still have their own teeth (no dentures)... so that's the knowledge I'm operating under for my assessment.

It should also be noted that dental care is not covered by the state system, nor is it included on insurance policies... so everyone has to pay out of pocked for all dental costs. Of course, the rates are cheaper than in the US, but it inhibits a LOT of people from getting dental treatment on a regular basis. I know that Icelandic children have been reported in the news here as very rarely being taken to the dentist (due to cost), which would most definitely influence the statistics you cite, Ustwo.

But you're definitely right about the homogeneity of this place. I'm lucky that my father branched out. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I don't know what "carries" are in this context, but it seems a critical term. Little help, Ustwo or anybody?

Dentist talk for cavities.

Its from Latin...

caries : rottenness, corruption, decay.

Edit: There is a difference though, you can have a cavity without caries (rare) or caries without a cavity (common). The dentist will still tell you its a cavity though.

Is "carries" plural?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Is "carries" plural?

Nope, just a typo. Caries is singular and plural.

I'm more worried about estrogen and plastic chemicals in my water.

(And the Candaian Rockies has the best water in the world. IMO)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I'm more worried about estrogen and plastic chemicals in my water.

(And the Candaian Rockies has the best water in the world. IMO)

I'd say the Rockies in general.

Colorado Rockies water is pretty much perfect.

To be honest, I'm not worried about fluoride, one can easily get bottled water, a water filter etc. if they do not trust their water. Research on fluoride is like that of most things, 2 differing findings and what findings do you wish to believe.

I will say however, as I am a rock hound, Fluorite stones are absolutely beautiful.

What does worry me more in the dental field is the use of mercury in fillings. That is the scary one.

Here's some links that seem to show all kinds of differing studies on Mercury in fillings. My take is this is a far far more serious problem than fluoridation will ever be.

http://www.relfe.com/mercury.html
http://www.toxicteeth.org/mercuryFillings.cfm
http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/mercury.html
http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_a...article053.htm (article pasted below, talks about the FDA being sued over dental use of mercury)
http://www.toxicteeth.org/Publicfloo...city111406.pdf
Here's Wiki's take: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_amalgam_controversy

It seems in these reports even the dentists are exposed to it. Wnder what UsTwo's take on it is......

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ylnQ-T7oiA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ylnQ-T7oiA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Quote:

FDA "Backs Down(?)" Over Deadly Mercury Amalgams...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Monday, March 19th, 2007

One of the biggest scandals in American health care is coming to a head this March 27th, 2007. In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a case, called "Moms Against Mercury, et al., v. FDA" will get its time in the sunlight, and the Defendant, the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) isn't doing well in its Defense.

The case is simple. Citizens are suing the FDA for NOT, during the last THIRTY YEARS, ruling on the safety, or danger, of mercury amalgam tooth fillings. The Plaintiffs want mercury amalgam tooth fillings banned completely, and forever.

And, the FDA has virtually no defense...

The US anti-amalgam movement, an aggressive division of the North American Health Freedom Movement, has for years, chipped away at "official dentistry's" promotion of mercury amalgam tooth fillings, pointing out, correctly, their inherent dangers. But "official dentistry" doesn't listen, and in fact, actively punishes dentists that shy away from, or actively advertise the removal of, mercury amalgam fillings. The war has been active for a long time.

With this legal assault the anti-amalgams have adopted an effective offense. In essence, you might say, the anti-amalgam people, armed with silver bullets, have found the secret entrance to the FDA's dungeon, climbed down into the sanctuary during the daylight hours, opened the coffins of the FDA's sleeping staff dentists, sprinkled holy water over them, and driven wooden stakes through their hearts. So to speak.

This case can be the decisive blow - for the FDA attorneys don't have very good answers. The case reads:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Thirty years after being directed to classify all devices, 20 years after classifying all other dental fillings materials, 13 years after being mandamused to classify but winning on exhaustion grounds, nine years after specifically promising (in writing) to classify, four years after pleading no excuses to Congress for not classifying, it’s clear that FDA’s policy is not to classify encapsulated mercury amalgam. To say FDA ignores this issue is incorrect: FDA’s public relations machine is has been in high gear, as the Center for Devices bobs and weaves about its duty to classify through three “literature reviews,” three “consumer updates,” one “white paper,” and a plethora of sound bites.

The decision not to classify – a plain violation of the statute – is thus a reviewable decision.

FDA’s choice of cheerleader for amalgam, instead of regulator of amalgam, is not acceptable. FDA otherwise bans, limits, and warns against other products, drugs, or foods containing mercury, while other federal health agencies and the health regulators of other nations condemn mercury amalgam.

FDA not only ducks classifying, but also refuses to do an environmental assessment, which would plainly indicate the need for an environmental impact statement. Nor will FDA seek a timely and valid panel recommendation – the previous one being too old (1994), procedurally invalid (no statement for departing from Class III), and sub silentio overruled in September 2006. The writing is on the wall in both cases: An environmental assessment will plainly indicate the need for an environmental impact statement, which report would show alternatives to toxic mercury can be used in fillings, thereby eliminating the major source of mercury in the nation’s wastewater – amalgam. In September, the FDA panel decisively rejected the FDA staff’s pseudo-science about amalgam (e.g., it is safe because it’s been used for a long time), so FDA ducks asking the panel for formal action.

FDA keeps amalgam on the market via a sham substantial equivalence test, pretending that a powder half-device containing no mercury equates to a full device capsule that is 50% toxic mercury. When asked by Senator Kennedy why this practice is allowed, Commissioner Von Eschenbach in writing denied that FDA considers the two devices to be substantially equivalent. Since the staff has ten times approved amalgam under this test in the past six years (and many times before that), perhaps the Center for Devices is engaged in rogue activity unknown to the Commissioner’s office.

The correct recourse is not a mere order to classify, allowing an unclassified, unregulated device – with 50% mercury and for which substitute materials are legal and available for any dentist to place – to remain in commerce, but to remove it from commerce temporarily until FDA complies with its legal duties.

CONCLUSION

This Court must direct FDA to start being amalgam’s regulator instead of amalgam’s cheerleader. Whether by intention or lethargy, FDA’s Center for Devices has protected the marketing of mercury fillings by doing none of its regulatory duties – neither classifying nor requiring proof of safety nor doing an environmental assessment nor seeking a valid recommendation from the scientific panel. Since they have ducked and dodged classifying encapsulated amalgam after classifying all other dental filling materials in the 1980s, the mercury apologists at the Center for Devices by now realize that completing any of these tasks will lead straight to the end of mercury in dentistry.

Thus, an order to classify is not enough. The legal prerequisites (environmental impact statement and Panel referral) mean the process will take months; the record of bad faith suggests it will take years. Amalgam is illegally in commerce. It must be removed from commerce forthwith, temporarily, until FDA chooses to complete its regulatory duties.

What was the FDA's response to this legal action?

Not much.

Charlie Brown, two-time elected Attorney General for the State of West Virginia, and now attorney for the Plaintiffs, says of the case:

Our case, filed April 27, 2006, by 9 petitioners (names below)* charges FDA with illegally allowing the sale of mercury fillings. For thirty years, FDA has defiantly refused to classify amalgam -- even though this step is required as the legal prerequisite to sale of any implants. Even the repudiation of its pseudo-science by two FDA Scientific Panels on September 7, 2006 has not deterred FDA, who is making false and deceptive claims to mask the vote of these Panels.

Faced with standing before a federal court, FDA now departs from its role as chief cheerleader for mercury fillings. In its brief, FDA admits, five times, that it does not know if mercury amalgam is safe or unsafe!

The nine petitioners who sued FDA: Four organizations: Moms Against Mercury (Amy Carson, Angela Medlin), Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice (Mark Mitchell, M.D.), Oregonians for Life (Mary Starrett), and California Citizens for Health Freedom (Frank Cuny); two state officials: California Dental Board Public Member Kevin J.Biggers, and Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson; three individuals: Dr. Andy Landerman, Linda Brocato, and Anita Vazquez Tibau.

This is a breakthrough not thought possible a year ago. To repeat, FDA now admits that the evidence is “changing,” thus the safety of mercury fillings is not “definitive” and is “the subject of intense disagreement.” Quotations from FDA’s brief, containing those admissions, are below.**

FDA’s admissions in its brief to the US Court of Appeals: “there is a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the health effects of mercury fillings”; “constantly changing scientific evidence” exists on mercury amalgam; “complex issues and intense disagreement [exist] about the scientific evidence regarding mercury and its potential health effects”; “the complexity of the issue and the lack of conclusive scientific evidence on the health effects of dental amalgams”; “the lack of … definitive scientific evidence.”

Let's see what happens next.

Stay tuned...

Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate