Home » News » Metro »

Benefits and dangers of water fluoridation a contentious issue nationwide

By on June 30, 2010 5:15 am in Metro / 13 comments

 
email

Editor’s note: This is the third article in a series examining water fluoridation in Mount Pleasant.

Water fluoridation, the practice of adding fluoride to municipal water supplies to fight tooth decay, is a hotly contested issue not restricted to the Mount Pleasant city limits.

Government agencies such as the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control have said water fluoridation is a safe, effective way to fight tooth decay.

The CDC heralded water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.

“The CDC’s understanding of and support for community water fluoridation is based on more than 65 years of use and research as well as an assessment of a science base developed over many years by independent scientists,” said Linda Orgain, a health communications specialist from the CDC’s Division of Oral Health in an e-mailed statement.

Mount Pleasant dentist Kenneth Egger feels water fluoridation is beneficial and the practice should continue.

Egger said he used to practice dentistry in Detroit, where a majority of residents drink municipal fluoridated water. In Mount Pleasant, many more residents drink from unfluoridated sources.

“I saw a lot fewer cavities and decay down there than I do up here,” he said.

Hardy Limeback, head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto and dentist of more than 27 years, formerly supported water fluoridation, but has since reconsidered.

“A lot of dentists change their minds about fluoridation when they read about the potential harm but are then afraid to speak out against the mainstream in their profession,” he said in an e-mailed response.

Mandatory medication

However, some have spoken out against water fluoridation, claiming it is not a medical miracle, but instead a toxic practice.

Paul Connett, professor emeritus of environmental chemistry at St. Lawrence University, has studied the water fluoridation issue for more than 14 years.

He said fluoride is the only chemical added to water supplies intended to treat the human body.

“The practice should never have started,” Connett said. “Using the public water supply to deliver medication is absolutely ridiculous. It defies every notion of pharmacology that you could think of.”

Connett said the dosage of fluoride intake can not be controlled because every person drinks a different amount of water.

“We’re allowing a whole community, in some cases a whole state, to do to everyone what a doctor cannot do to a single person, and that is to force them to take medication,” Connett said.

Fluoride source

Connett said over 90 percent of the fluoride used in municipal water supplies is a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

“They can’t dump it into the sea by international law, they can’t dump it locally because it’s too concentrated, it would cost them an arm and a leg to deal with it as a hazardous waste,” Connett said. “But if someone buys it from them, it becomes a product. Once it is an industrial product, it no longer is covered by hazardous waste regulations.”

Possible effects

Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Analysis in Tennessee, said exposure to fluoride can cause several adverse health effects. She served as a member of the National Research Council panel that studied fluoride in 2006. Some of the studies the panel reviewed showed fluoride may lower IQ during childhood development. Dental and skeletal fluorosis have also been linked to fluoride consumption.

Fluoride is biocumulative, meaning it builds up in the body after years of consumption, and makes bones harder, but more brittle, Connett said.

Connett said fluoride may also be linked to osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer, in young men, as well as a decrease in thyroid function.

Though water fluoridation is marginally effective, Connet said, there is no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries.

Connett said the ADA and CDC continue to push for water fluoridation despite evidence that the practice is harmful and ineffective.

“It’s politics which absolutely controls and runs all the way on this issue,” Connett said. “We would love to resolve it scientifically, we have attempted to resolve the issue scientifically, but the other side has power. They have the power and the chain of command of the American Dental Association, which can fan out to every dentist in the country. It’s the most frustrating experience of my life.”

 

Tags

, , , ,

Related Posts

 
  • nyscof

    Most dentists can only report what they see in their patients mouths. Since only wealthier and/or well insured people can afford dentists these days, they are seeing the population with the best teeth. 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients and 130 Million Americans don't have dental insurance. Studies show that 80% of tooth decay occurs in 20% of the population – the low income population

    Studies actually show that fluoridated Detroit populations have exceedingly high cavity rates. –Even when fluoridated water is the most consumed item, cavities are extensive when diets are poor, according to a 2007 Caries Research article. Burt and colleagues studied low-income African-American adults, 14-
    years-old and over, living in Detroit, Michigan, where water suppliers add fluoride chemicals attempting to prevent cavities. Yet, 83%of this population has severe tooth decay and diets high in sugars and fats, and low in fruits and vegetables. “The most frequently reported food on a daily basis was tap water,” write Burt's research team. Second were soft drinks and third were potato chips.

    – Tooth decay in fluoridated Detroit's toddlers' teeth is also shocking. Almost all of Detroit's five-year-olds have cavities; most of them go unfilled, according to Ismail et al (2006 IADR) Severity of Dental Caries Among African American Children in Detroit

  • jimschultz

    Dentists are on the front line promoting fluoridation most repeating ADA talking points and their directions to talk about personal observations and strong feelings. They advise no need to read the studies to promote fluoridation and do not discuss them with the public. Stick to the list of endorsements and say all studies prove safety and benefit.
    Yoder K.M. 2007 showed when tested the great majority of dentists have this blind faith in what they were taught in dental school. They also believe what they see in their chair proves them correct. The Indiana and Illinois testing by Yoder proves over 80% still believe fluoridation is a pre eruptive ingested benefit. This is proven false by all researchers if you actually read the data. They do not as the ADA provides the talking points to say. It is like listening to not so correct robot parrots so often.The tester researcher did admit until dentists are better educated on the new theory they will be unable to provide the best care for patients. On a pole in wealthy dentist.com about 15% of dentists are strongly anti fluoride or about the number that actually know the research shows any benefit is topical and only at toothpaste levels and only on erupted teeth.(Fluoridation theory is totally invalid based on science). So we do not claim dentists are evil wishing to injure the public but they are ignorant following their training resisting change and refusing to believe the new data which most never read.
    This still shocks me but seems to be the case.
    Dentist Egger seems the perfect example. Dentists believe what they see in their chair. They see that segment that is allowed to sit there and it is very rarely the poor for most.
    This whole issue is not fluoridation but social class or income and some race issue also or maybe it is just income. The data is not totally clear. What is clear is poor kids have many more dental problems. the 80% problems in 20% of kids rule.
    Dr Osmunson DDS and MPH who promoted fluoridation for 25 years was shocked when he finally looked at the data after resisting so long. He had refused to listen to patients concerns of fluoride toxicity and felt justified until he read the current data.
    He now believes what the data shows so clearly. Little if any fluoridation benefit but great differences in patients teeth but really more on income and race maybe. Again depends on social class or really nutrition and home care and if the child get regular dental visits and care. This is uncommon in the poor. I keep on seeing 20% of the dentists sign up to treat medicaid poor kids. What I have discovered is many sign up but never treat kids. You are considered a provider if you treat just one kid. Many are very busy and accept no new kids. many cities have not one dentist accepting Medicaid kids.
    My county had this exposed in a newspaper article as it ties in with the fluoridation and social inequity debate. Anyway only 4 of over 200 dentists in my county were on the list as accepting medicaid kids. Two from distant out of county were on list also. For many years we had no public health dentist. Then one on salary who treated only 4 a day after taking 18 months not treating one during a remodel of the office. He then quit. Nearly a year later the replacement was paid 45 dollars a head so treated 30 kids a day putting one more on staff to schedule for a total of 5 in office.
    I talked to many dentists and the ADA trying to get them to treat poor kids but it is rare they are interested or fear they will get too many and affect income as they have huge overhead. Poor kids are tougher to treat with more problems usually. Most dentists just do not see the worst of the fluoride damaged kids in their chairs. They believe what they see and what the ADA repeats in talking points. Maybe Dr Egger is the poster dentist for this twist on perceived reality?
    I read lots of peer reviewed studies and government data and fluoridation promoting dentists seem to not but still willing to defend aggressively what they believe. Sort of like adult tooth fairy belief.
    The data from the very first Grand Rapids study in 1945 showed this inequity of blacks being damaged double of whites by fluoride toxicity. Russel 1962 and a whole host of others especially recent CDC data. The CDC still refused to inform blacks of this double enamel and kidney damage even after formal ethics charges in 2007 by Osmunson, Stockin and Limeback I recall.
    Hardy limeback DDS is the Canadian reseacher who has gone public with research showing fluoridation worthless and was attacked and his job at risk. Others have been jobless and lost high positions of trust in the ADA and other dental groups.
    The CDC even has admitted in 1999 and 2001 primary benefit is topical as research now proves it is not ingested benefit. They do not tell the public or dentists but still promote this practice claiming it is now topcal when you drink it. Not a single researcher has ever proven any topical benefit exists at 1ppm. Most have proven it does not exist but do not say loudly as research dollars would halt. Further studies are always needed,always.
    Burt also just came out with 2 other U of M reseachers showing blacks have significantly more fluoride intake. Also some head start data shows lower thyroid level which is tied in to fluoride levels and tooth formation malfunctions(dental fluorosis) and malclusions.
    The conflict of interest is dental incomes have soared with fluoride damaged teeth requiring expensive cosmetic repairs from those with money. The poor blacks and hispanics damaged the worst learn to live with ugly as no one gives free repairs.
    Most dentists repeat ADA talking points it is so slight the damage is not really daamge and only a skilled dentist can detect. Try looking at some poor kids and your can see the defects across the room and even more in blacks. My sisters teach poor problem kids and noticed the biggest problems had the most damage. Just a observation not a study sort of like the dentist chair experience.
    The data also confirm this double black damage the individual dentists seem not to notice or admit. The last CDC studies showed more like 48.42% damaged when the 25% with slight damage are not reported. Also the non fluoridated with half the damage or less are averaged in to hide the true fluoridation damage. Deceptive by design.
    The Burt Data in Detroit also showed besides the f-water ,soda and chips almost no vegetables or fruits. Pathetic nutrition causes horrible teeth being built and sugars and starches rot them out. Not dentists to teat is the final blow to lock in poor outcomes.
    I am begging the dentists please try to treat some poor kids. Open up your practice and allow them in the chair. Make a difference as only a skilled professional can to a damaged person. Let Dr Jeffers of the Michigan Dental association twist some arms of dentists to do the right thing. They have experience at that. Dental incomes have soared the last two decades said the wall street Journal way past doctors working but a fraction of the hours. It is time to give back and treat those unable to afford the treatment they need. Please accept the lesser Medicaid payment and the people who need your skilled care the very most. Lets keep kids out of the emergency rooms for dental emergency growing common in cash strapped families.
    I am very interested in any comments from the dental community. Any chance of this happening? Dentists did this in my county a decade ago with excellent results but just quit for some reason and the percentage of poor being treated dropped quickly and stayed low. Especially with no public health dentist.

  • Maureen jones

    Fluoridation: Not Safe at 1 ppm!

    From the California Dental Association Executive Bulletin, January 12, 2010:

    “Specifically, ADA granted CDA $200,000 to assist in our effort to prevent the placement of “fluoride and its salts” on the List of Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity that is produced by the State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) requires the governor to publish this list of toxic chemicals each year. OEHHA is currently considering fluoride and its salts for inclusion in the Proposition 65 listing. A determination is expected within the next 13 months.”

    Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer) and Fluoridation
    Caffey (1955) noted that the age, sex, and anatomical distribution of the cortical bone defects observed in the Kingston-Newburgh fluoridation trial were “strikingly” similar to that of osteogenic sarcoma. There was no follow up study.
    Cohn (1992). The New Jersey Department of Health conducted a study of osteosarcoma occurrence in seven Central New Jersey counties. The study finds a statistically significant relationship between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma among males less than 20 years old.
    Bassin (2001). A Doctoral Thesis from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine analyzed data from a large case control study of fluoride and osteosarcoma. A robust, statistically-significant relation (7 times increase) was found between consumption of fluoridated water during the childhood growth spurt (ages 6-8) and osteosarcoma among boys less than age 20.
    Bassin (2006) Above age-specific work published in Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8. Among boys less than age 20 who consumed water with 0.3 to 0.99 ppm fluoride between ages 6-8, the risk of osteosarcoma was five times greater than for boys drinking nonfluoridated water. At 1 ppm or more, the risk was seven times greater.

    Takahashi K et al. (2001) Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 11, No. 4 July. From the abstract:
    Age-specific and age-standardized rates (ASR) of registered cancers for nine communities in the U.S.A. (21.8 million inhabitants, mainly whites) were obtained from IARC data (1978-82, 1983-87, 1988-92). The percentage of people supplied with “optimally” fluoridated drinking water (FD) obtained from the Fluoridation Census 1985, U.S.A. were used for regression analysis of incidence rates of cancers at thirty six sites (ICD-WHO, 1957). About two-thirds of sites of the body (ICD) were associated positively with FD. Cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-billiary and urinary organs were positively associated with FD. This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. The likelihood of fluoride acting as a genetic cause of cancer requires consideration.

    New Scientist Jan. 22, 1981.
    Hydrogen bonding is a weak interaction that holds molecules together. They make and break easily and this is what makes them so versatile – indeed the hydrogen bonds formed between amides (the links between amino acids) are the most important weak hydrogen bonds in biological systems. That these can be disrupted by fluoride in the formation of much stronger bonds may explain how the chemically inert fluoride ion could interfere in the healthy operation of living systems. Thus some of the serious charges that are being laid at its door – genetic damage, birth defects, cancer and allergy response – may arise from fluoride interference after all.

    Hip Fracture and Fluoridation
    Fluoride is incorporated more readily into mineralizing new bone rather than existing bone. Thus, adults retain about 50 percent of ingested fluoride whereas infants and children retain 87 percent. When fluoride substitutes the hydroxyl ion in the crystal lattice of bone, it makes bone more brittle and diminishes tensile strength. The link between fluoridated water and hip fracture:
    1a) Cooper C, et al. (1990). J of Epidemiology and Community Health 44:17-19.
    1b) Cooper C, et al. (1991). J American Medical Asso. 266:513-514.
    2) Danielson C, et al. (1992). J American Medical Asso. 268: 746-748
    3) Hegmann KT, et al. (2000). American Journal of Epidemiology P. S18.
    4) Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1992). Annals of Epidemiology 2: 617-626.
    5) Jacobsen SJ, et al. 1990). J American Medical Asso. 264(4): 500-2.
    6a) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1995). J American Medical Asso. 273: 775-776 (letter).
    6b) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1998). Epidemiology 9(4): 417-423.
    7) Keller C. (1991) Osteoporosis International 2: 1109-117.
    8) Kurttio PN, et al. (1999) American J of Epidemiology 150(8): 817-824.
    9) May DS, Wilson MG. (1992). Osteoporosis International 2:109-117.

    Fluoridated Water and the Brain
    Varner JA et al. Brain Research 784, 284-298 (1998). Twenth-seven rats were divided into three groups and for one year were given either distilled water, distilled water with 2.1 ppm NaF – the same concentration of fluoride normally used in fluoridated drinking water – or distilled water with 0.5 ppm AlF3. In both treated groups, the aluminum levels in the brain were elevated relative to controls. The researchers speculate that fluoride in water may complex with the aluminum in food and enable it to cross the blood-brain barrier. Both treated groups also suffered neural injury and showed increased deposits of B-amyloid protein in the brain, similar to those seen in humans with Alzheimer’s disease. “While the small amount of ALF3 …required for neurotoxic effects is surprising, perhaps even more surprising are the neurotoxic effects of NaF” at 2.1 ppm, the authors write.

    Masters R.D., Coplan M.J. et al. NeuroToxicology 21(6): 1091-1100. (2000) From the abstract:
    Chronic, low-level dosage of silicofluoride (SiF) has never been adequately tested for health effects in humans. We report here on a statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead (VBL) tests taken from children ages 0-6 inclusive, living in 105 communities of populations from 15,000 to 75,000. The tests are part of a sample collected by the New York State Department of Children’s Health, mostly from 1994-1998. Fluoridation status was determined from the CDC 1992 Fluoridation Census. For every age/race group, there was consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead. The highest likelihood of children having VBL greater than the danger level of 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood occurs when they are both exposed to SiF treated water and likely to be subject to another risk factor known to be associated with high blood lead. Results are consistent with prior analyses of surveys of children’s blood lead in Massachusetts and NHANES III.

    Chronic Kidney Disease and Fluoridation
    The kidneys are exposed to significant amounts of fluoride as they try to eliminate it from the body. At risk of retaining harmful levels of fluoride are the 16.8 % of U.S. population aged 20 years and over who have Chronic Kidney Disease (2004 NHANES). Formerly a proponent of fluoridation, the National Kidney Foundation wrote on April 15, 2008, “The 1981 NKF position paper on fluoridation is outdated. The paper is withdrawn and will no longer be circulated.”

    Maureen Jones, Archivist – Citizens for Safe Drinking Water – http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org
    maureenj@pacbell.net (408) 297-8487 Fluoride Action Network – http://www.FluorideAlert.org

    Fluoride: Not Effective at 1 ppm!

    Fluoridation has historically been “sold” to politicians and civic leaders by using photos of rampant Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup Tooth Decay (BBTD), a highly visible decay of the upper front teeth. The cause of the decay is high levels of strep mutan bacteria. Fluoridated water at 1 ppm does not kill this bacteria that, 1) colonize on tooth surfaces, 2) thrive and multiply on sugars, and 3) pass their acidic waste onto the dental enamel causing the damage we call tooth decay.

    50 percent of U.S. Head Start children have Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup tooth decay from high levels of strep mutans bacteria. A steady source of sugar is supplied to the bacteria by sipping fluids rather than drinking fluids from a cup. The bacteria's acidic waste first ravages the primary teeth and then continues on to decay the permanent teeth.

    In January 2000, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Senior Risk Assessment Scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Analysis, reviewed the 1993-94 California Oral Health Needs Assessment for the City of Escondido (Keepers-of-the-Well.org, #17 Effectiveness) and stated in her critique:

    1) For preschool children, … any evaluation of the effectiveness of various measures (fluoridation) must control for the occurrence of BBTD and,

    2) Any study of the effectiveness of a particular measure (fluoridation) in preventing dental caries must control for the presence of dental sealants, or the results will be meaningless. and,

    3) In addition, if children with BBTD are thought to be more prone to developing caries in permanent teeth, then history of BBTD vs. caries incidence should be examined for both preschool and elementary children.

    The dental literature is clear that elementary school children with a history of BBTD are indeed more prone to decay in permanent teeth. Therefore, controlling or adjusting for history of BBTD in elementary school children should be the norm but is never done! By not adjusting for BBTD history and sealants, dental studies of school children can claim a (false) fluoridation benefit!
    _______________

    J H Shaw. “Causes of Dental Caries; Microbial Agents” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 317 No 16, Oct. 15, 1987.

    When rats are delivered by cesarean section and maintained under sterile conditions, they can be kept in a germ-free state for generations. Carious lesions do not develop when germ-free rats are fed a caries-producing diet.

    Bacteriocin typing of S. mutans has indicated that the mother is a major source of oral infection in her infant. …When all carious lesions in pregnant women were restored and they followed good dietary practices, their salivary S. mutans counts decreased to low levels. When these low counts were maintained during their infants' early lives, their salivary counts of S. mutans were also low and they acquired fewer carious lesions than other children of comparable age. When children in the same study became infected with S. mutans before the age of two years, they had approximately eight times as many carious lesions as children in whom S. mutans was not detected until the age of four.

    Auge, K. Denver Post Medical Writer. Doctors donate services to restore little girl's smile. The Denver Post, April 13, 2004. (Note: Denver, CO has been fluoridated since 1954.)
    “Sippy cups are the worst invention in history. The problem is parents' propensity to
    let toddlers bed down with the cups, filled with juice or milk. The result is a sort of
    sleep-over party for mouth bacteria,” said pediatric dentist Dr. Barbara Hymer as she
    applied $5,000 worth of silver caps onto a 6-year-old with decayed upper teeth. Dr.
    Brad Smith, a Denver pediatric dentist estimates that his practice treats up to 300 cases a
    year of what dentists call Early Childhood Caries. Last year, Children's Hospital did
    2,100 dental surgeries, many of which stemmed from the condition, Smith said, and
    it is especially pervasive among children in poor families.

    Shiboski CH et al. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity Among California Preschool Children. J Pub Health Dent; Vol 63, No 1, Winter 2003.
    Among 2,520 children, the largest proportion with a history of falling asleep sipping
    milk/sweet substance was among Latinos/Hispanics (72% among Head Start and 65%
    among non-HS) and HS Asians (56%). Regarding the 30% and 33% resultant decay
    rates respectively; Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not
    children lived in an area with fluoridated water.

    Barnes GP et al. Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle Tooth Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children. Public Health Reports; 107: 167-73, 1992.
    By either of the two criterion i.e., two of the four maxillary incisors or three of the four maxillary incisors, the rate for 5-year-olds was significantly higher than for 3-year-olds. Children attending centers showed no significant differences based on fluoride status for the total sample or other variables.

    Kelly M et al. The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American
    Populations. J Pub Health Dent; 47:94-97, 1987.
    The prevalence of BBTD in the 18 communities of Head Start children ranged from 17 to 85 percent with a mean of 53%. The surveyed communities had a mixture of fluoridated and non fluoridated drinking water sources. Regardless of water fluoridation, the prevalence of BBTD remained high at all of the sites surveyed.

    “Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits and fissures (grooves), mainly on the chewing surfaces of the back teeth. Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces only comprise about 15% of all permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay in U.S. children in 1986-87.”
    Selected Findings and Recommendations from the 1993/94 CA Oral Health Needs Assessment.

    “Because the surface-specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent of the remaining decay is found in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of children's teeth; those surfaces that are not as affected by the protective benefit of fluoride.”
    Letter, August 8, 2000, from Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H., CDC Atlanta GA.

    “Nearly 90 percent of cavities in school children occur in the surfaces of teeth with vulnerable pits and grooves, where fluoride is least effective.”
    Facts From National Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent Marshall, MN, 5/92.
    _______________________
    Maureen Jones, Archivist – Citizens for Safe Drinking Water – http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org
    maureenj@pacbell.net (408) 297-8487 Fluoride Action Network – http://www.FluorideAlert.org

  • jimschultz

    Let me post some links for those interested in reading some data or other points of view.
    http://www.fluorideaction.net
    http://www.waterloowatch.com
    http://www.spotsonmyteeth.com
    http://www.iaomt.org
    http://www.nteu280.org
    http://www.dentalconfessions.com
    To understand the Toxicology risk issue see what the EPA science unions have been saying starting in 1985. Clearly they stated fraud by altered documents and ignored data was policy at the EPA. Data of risk was ignored under direction of management or else to permit risky illegal actions to continue. Robert Carton PHD called it fraud as many other scientists have before and after. Most countries never fluoridated or quit after objections or poor results. Most of the countries with the biggest decreases in cavities do not fluoridate. The WHO data shows this and Bill Osmunson DDS MPH shows this in a video. Same for every state data of the CDC where only income predicts outcome never fluoridation. Fluoridation happens because policy promotes it not because it decreases cavities. Every state shows this with rich about 85% good outcome and poor closer to 50% if fluoridated or not. Kentucky got the 50 year 100% CDC special award for the most fluoridation the longest. Not mentioned by the CDC is they lead the nation in missing tooth smiles in 100% fluoridated Kentucky. Nutrition is the foundation of healthy teeth and income is the best predictor of cavities. Fluoridation is a complete ruse with polluting industry data back in the 40's. By proper design anything can be claimed in faulty science. The case was claimed closed the debate over before the first human study was completed in 1951. Adult teeth from babies were just starting to pop out as it takes 5 to 6 years to see the first results. Fluoridation was already in full blown promotion with money flowing to start up the new science miracle that would end cavities. This had nothing to do with science if you read the transcripts if your read how they planned this deception with slick advertising and using dentists as the pawns to promote. Most were very unwilling in the very beginning but most bought in quickly some by threats on their ability to practice .license.
    When some spoke up they were slapped down quickly and most just shut up to keep their job.
    St Pete Fl had 40 take out a full page ad in 1958 but after the AMA spoke to them they deceided to be silent and work instead. Canada is currently begging to report dentists not promoting fluorididation so they can be investigated for action against. Hardy Limeback had that problem for speaking out. Many others have lost jobs and positions of leadership in dental associations. Under the bylaws a ADA dentist must promote fluoridation policy. In a perfect world it would be about science. The ADA has also sought injunctions to halt dentists from discussing risks of mercury toxicity from amalgams. Wealthy dentist.com discovered the majority of dentists refuse to use mercury fillings today because of the risks especially to the dentists who handled this deadly toxin every day. They are the biggest mercury source if you have mercury fillings. That is what most of the poor get as people with more money go to a dentist who refuses or pay a few bucks extra. This is another huge litigation risk for dentists besides fluorides. Many dentists double dose patients already fluoride toxic from the water fluoridation, toothpaste and contaminated beverages and foods. The new fluoride food fumigation is a new huge potential source but not studied yet. Huge levels of fluoride residue are legal in 200 food groups with dried eggs to top top of the heap at 900ppm limit. Almost toothpaste toxic still legal. Grains from 70-125ppm allowed but any processed grain tops at 70ppm. This is immediate toxic effects of stomach distress and much worse over time. No warning must be made your product was fumigated in processing or storage and is fluoride toxic. Some have even been pulled as tested above the limit but so very little testing is ever done so not likely you would ever know. Dow Profume is used which is also called Vikane when building are tented for termites and wood pests. This is very deadly and a huge green house gas with long life but got the speedy approval by claiming it was not. Deception maybe.
    Trust less and remember dentists who promote fluoridation know nothing about all this either. They just do the talking points of the ADA which has shot dental incomes past doctors working half the hours often. 20 years ago they made less then doctors said the Wall Street Journal article. Much of this new income comes from growing fluoride toxicity damaged teeth. Cosmetic repairs is a huge income growth area but sadly the poor with the most damage get to keep ugly teeth for life that are more cavity prone. If they are not in your chair then maybe they do not exist. Look at your kids teeth but realize when you see it it is already too late as the damage was done 5 years ago as the kids teeth formed. Infants should never be given fluoridated water unless you want that outcome. Most are never warned of the risks. Many are still double dosed by trusted doctor or dentist. That is never a good choice. Never.

  • 6jwillie

    In additin to being ineffective fkor teeth and dangerous to health, floridation is an absolute waste of tax money. People only drink 1/2% of the water they use.
    For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 would be consumed by children. Can you think of a more wasteful government program?
    Distributing a drug (or fluoride poison) in drinking water is absolutly the most wasteful method. A plan to give away fluoride tablets free to whoever wants them would be much, much cheaper. Then the rest of us would not be drugged against our will and the environment would be protected.

  • jimschultz

    When will people actually figure out the claims of every study by the dentists is just a bluff. Those that read the data know it is like putting all the money in the pot with out a pair. The public accepts the bluff and folds. That is why actual debate is rare because they discovered long ago the data of risk and no ingested benefit wins converts when listened to. They can not be on the same stage in a contest of science. They must rely on trust and authority and discredit the other side as lone nut jobs or misguided was the term they called me but refused to allow me to speak. Yes after a secret meeting of dentists and health department they had the workshop in Port Orange I had asked for. I and others against fluoridation were not allowed to speak but were allowed in the room to listen. The sham wow guy or Billy Mayes are to be trusted far more as they have a guarantee of benefit. Money back. The commission voted only allowing one side of the issue to be heard. They would have kicked our butts like a can they want you to believe. Fact is they avoid studies except to claim all prove their position. One commissioner associated with a health provider confronted me outside the chamber saying for every study I had He had one Thousand. I said please show me one. In a red faced rage he walked away after a very reasonable request. I have provided them in dozens of visits with hundreds of studies. He can not come up with one after a silly bluff. Not exactly the sign of a reasoned decision. I got 5 talk shows willing to do a debate and a city building. The health department went silent refusing to answer calls or emails for months. This all happened after a Channel 6 Orlando news special on risks of fluoridation by Tarrick Minor. I did not even see the whole broadcast as I had a speaking engagement. The one clip I saw had the health department saying there never had been a reputable study ever showing fluoridation hurt anybodys teeth ,young or old.. The truth is there has never been one study because all show fluoridation (and other sources) are the only cause of dental fluorisis damaged teeth. Most is mild but so many have very ugly for life teeth especially in the black community. Double the damage in the moderate and severe which is every tooth damaged and ugly. This is life changing and the last two reviews both thought it a health effect which if the EPA ever agrees will make fluoridation illegal. Dishonest working of the ground rules and outright fraud in changing reports has protected fluoridation from immediate ban. This is what the EPA science unions have been saying starting in 1985 when they discovered fraud. In 2005 11 EPA unions asked congress to halt fluoridation. 19 on Feb 29 2008. This is 10,000 whistle blowers. One whistle blower at Enron or BP might have been enough. How many does it take at the EPA?
    The CDC science shows topical benefit not ingested in 1999 and 2001 MMWR. The fluoridation theory was proven invalid but was switched to topical benefit claim. Most dentists still believe the old theory true showed the Yoder K.M. dentist testing. All patients are at risk for little benefit and great risk until our trusted dentists actually accept the science. Dentist Egger shows how unlikely he is to admit his beliefs were wrong. Many will suffer because of that. I just hope he is not one that prescribes fluoride supplements not knowing if infants already are fluoride toxic from fluoridation. Most have not accepted the ADA and CDC no fluoridated water for infants Nov 9 2006 Egram.. Dentists are harder to retrain then old dogs. Their beliefs are too deep but still not based on science.They are not evil just misguided following the ADA talking points of promote fluoridation to be a good dentist.
    This is really beyond their skill set as it is an issue for a toxicologist not a dentist to call the shots. That decision is above their pay grade. Informed consent should be a right of all citizens not to be medicated with out full disclosure of all risks. Fluoridation is only one of many sources of fluoride and no one can know their intake with any accuracy for a lifetime. That is the real issue.
    If dentists want to do good let them actually treat poor kids on medicaid. It is a rare one that does. I want to see all the dentists do their share to improve the dental health of the poor. Action not talk. Immediate positive results we can see.

  • Janinharbor

    Thanks to all of you and you Jim, whom, haven't heard of before, but you sound like you have the passion I do for trying to “knock” some common sense into our City Commissioners heads!
    Well, the Dentists are just as hard headed and uneducated however.
    I too have been studying about Fluoridation almost every day. Talking to anyone who will listen and learning more and more from emails and phone calls to Dr.Paul Connett/ founder of The Fluoride Action Network site and Eleanor or Carol,who head up the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoride, Jeff Green,in SanDiego,”Who's Tending the Well” and Prof. (Dr) A.K. Susheela from India., And last but not least, activist, Gladys Mitchell from Mt. Pleasant, Mi.who all have been diligently working on Stopping the Toxin Fluorosilicic Acid from being added to our drinking water for years.. And I a nurse, who has was born and raised in Michigan and now live in Harbor Springs, where they have fluoridated their water since 1953, and they had the one of the largest spills in the nation back on November 22nd, 1977.
    I have been trying to inform our City Commissioners and Mayor and City Managers, as much as I can. I think our community , if they knew what I know about the horrendous diseases this “slow drip is causing to our bodies”, they all would be very concerned that our government has continued this daily “drip” of this Neurotoxin, as I am.
    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand common chemistry and common household dangers that ingesting Rat Poison would cause harm, even if, done on a EPA regulated level. You see they think that if you give a little poison daily it won't hurt you. When the opposite is true according the “Comprehensive Neurotoxin Research group of doctors out of the University of Minnisota”, google that one and you will learn what the 1178 they list is and what it is doing to your body and who is selling them as Pharmaceuticals !.
    I am sorry, I am past my teeth forming years, and I shouldn't have to drink their Neurotoxin on into my senior years. All its doing is depsoiting in my body and causing my bones and teeth to demineralize, my thyroxine levels are all messed up due to it, I now have GERD from their acid they keep pumping into my apartment, as water.
    My skin absorbs alot of it just from showering in it daily. The Cartilage in my neck is deteriorating….all of these things are from years of being made to ingest their “F” enzyme inhibitor negative ion!…..when the FDA never approved it to be ingested.
    The EPA only regulates it. What we do not use, gets flushed down the toilet and transmitted to the Waste Management, which then gets put into our Great Lakes and Rivers, or six inches under some farmer who contracted with them to dump it on his land and get paid for doing it. Then he grows produce over it and sells it to us to eat.
    You see our Federal Government has never come up with a better plan than to “re-cycle”
    Industrial Toxic Waste Products, through the soil into the Aquafor and then into the water again. Or they just dump it into the rivers and Great Lakes and give the excuse that it will be diluted to non toxic levels, that shouldn't harm us or the animals.
    Why havent' they come up with a plan to can it in a barrel and bury it?
    No, they wouldn't do that, espeically if they can come up with some fairy tale that you will believe that , “that fluroide ion is helping prevent tooth decay” With no scientific proof !
    But, just in case they will study the toads and the frogs and the fish to see if they end up with 2 heads or five legs or never seem to be able to reproduce. How many woman in the state of Michigan have trouble conceiving ? What is the cause? Ask Veterinarian, they will tell yah…….sick animals aren't marketable, sick humans make doctors money.
    Pick the brain of a Veterinarian sometime…..you will learn alot about how to stay healthy…..
    I say, let the Doctors and Dentists prescribe as many Fluroide tablets as he wants to, and alllow the patient to exhibit their rights to refuse it .
    But don't advocate that stuff being put in my drinking and showering water without a prescription , because it is unconstitutional and against my rights living in the USA for you to think that you can administer a medication through my drinking water. The Health Risks you are imposing upon me as a human being in this country, far outways any Pearly Whites you think you can produce in me. In fact, there are people with the worst case of Dental Fluorosis I have ever seen living in my apartment building. She said her teeth have been that way since she was a child….of course they have, she was born and raised in Harbor Springs…..she was probably in high school when they had the spill and dumped the entired truck load into the water at City Hall and the Machine broke, un beknown to the maintence man and according to the report people were vomiting for 12 hours after they had drank but a sip of water at the school or at a nursing home….all the blessed CDC said, well that is the best way to get rid of it, vomit it out…….CDC never shut the Fluroide down , like they should have, told the people to let the water run for 15 minutes, and worst of all I think , is none of the people got free blood levels run or any follow up at all for those exposed to it. They estimated that the “F” levels were between 1,000 to 2,000 ppm in a 8 oz glass of water……..How many of those people got brain damage, cancer of the bone, Skeletal/Osteoporosis, Dental Fluorosis,
    Now that would have been a good time to study the side effects of a toxic dose of Fluroide.
    Any normal government agency would have….but not them…
    Check these sites out…..I'm ranting again and I got to get off this subject, and let you learn and educate yourself about it, as I have had to do…….
    Here's some sites I feel are very informative: Good health to you all ! Janice H.
    #
    Affidavit of Dr. A.K. Susheela
    I, Dr. A. K. Susheela, have spent more than 20 years doing scientific research in … I am a Ph.D from India, with Post-doctoral training under LORD WALTON …
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/susheela.htm – Cached – Similar
    #
    Shundrallah: Fluoride: World-renowned Professor (Dr) A K Susheela …
    Apr 30, 2010 … Professor (Dr) A.K. Susheela of India, who has researched fluoride for more than 20 years, has listed a range of health issues linked to …
    shundrallah.blogspot.com/…/fluoride-world-renowned-professor-dr-k.html – Cached
    #
    Fluoride Toxicity: AFFIDAVIT OF A.K. SUSHEELA, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF …
    Jan 3, 2010 … I, Dr. A. K. Susheela, have spent more than 20 years doing … I am a Ph.D from India, with Post-doctoral training under LORD WALTON …
    loveforlife.com.au/…/fluoride-toxicity-affidavit-ak-susheela-phd-support-motion-summary-judgment – Cached – Similar
    #
    Videos for (Dr) A.K. Susheela from India.
    Fluoride Poisoning: East meets West
    59 min – Aug 20, 2008
    Uploaded by Grass Roots & Global Video (AEHSP)
    video.google.com

    Susheela interview (August 12, 2008)
    18 min – Sep 2, 2008
    Uploaded by Grass Roots & Global Video (AEHSP)
    video.google.com
    #
    NeuroResearch Neurotoxin Home Page
    A comprehensive listing of toxins neurotoxins that cause damage to the serotonin and … NeuroResearch Clinics, Inc. Cape Coral, Florida USA Research Office …
    http://www.neuroassist.com/Neurotoxins.htm – Cached – Similar
    #
    Depression due to neurotoxicity neurotransmitter neurotoxin research
    Jan 31, 2009 … The most comprehensive listing located reveals 1179 known neurotoxins.39 Susceptibility of individuals based on genetic predisposition, …
    http://www.neuroassist.com/depression-due-to-neurotoxi... – Cached

  • jimschultz

    I live in ormond Beach Fl but am visiting in Michigan now working on a home
    I have in harrison township by lake St Clair north of Detroit..I graduated
    from CMU in 1971 and have been working this health issue for over 5 years
    now. keep up the good work. Jim

  • Peter Daniel

    Read Christopher Bryson's book 'The Fluoride Deception' and you will never again wonder if fluoridation was a good idea. Bryson's book should be to any intelligent person as the bible is to a christian except that Bryson has all the references with proof to go with this shocking deception that has been bestowed on us.

  • Peter Daniel New Zealand

    I'm a District Coucillor in New Zealand and here is my take on fluoridation and where we are up to at present. I am convinced that fluoridation will soon be seen in an even worse light than tobacco, DDT, leaded petrol and asbestos.

    I believe there will be a multitude of court battles, as there was before the 'Great Deception'!

    KCDC is the Kapiti Coast District Council The area I live in is called Kapiti pronounced carp a tee. MOH is Ministry Of Health our Government Health Body who are pro fluoridation.

    Some months ago I wore two hats at a KCDC meeting. I am a councillor but at this meeting I chose to speak during public speaking time as a member of the public. I made a plea to cease the fluoridation of Raumati South, Raumati, Paraparaumu, Otaihanga and Waikanae. I was overwhelmed with the enthusiasm. And without my participation a vote was made 7 to 3 to cease fluoridation after extensive consultation and a report from council. If successful fluoridation was to cease on the 1st of July 2010.

    This was obviously not a happy decision for MOH who then set out to torpedo this initiative using all the resources available to them. They had just lost a battle in the far north with both Kaitaia and Kaikohe deciding not to continue with fluoridation of their respective water supplies.

    They obviously saw the probability that if Kapiti went it could lead to their stack of cards falling in around them

    MOH dominated the last two hours of the Annual Plan hearings and much of what they told us was later discredited

    Later on the vote to cease fluoridation was lost with a 5 to 5 vote meaning holding the status quo.

    There is real corporate power behind this and even the top Lecturer at Otago Universities School of Medicine's oral health branch has at it's head The Colgate Senior Lecturer in the Discipline of Periodontics.

    This is where most of our dentists undergo their training and behind dentistry all around the world you will find the name Colgate or Colgate Palmolive synonymous with dentistry and health in general. They are even sponsors for New Zealand Plunkett.

    I had personally done well in excess of 1000 hours research on the net and had read Christopher Bryson's book 'The Fluoride Deception'.

    This book is like the bible is to a Christian with the main difference being that Christopher Bryson has all the references in the book to prove that what he is telling you are the facts.

    I would defy any human being of sound mind who reads this book to ever doubt the way we have been deceived on the fluoridation issue.

    I purchased 3 more copies of this book, gave one to my dentist and one each to two councillors. I knew that if they remained pro fluoride that that they had simply chosen not to read the book. I am in no doubt that none of them did.

    It was only 2 years ago that I too had ultimate faith in MOH to look after the health of myself and my fellow beings. Believe me it came a disastrous shock to discover that in the case of fluoridation this was not so.

    Bryson's compelling evidence makes it very clear that fluoridation happened plainly and simply to take away the tragic image that fluoride was having to make it look like the magic elixir for all our dental woes

    Alco the producers of aluminium used it to flux metals in their foundries and the Atomic bomb makers were using astronomical amounts of fluoride in the making of the bomb. Thousands of workers were suffering severe poisoning from fluoride inhalation and exposure. The equivalent of billions of dollars was being paid out in lawsuits.

    The Government and the Aluminium industry had to find a way to combat growing dissension over fluoride poisoning it might have even put the building of the atomic bomb in jeopardy. A brilliant concept was dreamed up. If they put small amounts into public water supplies this would immediately change peoples perception from fluoride being a poison to that of being a savior.

    To win over public support they employed Mr Publicity America, Edward Bernays. He had very successfully also led the way to encourage women to take up smoking. He saw very quickly that all he had to do was convince the dentists and doctors and he would have won. He succeeded as he always did.

    It worked, at least in 8 countries.

    There is not one scrap of credible evidence anywhere in these 8 countries that fluoridation has worked and every time MOH come up with statistics they can always be discredited.

    There are so many lies told, half truths and using rhetorical statements from the past that to the educated makes them look like a bunch of brainwashed parrots sitting on their purported safe perches totally brainwashed into reeling off the same old jargon phrases again and again

    These are six favorites that one comes across add nauseam: ' Fluoridation is one of the “10 Greatest Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century'. This was made by dentists. It is not within a dentists purview to know anything about toxicology or general practice medicine. Therefore they have no right to make such a sweeping statement. The next one is that: 'Dental fluorosis is purely cosmetic' This is what we are told by the dental Industry. As I said they no nothing about toxicology and any toxicologist that knows his profession will tell you that dental fluorosis is the flag flying for all to see showing clear evidence of fluoride intoxication. This means that it is a virtual certainty that there is also damage inside this person’s body. Another one is: ‘ we are just building up the natural levels' This is a total nonsense. The so called natural fluoride is calcium fluoride which is almost everywhere in varying amounts in different countries, it is not as toxic as man made sodium silicofluoride but in India and China where there is an over abundance of calcium fluoride over 8 million people have terrible crippling skeletal fluorosis. The fluoride that is put into our water supply at present comes mostly from superphosphate works in Belgium. This is a country that does not fluoride and never will. It is a waste toxic chemical gathered from the smoke stacks of their production factories. Too toxic to release into the atmosphere or put into the waterways. But when they sell it to us it immediately becomes a product and totally safe for us to drink.

    The fourth is by far the worst the most stupid and the most parroted one of all. Fluoridation ' Is safe and effective'. They say it so often that I often hear less informed members of the public saying it as well. there was an old cliche for DDT and it went 'DDT Is Good For You' Say it often enough and you will believe it!

    Fluoridation is neither safe nor effective

    And next. ' It has positive effects on lower socio economic groups'

    In New York after 50 years of fluoridation in some precincts has clearly proved to be totally ineffective. We are talking poor multicultural deprived areas here where tooth decay is rampant so much so that not only do thousands of kids have dental fluorosis and per capita the worst teeth in America but they live 24 hours a day in excruciating pain. Whereas there are two precincts without fluoridation where tooth decay is far less rampant, way less dental fluorosis and these kids are actually have better teeth better than the national average for fluoridated areas.
    Finally the last one is quoting what they consider to be the be all and end all comprehensive review done at York University in 2000 on fluoridation. Well the fact is that a comprehensive systematic review was done on the York Review by 3 of the UK’s top professors and they found that it did not show fluoridation to be adequately proven on the most fundamental questions. They did not prove that fluoridation was safe or that it would help lower socio economic groups etc.

    98% Western Europe is not fluoridated and have better teeth than those that are. The answer is better nutrition, nutrition, nutrition!

    Huge amounts of toxic silicofluoride is bought up but Corporations such as Colgate who put it into toothpastes and many other products and the profits on this toxic garbage is astronomical.

    Fluoridation is a farce and that is yet another reason why MOH do not want Regional Councils of District Councils to listen to anybody but themselves spouting forth the same old clichés. They will do anything to avoid a debate with anti fluoridationists.

    The Internet has a growing amount of evidence against fluoridation that is probably unprecedented in quantity and quality.

    Nidel Law in Washington is asking people with dental fluorosis to come forward so that they can take out court cases on their behalf. This is just the beginning. Who is going to be held responsible when it left to District Councils to vote on whether to fluoridate or not?

    Fluoridation is on the way out. In Holland after the decision had been made to cease fluoridation it is said that pro fluoridationists slunk off into the background.

  • NYS dentist

    Ok, I will start off by saying that I'm dentist and that I take great offense to blanket statements such as “if dentists want to do good let them actually treat poor kids on medicaid.” First off, my practice treats medicaid patients and we do not have to. We have a large patient base and choose to do so to serve the under-served. With that being said, there are two major problems with treating medicaid patients, both of which may seem like generalizations but are real problems.

    1.) The no-show rate (i.e. patients that do not keep appointments) is extremely high. This not only costs our practice money, but makes us less likely to offer appointment times to these patients in the future.
    2.) Lets face it, bills need to be paid. 60-70% of all revenue goes to pay the bills and like any business, it costs LOTS of money to run. Student loans, staff, supplies, mortgages/rent, utilities… it all adds up and it's difficult to pay the bills when you are compensated at 40-50% the normal rate. People have no idea how much it costs to run a dental practice. If you want lower rates, talk to the dental suppliers that charge us $150 for a tool that costs $5 to make.

    Good ethics and morals allow us to do good when we can. I do more probono work on people per year than some people make in a year. I donate my time when possible and work to serve the people. You can say that I am one dentist and for every dentist like me there are 10 not like me but you are simply making generalizations based on speculation of the profession as a whole being money hungry and dishonest.

    As for dentists not being qualified to make the call on fluoridation. The use of fluoride is based on data provided by public health studies in conjunction with medical and dental studies. Dentists do not dictate the level or whether or not fluoride is provided to communities.

    Contrary to what you may think you know about dentistry, the field is largely based on scientific research. It is not fair for you to make accusations that we are 'old dogs' and do not continue to learn. I subscribe to 5 peer reviewed journals and based on scientific research. If you want an eye-opening experience, do some research using a real search engine for research, not google:

    Go to pubmed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed, and do a search for “fluoride AND (dental caries)”

    I think you will be surprised that the literature is broad on this topic and covered not only by dental journals but medical and public health journals. I'm sure you will even find some based on toxicology since you point out we are not qualified toxicologists (though I went to medical school). THESE are facts based on actual studies. It is not conspiracy theory put forth by dentists. What do we have to gain by people using fluoride??? We don't get cuts in the toothpaste industry. People would need toothpaste with or without fluoride. Fluoride does not cause tooth decay, we are trying to prevent it. There is one thing for certain, if you take away fluoride, a comparison of this generation and future generations will show the inverse of what we have seen since the introduction of fluoride; there will be a higher incidence of caries. Topical fluoride in toothpaste hardens enamel and prevents decay in teeth already formed and erupted. Fluoride in drinking water acts in 2 ways for teeth 1.) It provides systemic distribution to the body, providing fluoride to developing teeth 2.) Low-dose topical exposure to teeth provides uptake of fluoride, especially if the acidity in the mouth is low enough to cause a low-grade demineralization (such as after a meal).

    I will not sit here and list study after study. I invite YOU to do some actual research based on REAL, scientific, peer reviewed journals. Go to pubmed. YOU do the research. I don't want to hear some so and so said studies that are so easily unearthed doing a quick google. There is plenty of research stating the risk of fluorosis but fluorosis should be of minimal risk just from drinking water. There are guidelines we use to minimize this risk and supplements should therefore be restricted in use in individuals that have water fluoridation. Please do your research. I am not claiming there are not risks for the use of fluoride but the benefits outweigh the risks when used correctly. If there are heavy metals used in the fluoride put into our drinking water, there must be better testing to ensure this doesn't occur. Fluoride is very important. Caries is an epidemic and is affecting more children today that diseases such as asthma. Vitamin C is toxic in large doses. Are we to ban vitamins with Vitamin C? Get rid of oranges?

  • Pdaniel

    Hi again from New Zealand. We sometimes get called conspiracy theorists but the fact is that unlike pro fluoridationists WE HAVE A PASSION FOR SEEKING OUT THE TRUTH looking rationally at all the arguments. They don't and won't do that.

    The Government officials will not meet with anti fluoridationists because they cannot defend their beliefs on fluoridation against the mountain of evidence against it! There minds are closed. So. Rather their brains are closed to the fact that fluoridation is a conspiracy. Believe me it is. And we who are opposed to fluoridation and who incidentally were not before we stared researching are TRUTH SEEKERS.

    I bought a rainwater tank about two years ago and would much rather risk all the bugs that go into that rather than taking in a poison that the human body has no requirement for whatsoever. 0.004 fluoride in mothers breast milk totally excreted by the baby!

    Finally just remember that most anti depressant drugs contain fluoride. Fluoroxitine about 85%. Basically it's purpose is to dumb down the brain and make one feel at ease with the world no matter what is happening. Is this good for Government and Corporate interests? Yo are damned right it is! Happy people no matter what evils are dealt out by Government. The desire and the spirit to stand up for our rights gone. Is this a little like being in a zombie like trance? How many people in the States, Australia, S Ireland and New Zealand are now in this trance?

  • Janinharbor

    Dear NYS Dentist,
    Have you actually studied Neurotoxins in while attending the school of Dentistry? Did you study the Fluorine gas Ion. Did you study the action of the product, like you should with any drug? Do you know how it is made into a liquid yellow fluorosilicic acid to be delivered to our Water Department? Do you know that It is obtain from a Toxic Chemical Distrubutor, and is a HapHarzard toxic chemical?
    Are you aware that the FDA has never approved this F ion to be ingested.
    Do you tell your patients to swallow toxic doses of the same unapproved by the FDA Fluoride gels and varnishes? Do you know the fatal dose of Fluoride is 3mgs to 5 mgs, and 1ppm equals 1mg? The EPA has never endorsed you adding a neurotoxin to our water either. They have been explicit about that with pass ADA newsletters saying that do endorse its use for the prevention of tooth decay. They have told the ADA to talk to the National Toxic Chemical people. They will monitor the machines that inject it every so many gallons of water that passes by. But to me , that is not a very accurate way to make sure it doesn''t come out our tap water fully mixed and diluted. Many times my eyes have burned terrible from the tap water in a shower.
    And it wasn't from soap in my eyes either, it occurred before shampooing and washing my face.
    I am a nurse, I am shocked that our Dentist would be using and advocating the ingestion and teeth absorption of a unapproved Neurotoxin , rat poison to be put into our water to prevent tooth decay. We did not consent to this as a people in the USA. And its is illegal to do any clinical studies on children in our country. That is why any adverse reactions noted by researchers is tossed out, if the general public new all of the diseases and brain damage and GERD and Osteoporosis and Dental Fluorosis, and hypothyroidism and Pineal gland calification, and broken bones and cancer of the bones and dissoloved cartiledge that this fluroide ingestion and application has caused , I think we not think much about you and your profession, being convinced in your denial and lack of study and scientific fraud that has gone on with this Fluroride. You ought to be ashamed of yourself that you even think it was helpful! With all of the science that is out there.
    My own dentist will not use and does not use any gels or varnishes on children who are younger than 7 yrs old. She knows she told me that it will cause Dental Fluorosis and expensive Cosmetic Dentistry for the parents to repair.
    the AMA has told the Public Health Department and the AMA, to not fluoridate a child younger than 12 months old. And do not allow a child 6yrs or younger to use fluoridated toothpaste. And so what does Colgate do, make fluoridated, bubblegum and watermelon flavored toothpaste for kids. A child of two years old does not have their swallowing reflex developed yet, and whatever they put in their mouth they swallow…..how many kids complain of “tummy aches” , no appetite…..that high dose of fluoride toothpaste could be eating the lining of the stomach up……
    You have not right to give our children any treatment with an unapproved medication for the treatment of any condition or disease. If you are , then you are reponsible for the clinical studies , which I am sure you are not documenting. Nor did you or any Pediatrician who gives PolyFluor vitamins to infect, d they disclose the toxicity of this Neurotoxin.
    You have no right to treat any disease by adding any medication to our water……..this is absolutely crazy. It is not SAFE.
    And no one should be drinking it past the age of permanent dental development either. Who wants to store up Fluroide in our bones and teeth for the rest of our lives! I have Osteoporosis and DDD of my neck , and hypothyroidism. Have you studied the toxic chemical fluoride and its action upon the thyroid gland?
    My guess is you have not done any independent study on the action of the drug your applying to a infants gums or a childs teeth….You are only going by what the CDC says, and they are not the FDA or the EP'A.; Afterall they are still telling you Mercury fillings are safe toxin, and they are putting Mercury in the Vaccines…..
    So both of you think its safe to consume any toxin they want to dump into a human.
    You have been brainwashed adversely by your Dental School. And your harming people just like they are with all their biased money hungry sales pitches for disposing of toxic waste products into human beings and animals. To save Industry money and fines and lawsuits………My dentist doesn't go along with that bad science,why do you!
    If a drug is doing harm its recalled! and should be! Why do you insist on forcing us to believe that its safe when its not, in any dose.
    Do you know it is a Bio-accumulative, and Endocrine Disruptor, and a Enzyme Inhibitor? Why would you think a Rat Poison in low doses won't hurt yah.
    Are you testing your patients urine and blood levels and teeth levels and bone levels to assure your not overdose them and it will cause problems for them ?
    NO………nope I 'll bet you have never checked one patients level of Fluoride in the entire time you have been in practice! The reason you don't is because you believe a rat poison is safe to consume in as high dose as you want. Because you have no knowledge concerning it..or you wouldn't do it……..Or if you know what it is and what it will do to your patients and continue it , then you have no ethic's , and are as bad as any criminal minded person would be.
    That is my opinion, and I don't mean to be mean, but you dentists need to study the drug your self and don't go by Salespeople who are out to make money on your buying their products…….You need to deeply care about what your doing to a infant, a child, a pregnant mother, an adult, by slapping that high doses of F varnish and gel on peoples teeth…….I am sure they are absorbing it throught their teeth , their buckle cavities and mixed with their saliva……..If you were trying to kill your wife with alittle bit of Arsenic or Fluroide till it diseased her body or killed her, you 'd be in prison right now!!!! So stop poisoning your patients!
    You need to study it, read the books suggested and the websites we have all suggested for the TRUTH….I can tell that you by what your saying , you only believe what the proponets have taught you…, you really have no scientific knowledge about the chemical your using in your dental practice.