In OUR DAILY DOSE, filmmaker Jeremy Seifert lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research.
Hailed by the Centers for Disease Control as one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century, water fluoridation is something most of us assume to be safe and effective. But new science has upended this assumption, revealing that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin and an endocrine disruptor. The CDC tells us that drinking fluoride decreases tooth decay, at best, by 25%. That is one-half to one cavity per person over a lifetime. Is one less cavity worth risking a child’s long-term brain and thyroid health? It’s time to rethink this very old practice.
In OUR DAILY DOSE, filmmaker Jeremy Seifert (GMO OMG) lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue. Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day. This is an eye-opening look at how we have less control over our health than we may have thought.
www.ourdailydose.com
Okay, but that’s not what I’m asking. What I want to know is how anyone knows that most people assume it is safe and effective. Just because forced-fluoridation is still happening does not mean that most people necessarily approve of it. The countries in question are not democracies.
I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.
http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/a-preliminary-investigation-into-fluoride-accumulation-in-bone/
And I have asked many anti-fluoride fanatics to name one person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water for as much as a lifetime. So far not one of those fanatics has been able to provide one name or give a straight answer.
You do know that fluoride’s effect on tooth enamel is topical, not systemic, right? You do not that fluoridation has caused widespread dental fluorosis, which is an indication that fluoride toxicity may already have reached damanging levels, and that fluoridation has been associated with lower IQ in numerous studies, right?
Jeremy, Yes, the effect of fluoride on enamel is topical. It is also systematic. Regarding topical effects, minute amounts of fluoride exist in saliva and plaque, via water fluoridation, and continually bathe and remineralize teeth. This mechanism of water fluoridation is widely known and understood. The fact that fluoride works topically has been exploited by the Fluoride Action Network which fails to address this mechanism of topical fluoride exposure on teeth.
Water fluoridation also works systemically. You mention dental fluorosis which is associated with water fluoridation. What FAN hasn’t told you about this is that only Very Mild and Mild dental fluorosis is associated with optimally fluoridated water. These degrees of dental fluorosis are characteristic of barely noticeable white spots (barely noticeable outside the dentist’s chair under special lighting) and are actually healthier and more resistant to decay. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049
But, since water fluoridation is associated with these healthier teeth, very mild to mild dental fluorosis, that is proof in itself that drinking fluoridated water works systemically also.
Regarding your last comment: “fluoridation has been associated with lower IQ in numerous studies, right?” Wrong. Here, you are referring to the “Harvard Study” which was a review of 27 Chinese, Iranian & Mongolian studies. One of the authors of the study, Anna Choi, in fact said, the review says nothing about levels of fluoride in water as they exist in US community water fluoridation. The studies were confounded by heavy industrial pollution, naturally high fluoride levels, much higher than in the U.S., and high fluoride levels in the atmosphere due to high coal pollution.
The more recent, 2015, New Zealand study which looked at community water fluoridation & IQ said, “Conclusions. These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832151
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21701196
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract
Jeremy, your quote: ” It is known that even the methods of delivering fluoride known as ‘systemic’ act mainly through a topical effect when they are in contact with the teeth.”
This is from the link you posted directly after that comment. Have you bothered to read it?
“Nevertheless, this evidence should not be interpreted as an indication that systemic methods are no longer relevant ways to deliver fluoride on an individual basis or for collective health programs.”
And again, your quote: “It is widely accepted that fluoride only helps prevent dental decay by topical means—by direct action on the tooth enamel….”
Answer: You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say on one hand that drinking optimally fluoridated water is associated with the mild degrees of dental fluorosis, which is also characteristic of stronger, healthier teeth, and on the other hand say fluoride’s effects occur topically only. Sorry.
And again, you have lost all my respect when you cited the “Harvard Study,” and tried to make the connection that drinking optimally fluoridated water leads to lower IQ. Anna Choi, one of the authors of the “Harvard Study” herself, said that the results of that Review can not be taken as an indictment of community water fluoridation as it exists in the United States.
And she is not alone. From the 2015 New Zealand Study “These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832151
And of course you have included a reference to the obligatory Cochrane Review which has been overly exploited by fluoride opponents such as yourself. Key words that you did happen to include are, “meeting the review’s inclusion criteria,” which was extremely high. You seem like an intelligent person and you should know that.
I beg to differ that the fact fluoride works topically, not systemically, should not be interpreted to call into question public policy.
I also beg to differ that studies showing an association between fluoridation and lower IQ do not allow us to make any judgment about the wisdom of public policy.
There are no studies that show an association between community water fluoridation, 0.7 ppm Fluoride, and lowered IQ. If you have any peer-reviewed science showing an association between optimally fluoridated water and lowered IQ, please provide it. But since none exists, I won’t hold my breath.
It won’t do to argue that there aren’t studies showing the currently recommended level of fluoridation doesn’t impair cognitive development since it hasn’t been studied. As Anna Choi, the lead author of the Harvard study, has noted,
The authors also reasonably judged that the risk of adversely affecting cognitive development in children
Furthermore,
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
Then there is your absurd notion of “optimally fluoridated water”. First of all, you are ignoring the facts that (1) water fluoridation is a violation of fundamental medical ethics and (2) you can’t control the dose. Second,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
You say the “optimal” level is 0.7 ppm. But that’s the new “optimal” level, down from the previous “optimal” level of up to 1.2 ppm, an “optimal” level the US government admitted was overexposing people and causing increased rates of dental fluorosis, which, again, is a symptom of fluoride toxicity. Futhermore,
In addition, fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, and
http://www.nap.edu/read/11571/chapter/10#265
Oh, and
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract
Jeremy, I think we are talking past each other. I’ve looked at your profile and you seem like an intelligent person. As an investigative reporter, I would hope that you would have an open mind, but I don’t see any evidence of that.
Your quote: “It won’t do to argue that there aren’t studies showing the currently recommended level of fluoridation doesn’t impair cognitive development since it hasn’t been studied.”
Wrong. You completely ignored the Broadbent Study that I cited in an earlier comment. An example of where we are talking past each other. Again, “Conclusions. These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832151
And you keep providing a link to the Harvard Review as though that was an indictment against optimally fluoridated water. It is not. You know it is not, and you keep referencing it.
In your next comment, you are employing the tactic of Gish Galloping by bringing up new issuesbefore you have conceded. Ok, let’s tackle these new ones.
Your quote: “Then there is your absurd notion of “optimally fluoridated water”. First of all, you are ignoring the facts that (1) water fluoridation is a violation of fundamental medical ethics . . ”
Wrong again. A violation of medical ethics? Your parroting of this phrase doesn’t make it correct. First, using the phrase “medical ethics” in the context of CWF implies that optimally fluoridated water is a drug. It is not. There is no US government agency that calls water with 0.7 ppm F in it a drug. Not the FDA, not the EPA, not the CDC, and most importantly, not the Supreme Court. In fact the only people who call optimally fluoridated water a “drug” are the Fluoride Action Network / fluoridealert, other anti-fluoride websites, and you. And you people do it as a scare tactic, plain and simple.
If any issue was worthy of the Supreme Court, it would be the idea of a municipality “mass drugging” its citizens against their consent. Many fluoride opponents have tried to present this argument before the Supreme Court, and 13 times the Court has denied review of the arguments for lack of merit. Clearly, the Supreme Court does not consider community water fluoridation a “violation of medical ethics.”
The argument is sometimes made that because higher concentrations of fluoride are considered a “drug” and sometimes require a prescription, therefore, the lesser concentration of F found in water fluoridation must also be a drug.
Why would it? Concentrated oxygen is a drug. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688103/ But the air that you are breathing, which contains a lesser concentration of oxygen is not a drug.
In the same way that optimally oxygenated air is not a drug, optimally fluoridated water is not a drug.
The argument is sometimes made that because fluoride is added for a health benefit, it must therefore be a drug. This is absurd. Fluoride already exists in most drinking water, and certainly almost all groundwater. Since fluoride is already in water, is God, or is Nature violating your medical rights? Who do you complain to?
The only thing that happens with water fluoridation is that the fluoride ion is adjusted to a level for a maximum health benefit and no harm. So when you object to the adjustment of the fluoride ion, you are in essence a
I experienced dental fluorosis myself.
Had expensive dental work because of it.
I wish that it had not been added to my water.
Graceds
Any dental fluorosis you may have had which required dental treatment was not caused by optimally fluoridated water. The only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. Mild dental fluorosis requires no dental treatment.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Evidently, the amount of fluoride in Graceds water supply was not “optimal”, given that Graceds lived in an area where the water was fluoridated and also developed dental fluorosis.
Jeremy’s quote: “Evidently, the amount of fluoride in Graceds water supply was not “optimal”, given that Graceds lived in an area where the water was fluoridated and also developed dental fluorosis.”
Answer: You are making your erroneous assumption based on the idea that moderate to severe dental fluorosis (which must be what we are talking about here because the milder forms of DF are barely detectable outside the dentist’s chair under special lighting, and would therefore require no cosmetics) are somehow linked to community water fluoridation. They are not. The more severe cases of DF have been linked to children swallowing toothpaste during the formative years.
Moreover, Graceds can easily go to his municipality and ask to see the water fluoridation records. They are on the public record and should be available to anyone who asks.
In municipalities where water fluoridation is practiced, samples of water are taken from several points in the distribution system on a daily basis and checked for fluoride.
In municipalities where water fluoridation is not practiced, fluoride levels in water are checked once a year. There is a clear advantage to water fluoridation in that there is a more accurate control, and record of fluoride levels in drinking water.
Water fluoridation records don’t take away the damage already done.
Once it’s in your body or teeth to excess you can’t take it out.
There is no damage done by optimally fluoridated water.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Why create a situation that can do damage.
My teeth didn’t benefit from it, rather the opposite.
1. The public health initiative of water fluoridation has nothing to do with any “situation that can do damage”
2. Until you provide the evidence I requested in my comment below, your anecdotal claims of damage from dental fluorosis…..are meaningless.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I am not asking to see your bank account to see if you are being compensated for your remarks.
Even if you believe my experience is “anecdotal” there are others with the same problem.
Dental fluorosis exists.
It is an issue.
It has a partial solution, by reducing fluoride intake in water.
1. I have not made any claim in regard to “compensation”. If you are claiming that I am “compensated” it is your responsibility to provide proof to support that claim. It is not my responsibility to disprove such unsubstantiated nonsense.
2. Provide valid, documented proof that “others” have whatever “problem” you believe they have.
3. There Is no “issue” with fluoridated water. There is simply the peer-reviewed science which fully supports the initiative……..and the false statements, unsubstantiated claims, misrepresented science, and misinformation, constantly put forth by sntifluoridationists.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
1. Likewise, if you are accusing Graceds of being a liar, is it your responsibility to provide proof to support that claim. It is not Graceds’ responsibility to disprove your unsubstantiated claim.
2. See (1), hypocrite.
3. You are begging the question and misrepresenting what the medical literature has to say about the matter, e.g., here or here.
1. It is not my responsibility to disprove Grace’s unsubstantiated claims. Grace made claims for which she provided no valid evidence of support. I simply exposed this fact and challenged her to provide such evidence. Thus far, she has been unable to do so. That you fail to understand the difference between facts supported by valid evidence, and unsubstantiated anecdotes, is exactly the problem with uninformed antifluoridationists.
2. Antifluoridationists are the epitome of hypocrisy.
3. I don’t “beg” questions. I provide facts and evidence.
Your first hyperlink is to one cherry-picked paper you’ve copy/pasted from “fluoridealert”, out of the volume of fluoridation literature, which you claim that to be “the medical literature”, while ignoring the volumes of scientific literature which fully supports water fluoridation. The paper you have copy/pasted is that of Peckham and Awofeso, two long-time antifluoridationists. It is published in an open access journal which charges a hefty fee to those desiring to see their work in print with no apparent options to do so otherwise. This is typical of the “science” which antifluoridationists claim supports their position.
The second link is to the Cochrane Review which is constantly misrepresented by antifluoridationists. As I have clearly demonstrated in previous comments, it does not support your position.
Yet once again:
The Cochrane Review was an update of the 2000 York Review. As such, Cochrane set narrow parameters for fluoridation studies it would review, consistent with the parameters originally set by York. It then culled the scientific literature and found 155 studies, out of 4,600 fluoride studies considered, which fit within its parameters. This immediately excluded well over 4,000 quality, peer-reviewed fluoridation studies. Within the 155 studies Cochrane chose to review, it deemed the majority to fall within the parameters it had established for them to be considered at high risk of bias. It did not state that the studies were biased, nor invalid.
Additionally, Cochrane fully understood that the randomly controlled trials against which it compared the quality of the observational studies, are completely infeasible for large population-based public health initiatives such as water fluoridation, and would therefore never be done for this initiative. Cochrane understood the unfairness of comparing the observational studies of population-based initiatives on the basis of RCTs, and so stated in its report:
‘However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area.”
And:
“we accept that the terminology of ‘low quality’ for evidence may appear too judgmental. We acknowledge that studies on water fluoridation, as for many public health interventions, are complex to undertake and that researchers are often constrained in their study design by practical considerations. For many public health interventions, the GRADE framework will always result in a rating of low or very low quality. Decision makers need to recognise that for some areas of research, the quality of the evidence will never be ‘high’ and that, as for any intervention, the recommendation for its use depends not just upon the quality of the evidence but also on factors such as acceptability and cost-effectiveness (Burford 2012).”
—Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. (Review)
Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV, Walsh T, O’Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, Alam R, Tugwell P, Welch V, Glenny AM
The Cochrane Collaboration
Steven D. Slott, DDS
1-2. It is most certainly incumbent upon you to substantiate your charge that Graceds is lying, hypocrite.
3. You are most certainly begging the question and misrepresenting what the medical literature has to say about the matter (then engaging in ad hominem argumentation against one sample source from the medical literature I provided and engaging in obfuscation about the other).
1-2. I didn’t “charge that Graceds is lying, hypocrite”. That is your fabrication. I simply exposed the fact that she provided no substantiation for her claims, and stated the fact that if she desired credence for those claims she would need to provide substantiation. It is not encumbent on me, or anyone else, to disprove her unsubstantiated claims. Science and healthcare are evidenced-based, not personal opinion and anecdote- based. That you don’t understand this elementary fact is typical of uninformed antifluoridationists. Putting forth unsubstantiated claims about fluoridation and then demanding that they be disproved is a frequently attempted tactic of antifluoridationists. It, obviously, has no merit.
3. I do not “beg” questions. I provide facts and evidence. I have misrepresented nothing. Contrary to the misinformation you provide, the facts I have stated are easily verifiable from the sources I cite. Since you have already admitted that you don’t read studies before commenting on them, it is understandable that you have no idea as to what, exactly, is in the literature, titles of which you copy/paste from antifluoridationist websites.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Which is precisely why the government lowered its “optimal” recommended level for fluoridation.
Your comment suggests that taking fluoride out of toothpaste is advisable.
“In cases where fluoride levels are too high, fluoride is removed for health reasons.” – Fierstien
Can you show proof of this in the US?
Again, johndmac, who cowers behind a pseudonym, I said this in the context of Jeremy’s scare-tactic-argument that tampering with fluoride levels in drinking water is for some reason “medication.”
(I really don’t know why I’m wasting my time with you. There doesn’t appear to be much going on upstairs.)
It happens in India for sure. In fact the WHO promotes fluoride removal programs. Again, in that case, where fluoride levels are tampered with, where F levels are reduced, according to Jeremy’s definition, that would, for some reason, be medication. What happens in the US is irrelevant to the argument, but any water supply in the US that has a natural level of over 4 ppm would be required to reduce the level.
You can call pointing out logical truisms a “scare-tactic-argument” all you like, but it doesn’t make it any less true.
Again, the FDA defines a “drug” as “a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.”
Fluoridating water is done for the purpose of mitigating, treating, or preventing disease.
Ergo…
The FDA has no authority over the mineral content of public drinking water supplies. This jurisdiction is entirely under the US EPA. It is thus irrelevant to water fluoridation how the FDA classifies anything. You are certainly free to address your “argument” to the EPA if you wish. However, I don’t much like your chances with that.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
In other words, no, you can’t. Got it.
I didn’t assume anything. I was merely making the point that you were begging the question with your statement, “Any dental fluorosis you may have had which required dental treatment was not caused by optimally fluoridated water.”
It is also perfectly daft to assert such a thing given the fact, as you perfectly well know, that the government has in fact reduced the determined “optimal” level of fluoride in the water supply because the previously determined “optimal” level was in fact causing increased rates of dental fluorosis. (But thanks for offering yet another illustration of why you’ve now been banned for trolling.)
Your cowardly censoring of those who have exposed your nonsense for what it is, and challenged you to provide facts and evidence which you are unable to do…….is typical of antifluoridationists. History is littered with the failures of those who utilized censorship in attempts to impose their skewed ideology onto others. You obviously have zero confidence in your own position.
The government has not reduced anything in regard to water fluoridation. As you would know if you exerted a modicum of effort to properly educate yourself on this issue……..
The optimal level of fluoride in drinking water is that level at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur, with no adverse effects. This optimal level was originally set by the US Public Health Service in 1962, as a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was set as a range in order to allow for different amounts of water consumption between different climates. Recent scientific evidence has demonstrated that, due to air-conditioning and other modern amenities, there no longer exist any significant difference in water consumption due to climate differences. Thus, there is no longer a need for a range. In recognition of this fact and of the greater availability of fluoride now, than when the optimal was originally established, the CDC, in 2011, recommended that the optimal range be consolidated into simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm.
After several years of careful study and consideration as to whether this consolidation would significantly reduce the dental decay prevention of fluoridation, the US DHHS determined that it would not. Thus, in keeping with the original goal of providing maximum dental decay protection while minimizing any risk of adverse effects, the US DHHS recently announced that the optimal recommendation had been officially consolidated into the low end of the previous optimum range. The current optimal level is 0.7 ppm, the level at which most water systems have been fluoridating for years, anyway.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
1. Grace claims that fluoride had been added to her water. She provides no documentated proof to support this claim. She provides no documented proof as to when fluoride may have been added to her water, or in what amount. She provides no documented evidences as to what abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride to which she may have been exposed during her teeth developing years of 0-8, the only time period in which her teeth could have developed dental fluorosis.
2. Grace claims that she had dental fluorosis. She provides no valid, documented evidence of such diagnosis by a qualified, duly licensed healthcare provider.
3. Grace claims that she had “expensive dental work” because of the dental fluorosis she claims to have, yet for which she provides no valid, documented proof. She provides no valid, documented proof of such dental work, the cost of it, or the actual reason it may have been performed.
4. That you accept as fact such unsubstantiated nonsense as what Grace provides does not speak well for your “investigative reporting” skills, if that is indeed your vocation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I see no reason to doubt a person who says that they live in an area where the water is fluoridated, or any reason to doubt that they have had dental fluorosis. It is not as though these were controversial or unlikely claims. But thanks for illustrating why you’ve been banned for trolling.
Yes, antifluoridationists have no use for facts and evidence, thus see no reason to not accept whatever unsubstantiated nonsense confirms their bias. You are truly comical, and your attempts to censor my comments are clearly indicative of your cowardice and insecurity about your position.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
You are wrong.
I had it as a child.
Was finally able to get cosmetic dentistry as an adult.
In order to support your claim that I am wrong you will need to provide valid, documented evidence of:
1. Diagnosis of dental fluorosis from a qualified, duly licensed healthcare provider, including the level of dental fluorosis.
2. History of your total fluoride intake from all sources during the first 8 years of your life.
3. Exact dental procedures you received, the exact reasons for this treatment, and exact costs of this treatment.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I guarantee you would have had NO doubt about the diagnosis if you had seen my teeth.
If you are a real dentist, that is.
According to the British Fluoridation Society,
-“There are some 90 causes of markings on the enamel surfaces of teeth. These are known as ‘enamel defects.’
-One of the 90 or so causes of enamel defects is called ‘fluorosis.'” http://www.bfsweb.org/onemillion/05%20One%20in%20a%20Million%20-%20Dental%20Fluorosis.pdf
So, yes, Dr. Slott is spot-on to ask for a proper diagnosis from a trained professional. With all the scare-mongering and paranoia-generation that these anti-fluoride fanatics spew, everybody thinks they’ve got dental fluorosos.
You admit dental fluorosis exists, so why not prevent it by eliminating our drinking water as a source.
You can still get fluoride in your toothpaste (as a choice) or dental treatments (by choice).
1. There is no downside to water fluoridation. Fluoridation prevents lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infections. Mild dental fluorosis is barely detectable faint white streaks on teeth which peer-reviewed science has demonstrated to be more decay resistant.
2. You have control over your choice to consume fluoridated water ot not.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Ding, ding, ding!
“You have control over your choice to consume fluoridated water ot not.”
That is the point! If it’s added to the water one doesn’t have the choice.
No one forces you to drink water. If you believe that because water flows from your faucet you are somehow forced to drink it, that is a cognitive problem on your part, not an issue with water fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Must have got it from the fluoridation.
Thanks for illustrating for us yet again why you’ve been banned for trolling.
1. If you have evidence that anyone is somehow being forced to drink fluoridated water then produce it, properly cited. Because water flows from one’s faucet does not mean that one is forced to drink it.
2. Your cowardly censorship tactic is so noted. Obviously you have no confidence in your position or you wouldn’t resort to such a tactic.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
slott, we need your ‘expertise’, check my disqus for the link.
1. You are begging the question. (Did you also argue that “There is no downside to water fluoridation” when the government’s recommended level was 0.7 to 1.2 mg/l — you know, before they lowered it due to the increased incidence of dental fluorosis, “the first sign of fluoride toxicity”.)
2. How astonishing, this suggestion that individuals who live in a community where they fluoridate the water should just find some other source to obtain their water if they don’t like it, as though their right to informed consent wasn’t being violated by the policy of mass medicating the entire population.
1. I don’t “beg” questions. I state facts and evidence, something you should try sometime.
2. The government did not lower the optimal level. It simply consolidated it into the low end of the previous optimal level range due to the fact that:
a. a range is no longer necessary
b. there is greater access to fluoride from sources outside of water now, than when the optimal range was initially set in 1962.
3. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect of optimally fluoridated water due to “fluoride toxicity”. You are certainly free to present any such evidence you believes supports your position.
4, a. It is astonishing that individual seek to deprive entire populations the benefits of a public health initiative which has provided benefit to hundreds of millions of people over the past 70 years with no proven adverse effects, due solely to the own personal irrational phobia about fluoride.
b. It is astonishing that these same people fail to understand that cessation of fluoridation does not cease ingestion of fluoride in water, it simply removes the benefit obtained while so doing.
c. It is astonishing that, one hand, these same people whine about this purported disorder and that, which they seek to associate with fluoridated water, while on the other hand they argue for removal of the strict controls which maintain the fluoride level in their water at a constant level below the threshold of adverse effects.
d. It is astonishing that these people believe they have some sort of right to fluoride free water.
5. Informed consent applies to treatment rendered. There is no informed consent required for local officials to approve the adjustment of the concentration level of a mineral existing in water supplies under their jurisdiction. Any who believe that the drinking of a glass of water constitutes a “treatment” of some sort, requiring informed consent, are certainly free to inform themselves and give consent to themselves prior to “administering” the glass of water to themselves.
5. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water. The “mass medication” nonsense has been rejected by US courts each and every time antifluoridationists have wasted court time and resources trotting it in.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Yes I admit that dental fluorosis exists. I also admit that water fluoridation can be associated with very mild or mild dental fluorosis, neither of which affects quality of life.
. . And I also admit that the more severe degrees of dental fluorosis are not associated with community water fluoridation. Usually it has to do with children swallowing toothpaste on a regular basis during the formative years.
And wouldn’t you admit that dental decay has a far greater negative effect on quality of life than barely noticeable white spots that are associated with stronger teeth which are more resistant to decay? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049
And, according to the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey, “While the survey was not designed as an in-depth water fluoridation study, analysis showed that children, adolescents and adults living in fluoridated areas had significantly less lifetime decay than those in non-fluoridated areas, and there were no significant differences in the prevalence of fluorosis (a possible side-effect of having too much fluoride during early tooth development) between people living in fluoridated areas and those in non-fluoridated areas.
http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/our-oral-health-key-findings-2009-new-zealand-oral-health-survey
Ahem… Once again, “One of the key concerns about water fluoridation is the inability to control an individual’s dose of ingested fluoride which brings into question the concept of the ‘optimal dose.’ Since the 1980s numerous studies have identified that adults and children are exceeding these agreed limits, contributing to a rapid rise in dental fluorosis—the first sign of fluoride toxicity” … and … “There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.”
David Fierstein is a paid shill for the flourine industry, just FYI
Also from BFS:
“From its review of studies, the University of York team estimated the prevalence of dental fluorosis of all levels of severity (including the mildest forms) to be 48% in fluoridated areas (both naturally fluoridated and artificially fluoridated) and 15% in non-fluoridated areas.
“However, the difference in prevalence between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas was much smaller when levels of cosmetically significant fluorosis were compared. In this case, York estimated the prevalence to be 10% to 12% in fluoridated areas and 6% in non-fluoridated areas.”
How perfectly silly of you to go on with this denialism when the very reason the government lowered the “optimal” level for fluoridation was because of the increased rate of fluorosis occurring at the previous “optimal” level.
As repeatedly made clear to you, the government did not lower the optimal level recommendation. It simply eliminated the range which is no longer necessary, and consolidated the optimal into the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I’ve no interest in debating semantics; .7 mg/l is less than 1.2 mg/l, is it not?
Debate whatever you wish. I simply correct the misinformation you post.
0.7 mg/l is not lower than 0.7 mg/l. The recent reset of the optimal was not a lowering of that recommended level. It was simply an elimination of the range of 0.7 mg/l – 1.2 mg/l because a range is no longer necessary…..and consolidation into the low end of that range, 0.7 mg/l, because it was deemed that no significant reduction in dental decay prevention would occur by consolidating at that point in the previous range.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Your “guarantee” is meaningless. Until you can provide the evidence I have requested, your anecdotal claims are worthless.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
this guy is not a dentist, he is a paid industry shill.
And BeeDear spouts yet one more claim for which he/she can provide no substantiation, whatsoever. And antifluoridationists just can’t understand why intelligent don’t believe anything they say………
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Thanks for illustrating yet again with this ridiculousness why you were banned for trolling.
Yes, your cowardly attempt at censorship is duly noted. You obviously have zero confidence in your own position.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
these guys are both paid shills, look them up.
I assume as much.
In another day, they would be doing work for tobacco companies.
“In the fall of 1953, the President of the American Tobacco Company, Paul Hahn, invited the heads of the leading tobacco manufacturers to a meeting at the Plaza Hotel in New York City on December 14, 1953 (40). At this meeting, it was decided that a public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, would be employed and jointly paid by the tobacco companies to develop a response to the smoking and health allegations (41). On the next day, executives at Hill & Knowlton met with the tobacco company executives to outline their plan to help the industry address the smoking and health problem. A memorandum from Hill & Knowlton stated their task as follows: “We have one essential job — which can be simply said: Stop public panic…There is only one problem — confidence, and how to establish it; public assurance, and how to create it…And, most important, how to free millions of Americans from the guilty fear that is going to arise deep in their biological depths — regardless of any pooh-poohing logic — every time they light a cigarette” (42).”
http://m.cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.long
They were constantly commenting on a local newspaper article regarding fluoridation here in CA. I wondered why on earth would a dentist who lives across the country be interested in what is in our water, here. I took a little time to look into them, it is clear they are industry shills.
Still can provide no valid evidence to support you ridiculous claims? Exactly. It is always enjoyable to expose the absurdity of antifluoridationist claims.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Slott, provide valid evidence to support your ridiculous claim that poisons are certainly good for you.
Water is poison, genius.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Wow. You are the gift that keeps on giving.
Ahhhhh…..irrelevant conspiracy nonsense from Graceds. Here’s a suggestion, Grace. Why don’t you first provide the evidence I requested of you in regard to the dental fluorosis and dental treatment you purported to have had, and then begin to properly educate yourself on this issue from reliable, respected sources of accurate information?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Sure, BeeDear, look me up. Then provide one shred of valid evidence that I am paid anything for correcting antifluoridationist nonsense. Then when you inevitably are unable to do so, please disclose whether you are paid by the “Fluoride Action Network” or anyone else, to post misinformation about fluoridation……and, if so, how much are you paid?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
This is too funny! First, Fierstien says, “I have asked many anti-fluoride fanatics to name one person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water for as much as a lifetime. So far not one of those fanatics has been able to provide one name or give a straight answer.”
Then somebody who has been harmed by drinking fluoridated water — and has the dental bills to prove it — speaks up, and the response from the fluoride shills is “IMPOSSIBLE! LIAR!”
The same thing happened in my small-town local paper, where a pitched battle over fluoridation is going on. Fierstien (who manages the water system for a town of 2,300 people in northern Michigan) airily dismissed fluorosis as something that goes away over time; a local person chimed in that their fluorosis was still evident after 68 years; and Slott demanded photos!
Interesting.
It took us a couple of weeks to realize that the flood of fluoride pseudo-data and gratuitous insults was not coming from local people,but from people thousands of miles away. (Since then, I’ve taken to googling anybody who can’t engage in a rational dialog on-line.)
You might be interested to read the friendly report on the PR effort these guys are part of: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdhp-fluoridation/CDHP_FlouridationAdvocacyReport_FINAL.pdf
Shocked the hell out of me!
That is surprising.
Nice comments below, BTW.
The latest:
Pro-fluoridation group targets ‘inaccurate’ information surfacing in U.S. communities
http://www.dentistryiq.com/articles/2016/01/pro-fluoridation-group-targets-inaccurate-information-surfacing-in-us-communities.html
There is no indication from the abstract of the Broadbent study that it compared the IQs of those from the fluoridated-water community with a cohort from a non-fluoridated area.
I keek referring to the Harvard as though it showed that there is an association between fluoride exposure and lower IQ. It does.
Most certainly, mass medicating a population via the water supply violates fundamental medical ethics. You argue that, “There is no US government agency that calls water with 0.7 ppm F in it a drug.” Yet the FDA defines a drug as “A substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” Hence water fluoridation is mass medication, by definition. Nor is the fact that it is used to medicate the population belied by the fact that there are naturally occuring levels of fluoride in water.
What a puzzling accusation. The HHS admitted its policy had caused an increase in dental fluorosis, which is why the decision was made to lower the “optimal” level.
It’s hilarious that these fluoroholics actually believe that people in Southern US States no longer drink more water in the summer, because they’re all indoors sipping mint juleps in front of their air conditioners. Fiddly dee!
Just more evidence that impaired intelligence causes water fluoridation.
I remember that, johndmac, who hides behind a pseudonym. It is interesting you you have deleted the rest of my comment. Why don’t you show the full comment in its entire context instead of attempting some sort of lame deceptive misquotation? This deception is typical of you fanatics and says more about you than it does about me.
Thank you for proving the point.
Didn’t want you to further embarrass yourself, but go ahead and post your babbling about arsenic if you think it relevant.
While you’re at it, we’re still waiting for one of you VIs to explain the fluoride ‘science’ behind this idiocy:
No problem, johndmac, who hides behind a pseudonym.
Arsenic. It looks like you are not aware that there is an extremely minute level of arsenic in all water, even the water you drink. Fortunately, it is usually at safe levels.
Paul Connett tried to use the scare tactic, when he was in Denver, that arsenic, due to water fluoridation, is dangerous. In reality it comes out to the parts per trillion. Long story short, a person would have to drink 2 liters of water every day for over 150,000 years (over 2000 lifetimes) in order to have a One-In-A-Million chance of having an ill health effect from it. You can see my math and my comments here: https://www.facebook.com/fluoridewater/posts/915319835173028
Don’t hurt yourself, johndmac who hides behind a pseudonym. You didn’t understand it the first time and you have also shown that you have no understanding of the SDWA (either that or you can’t read).
Do tell. How does your arsenic distraction change the fact you said it’s “exactly right” that you can take a dose of any drug, dilute it in a glass of water, then drink 8 doses of that drug a day with no worries?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d7b00fd11f8df617696387a9c1cbd7c584367e6888e5d131b8e239a226e8e17.jpg
Dude, try to focus here. Please….
You can take arsenic, dilute it to 1 part per trillion in water, drink 8 glasses of that water, and you will be fine. If you drink water from the planet Earth (and I’m beginning to think you don’t) you are already drinking water with higher levels arsenic that that.
If you don’t get that, please don’t waste my time any more trying to get me to explain it to you. (BTW, loose the professor-like icon. It doesn’t suite you.)
You keep babbling about arsenic, when you agreed that it’s safe to take 8
doses a day of “any drug”, as long as a dose is first diluted in a glass of water.
And glad to see you got rid of the pinhead icon you used to associate with your name.
Wow, you really have a learning problem don’t you.
Ok, now this time really try to concentrate. Con — cen — trate . .
Give me 8 glasses of water with anything – any drug – anything you want, dilute it to 1 part per trillion, and I will be happy to drink those 8 glasses of water. If I drink too much of it, the water itself will kill me before anything in it at 1 ppt.
Quit babbling about 8 glasses and ppt. You said it’s safe to take 8 doses of a drug, if first it’s diluted in water. Try that with your Aricept, then give us a call for the ER.
Wow, you really have a learning problem don’t you. Ok, now, this time really try to concentrate. Con — cen –trate… When you mass medicate an entire population via their water supply you can’t control the dose.
In order to “mass medicate”, one must first have medication. There is no medication involved in the public health initiative of water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in water. US courts have rejected the “mass medication” nonsense each and every time antifluoridationists have wasted court time and resources trotting it in. You are certainly free to try your luck in court with this lame nonsense…..but, I don’t much like your chances with that.
By the way, given that you are giving Discus a bad name with your cowardly censorship, I’m sure they will be interested to learn of your abuse of moderation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Dude, try to focus here, please: when you mass medicate an entire population via their water supply you can’t control the dose.
In order to “mass medicate”, one must first have medication. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in water. US courts have rejected the “mass medication” nonsense each and every time antifluoridationists have wasted court time and resources trotting it in. You are certainly free to try your luck in court with this lame nonsense…..but, I don’t much like your chances with that.
By the way, given that you are giving Discus a bad name with your cowardly censorship, I’m sure they will be interested to learn of your abuse of moderation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
You may also remember that the FDA would not allow the claim that drinking fluoridated water reduces tooth decay, so stop getting your panties in a bunch, if there’s no fluoridated water.
johndmac, could you please provide a source for me on that?
Yes, it’s from 2006:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm073602.htm
Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries
Next to last paragraph:
The claim language is: “Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay].”
i.e., FDA would not allow the claim:
Drinking fluoridated water reduces tooth decay.
or even:
Drinking fluoridated water reduces the risk of tooth decay.
Only that it may reduce the risk.
johndmac
As clearly stated in the document to which you provide a link, the claim for which was made an application to the FDA was that fluoridated water reduces the risk of dental decay. This application, made in regard to bottled water which is under the jurisdiction of the FDA, was approved by the FDA. There was no application made for approval of the claims you personally deem that the “FDA would not allow”.
Could you even be any more ridiculous?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
According to you, the CDC is even more ridiculous:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c0c7ef7087d8410aa553780598ab5e52b13860545bd47f2143b35088cebfcf8.jpg
Here we go again.
Jeremy, your quote: “There is no indication from the abstract of the Broadbent study that it compared the IQs of those from the fluoridated-water community with a cohort from a non-fluoridated area.”
Answer: What an odd thing to say. There is no such thing as no fluoride exposure; that is, fluoride is naturally present in both soil and water. The study had more than enough power to conduct analyses that distinguished between high and low fluoride exposure, and to model the relation with IQ.
It used data from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Study, which is world-renowned for the quality of its data and the rigour of its analysis. The strict 2015 review said of the study said, ““…the current review identified one original paper in a non-endemic area (New Zealand) that aimed to clarify the relationship between CWF and IQ by Broadbent et al. This is a high-quality prospective cohort study of a general population sample…”.
The study controlled childhood factors associated with IQ variation, such as socio-economic status of parents, birthweight and breastfeeding, secondary and tertiary educational achievement and sources of fluoride exposure other than community water fluoridation (CWF). They also controlled for a similar set of confounders to those controlled by Meier et al (2012) in their study of cannabis exposure and IQ, which found that persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline.
And I see that Dr. Slott, in his comment above, also provided a Brazilian study that you can look at.
Your quote: “I keek referring to the Harvard as though it showed that there is an association between fluoride exposure and lower IQ. It does.”
Answer: Yes you do. However, this is a page that is reviewing a biased film about Community Water Fluoridation. The “Harvard Study” is not relevant to CWF. You are trying to (and now I’m beginning to believe deceptively) create a link between the two where none exists.
If I was to play your game, using your logic, I could easily make the argument that bananas are a public threat because bananas have potassium. Potassium can choke you, blind you, cause skin blisters, it can even kill you. http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926661 What an absurd argument. But that is exactly what you are doing by citing the Harvard Review as somehow being relevant to community water fluoridation.
I also see that Dr. Slott, in his comment above, used the example of water toxicity. Too much water can kill you, yet this fact is not an indictment on the act of drinking water.
I would hope that you are intelligent enough that these arguments are not lost on you, but I am beginning to lose faith in my original assessment.
Your quote: “Yet the FDA defines a drug as “A substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” Hence water fluoridation is mass medication, by definition.
Answer: Ok, this is your argument. I confronted Paul Connett, the former director of the Fluoride Action Network, which is undoubtedly the source of much of your information, with this exact definition, by which he defines optimally fluoridated water as a “drug.”
Using this exact definition, Dr. Connett was forced to admit that Prune Juice is also a “drug,” because people use it with the intent of treating Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Likewise, Cranberry Juice, because people use it with the intent of treating Urinary Tract Infection. (Your argument here is with Connett – he had to honestly make this admission.)
Would any sane, normal parent sue their child’s school because their child was medicated without consent when cranberry juice was served? This is absurd.
And more to the point here, more to the reality of your argument, it is just a fact that this argument of “CWF as mass medication” is nothing more than a scare tactic. It is just a fact that the only people who use it are anti-fluoride websites, and anti-fluoride fanatics, individuals among which you appear to number.
Your quote: “Nor is the fact that it is used to medicate the population belied by the fact that there are naturally occuring levels of fluoride in water.”
Answer: Your argument is that a mineral which exists in water at the optimal level for health benefits is not a medication. Human beings duplicate this, and all of a sudden it is a medication. Your argument must therefore be that when human beings tamper with fluoride levels “medication” occurs.
In cases where fluoride levels are too high, fluoride is removed for health reasons. I guess you are saying that medical rights are being violated when fluoride is removed.
You are desperately, for some reason, to use a scare tactic which, frankly, is a joke. No one, but you people, say that optimally fluoridated water is a drug.
Your quote: “The HHS admitted its policy had caused an increase in dental fluorosis, which is why the decision was made to lower the “optimal” level.”
Answer: Please show me the quote from the Department of Health & Human Services in which it said that, as you have said the government is “overexposing people to fluoride.” This is the second time I have asked for that quotation.
The FDA defines a drug as “a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.”
Hence, a federal law prohibits water fluoridation:
“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”
– Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act: Safety of Public Water Systems (Safe Drinking Water Act). December 31, 2002. Section 1412 (b) (11) p. 370. http://www.epw.senate.gov/sdwa.pdf
Sorry to disappoint you, Fierstien, that means you can’t add prune juice to the public water supplies.
Yes, johndmac, who hides behind a pseudonym. Please take that one to court. But before you do, learn to read.
It says “No NATIONAL primary drinking water regulation . . ” This would refer to an EPA regulation. The EPA is the regulatory authority at the Federal Tier.
In case you didn’t know, each state has its own Safe Drinking Water Act. All this says is that the EPA can’t mandate anything for health care purposes. Each state and local municipality are free to do whatever they want in this regard.
Sorry to disappoint you johndmac, who hides behind a pseudonym, but you are way out of your league here.
Here’s Florida’s:
“No state primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to the contamination of drinking water.”
– The 2014 Florida Statutes: Title XXIX, Public Health, Chapter 403, Environmental Control, 403.853, Drinking water standards (5).
Again, johndmac, who hides behind a pseudonym, all this says is that the State of Florida can’t mandate something for health purposes. A municipality is free to do whatever it wants to do in this regard. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
What is it you don’t undertand about common sense?
The choice to consume fluoride should not be made at the federal, state, or even at the community level. It is an individual choice.
Translation: While I acknowledge that it would be a violation of the law for the federal government to legislate such, it is perfectly okay for individual states to violate fundamental medical ethics by mass medicating entire communities without controlling each individuals’ dose.
1. In order for there to be “mass medication”, there must be medication. There is no medication involved in the public health initiative of water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water.
2. You still have as yet to produce any “medical ethics” which state that it is a violation of such for local officials to approve the concentration level of existing minerals in public water supplies under their jurisdiction. Until you are able to produce such evidence, your “medical ethics” nonsense is meaningless.
3. As you would know had you bothered to properly educate yourself on this issue, controlling “dose” of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is a simple matter. Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the “dose” of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or “dose”, of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from water and beverages.
The US Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg.
The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.
http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf
Steven D. Slott, DDS
David, thanks for acknowledging, albeit only tacitly, that the study you are relying on to support your position did not compare the IQs of people living in a fluoridated-water community with those living in an area where it wasn’t public policy to mass medicate people by adding it to the water supply.
You’re begging the question.
You’ve been warned about your trolling behavior, in which classification of comments idiotic strawman arguments are included. You’re done.
Again with the trolling. Ingesting water is essential to human health. Ingesting fluoride isn’t.
Again with the trolling. The distinction between an individual using a natural home remedy for treating a health problem and public officials using a substance to mass medicate an entire population cannot possibly truly be lost upon you.
Ahh, it seems you have censored yet another commenter who dares to confront your nonsense, with facts and evidence, and challenges you to provide valid evidence to support your claims. Your cowardice is typical of antifluoridationists and indicative of the weakness of their position.
Yet once again, your confirmation bias is clearly demonstrated by your questioning of the peer-reviewed Broadbent study as published in the prestigious American Journal of Public Health, while you accept as fact the Chinese studies dug out of obscure Chinese journals by Choi and Grandjean which have:
1. ….no evidence of even having been peer-reviewed,
2. ……by the admission of Choi and Grandjean themselves, key information missing, inadequate control for confounders, and questionable methodologies
3. ……been determined by Grandjean and Choi to be inadequate to use to judge water fluoridation in the United States.
In regard to your claim about fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities….From Broadbent:
“Preschool fluoride exposure was used in these analyses because this is when brain development is rapid and vulnerable, and there after the IQ is known to be relatively stable. Studies of twins indicate that environmental effects on IQ are greatest in the early years, and genetic effects are least during that period.report history of use of 0.5-milligram tablets (response options: ever, never) and use fluoridated toothpaste (response options: always, sometimes, never, unknown) by age 5 years, according to parental interviews (n = 922).At that time, virtually all study members still resided in the Dunedin metropolitan area. Most suburbs of Dunedin have had CWF since 1967,but certain suburbs remain unfluoridated. We report residence in an area with or without CWF (0.85 ppm and 0.0—0.3 ppm respectively) coded from residential addressed data to age 5 years (n = 922), or to age 3 years (n = 103) where residence data from age 5 years were unavailable (area of residence for 2 study members could not be coded at either age).”
—–Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand
Jonathan M. Broadbent, PhD, W. Murray Thomson, BSc, PhD, Sandhya Ramrakha, PhD, Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD,Jiaxu Zeng, PhD, Lyndie A. Foster Page, BSc, PhD, and Richie Poulton, PhD
(Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 15, 2014: e1–e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857)
Steven D. Slott, DDS
1. From Broadbent:
“Preschool fluoride exposure was used in these analyses because this is when brain development is rapid and vulnerable, and there after the IQ is known to be relatively stable. Studies of twins indicate that environmental effects on IQ are greatest in the early years, and genetic effects are least during that period.report history of use of 0.5-milligram tablets (response options: ever, never) and use fluoridated toothpaste (response options: always, sometimes, never, unknown) by age 5 years, according to parental interviews (n = 922).At that time, virtually all study members still resided in the Dunedin metropolitan area. Most suburbs of Dunedin have had CWF since 1967,but certain suburbs remain unfluoridated. We report residence in an area with or without CWF (0.85 ppm and 0.0—0.3 ppm respectively) coded from residential addressed data to age 5 years (n = 922), or to age 3 years (n = 103) where residence data from age 5 years were unavailable (area of residence for 2 study members could not be coded at either age).”
—–Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand
Jonathan M. Broadbent, PhD, W. Murray Thomson, BSc, PhD, Sandhya Ramrakha, PhD, Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD,Jiaxu Zeng, PhD, Lyndie A. Foster Page, BSc, PhD, and Richie Poulton, PhD
(Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 15, 2014: e1–e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857)
2. Your confirmation bias is clearly evident by the fact that you question the methodology of the peer-reviewed Broadbent study which was published in the prestigious American Journal of Public Health, while apparently according full credence to the Chinese studies dug out of obscure Chinese journals, with no proof of peer-review, which had, by the admission of Choi and Grandjean, key information missing, inadequate control for confounders, and questionable methodology.
3. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those fluoride ions which have always existed in water. No court of last resort has ever affirmed the “forced medication” nonsense, in spite of the numerous times that antifluoridationists have wasted court time and resources trotting it in through the decades.
4. Please properly cite exactly where the United States government has “admitted overdosing people” with fluoride.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
1. So the Broadbent study did compare outcomes of cognitive development for individuals living in fluoridated versus those not living in fluoridated areas? How many were included in the non-fluoridated group? How much overlap was there between the group of individuals living in non-fluoridated suburbs and the group taking fluoride tablets?
2. Charging me with “confirmation bias” for simply stating that there is no indication from the abstract that the study compared fluoridated with non-fluoridated groups only demonstrates your own bias.
3. Again, the FDA defines a drug as “A substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” The purpose of fluoridating the water supply is to mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. Ergo, the practice is one of mass medicating an entire population with no ability to control the dose.
4. How utterly ridiculous to challenge my statement, that “The HHS admitted its policy had caused an increase in dental fluorosis, which is why the decision was made to lower the ‘optimal’ level.” You don’t need me to provide a link to support that statement. It isn’t controversial, and you know it’s true. For others, however:
http://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2015/04/27/hhs-issues-final-recommendation-for-community-water-fluoridation.html
1. Read the study. It’s all in there.
—Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand
Jonathan M. Broadbent, PhD, W. Murray Thomson, BSc, PhD, Sandhya Ramrakha, PhD, Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD, Jiaxu Zeng, PhD, Lyndie A. Foster Page, BSc, PhD, and Richie Poulton, PhD
(Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 15, 2014: e1–e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857)
2. You have questioned the methodology of the peer-reviewed Broadbent study, published in the highly respected American Journal of Public Health, because it debunks your bias, while fully accepting the slipshod Chinese studies dug out of obscure Chinese journals, with no proof of their even having been peer-reviewed, which by the admissions of Choi and Grandjean themselves, have key information missing, have inadequate control for confounders, and have questionable methodology……. because they support your bias. That is a textbook case of confirmation bias.
3. The FDA has no jurisdiction over contents of public drinking water. What it defines is of no relevance to water fluoridation. Fluoridated water is under the jurisdiction of the EPA.
4. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in water. You are certainly free to try your luck in court with your “mass medication” nonsense…….however, given the 0.00 success rate of antifluoridationists who have repeatedly attempted this tactic, I don’t much like your chances with that.
5. The following is from the press release to which you provided the link:
“The change was recommended because Americans now have access to more sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, than they did when water fluoridation was first introduced in the United States. As a result, there has been an increase in fluorosis, which, in most cases, manifests as barely visible lacy white marking or spots on the tooth enamel. The new recommended level will maintain the protective decay prevention benefits of water fluoridation and reduce the occurrence of dental fluorosis.”
As can be clearly seen, there is no “admission” that any DHHS policy caused dental fluorosis. As I stated, the consolidation of the optimal was done because :
a) a range is no longer necessary and
b) there is greater access to fluoride from sources other than the water now, than there was when the optimal was originally set in 1962.
6. Yes, the consolidation was not “controversial”. It has simply been consistently misrepresented by uninformed antifluoridationists such as you.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
1. The study is behind a paywall; hence my questions to you about it, which you instructively refuse to answer despite knowing the answers.
2. Charging me with “confirmation bias” for simply stating that there is no indication from the abstract that the study compared fluoridated with non-fluoridated groups only demonstrates your own bias.
3-4. Again, the FDA defines a drug as “A substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” The purpose of fluoridating the water supply is to mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. Ergo, the practice is one of mass medicating an entire population with no ability to control the dose.
5. “As a result [of the recommended “optimal” level of fluoridation in combination with fluoride exposure from other sources], there has been an increase in fluorosis…”
6. I don’t know what statement of mine you are even referring to.
Slott loves the paywall and condemns any study published in an open-access journal.
Also: “Caries prevention is regarded as a drug claim.” – CDC 2001
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
1. When I encounter a paywall for a pertinent study I pay for the entire text. That you comment on studies without having read them is typical of antifluoridationists. This is one reason that you are so uninformed on this issue. It is not my responsibility to provide you with studies. I have provided the conclusion of a properly cited study as evidence to support my position. If you want to attempt to analyze the study, feel free to obtain it and do so.
2. You have questioned the methodology of the peer-reviewed Broadbent study, published in the highly respected American Journal of Public Health, because it debunks your bias, while fully accepting the slipshod Chinese studies dug out of obscure Chinese journals, with no proof of their even having been peer-reviewed, which by the admissions of Choi and Grandjean themselves, have key information missing, have inadequate control for confounders, and have questionable methodology……. because they support your bias. That is a textbook case of confirmation bias.
3-4. Again, the FDA has no jurisdiction over contents of public drinking water supplies. That jurisdiction is completely under the EPA. It is therefore irrelevant to water fluoridation what the FDA “defines”. You are certainly free to argue the “mass medication” nonsense in court. However, since the courts have rejected it every time attempted by antifluoridationists……I don’t much like your chances with that.
5. You have dishonestly omitted the first sentence of the paragraph within the DHHS statement and inserted your erroneous editing in its place. Here is the quote in its complete and proper context. As can be clearly noted, it does not state as you misrepresented.
“The change was recommended because Americans now have access to more sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, than they did when water fluoridation was first introduced in the United States. As a result, there has been an increase in fluorosis, which, in most cases, manifests as barely visible lacy white marking or spots on the tooth enamel. The new recommended level will maintain the protective decay prevention benefits of water fluoridation and reduce the occurrence of dental fluorosis.”
—HHS issues final recommendation for community water fluoridation
6. Yes, there is a lot which you “don’t know” about this issue. Your confusion is of no consequence.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Congratulations on being able to afford to pay to read the study. Instructive that you attack me for not having the same budget as you rather than just answering the questions.
As for the rest, no need to keep repeating myself. Third time banned for trolling.
If you refuse to use Interlibrary Loan, there is also the Tw—r hashtag #icanhazpdf, which is well within the “personal use” clause of most site licenses.
Refuse? I don’t have unlimited time any more than I have an unlimited budget. I also don’t engage in piracy.
This is a side issue. As it happens, I at least made time in 20F weather tonight to divert myself and my groceries to the nearest campus hotspot. I have not reviewed the paper, and I understand that you would not like a copy in any event.
Of course I would like a copy. You are trolling. Only warning.
The FDA is irrelevant in this context, as they don’t regulate tap water – that responsibility falls to the EPA. The FDA does, however, regulate bottled water, which is an adequate proxy.
It is trivial to observe that the regulation applies to health claims made for a foodstuff, i.e., that fluoridated bottled water is not treated as a drug under the FDCA. In fact, an examination of 21 U.S.C. § 343 makes clear that it is considered to be a dietary supplement.
The FDA regulates drugs, and therefore its definition of a drug is perfectly relevant. So, again, the FDA defines a drug as “A substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” The purpose of fluoridating the water supply is to mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. Ergo, the practice is one of mass medicating an entire population with no ability to control the dose.
I’ve been thinking today that I should have directly addressed this point in the comment to which you’ve responded: The FDA does not “define” drugs. It is the authorizing legislation that does.
It is therefore necessary to ask why and how the FDCA – of which the FDA is an embodiment – might instantiate these terms of art. The clearest operative example that I can think of is the DSHEA.
This legislation didn’t come out of nowhere, and I don’t know what the pre-DSHEA approach was or might have been, but the only place that I’m finding your proffered FDA definition is the “Drugs@FDA Glossary of Terms,” which in relevant part is just a bulleted list that includes “except food.”
I genuinely have no idea how you reconcile these perspectives.
The legal definition of “drug” includes “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease” (21 USC, Chapter 9, Subchapter II, Section 321), precisely as I’ve pointed out the FDA points out.
So, again, the purpose of fluoridating the water supply is to mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. Ergo, the practice is one of mass medicating an entire population with no ability to control the dose.
Jeremy
1. Jeremy: “It won’t do to argue that there aren’t studies showing the currently recommended level of fluoridation doesn’t impair cognitive development since it hasn’t been studied”
Facts:
A. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects of optimal level fluoride on cognitive development. The flaws of Choi’s Review have been pointed out to you already, but just to reiterate:
The Harvard study was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:
“–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”
–Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author
As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study.
Given that Choi and Grandjean, themselves state that these studies do not allow any judgement in regard to fluoridated water in the US, it is a mystery as to why you attempt to do so anyway.
B. As has also been pointed out to you, adverse effect on cognitive development has indeed been studied. As recently as 2014, with Broadbent, et. al. found:
‘Conclusions. These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.”
—–Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand
Jonathan M. Broadbent, PhD, W. Murray Thomson, BSc, PhD, Sandhya Ramrakha, PhD, Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD,Jiaxu Zeng, PhD, Lyndie A. Foster Page, BSc, PhD, and Richie Poulton, PhD
(Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 15, 2014: e1–e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857)
C. A comprehensive review of fluoride IQ studies by the Bazian Group may be found:
—Independent critical appraisal of selected studies reporting an association between fluoride in drinking water and IQ
A report for South Central Strategic Health Authority Delivery date: 11th February 2009
http://www.fairbanksalaska.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/20090211Bazian-Review-IQ-Studies.pdf
2. “As Anna Choi, the lead author of the Harvard study, has noted, Virtually no human studies in this field have been conducted in the US…
The authors also reasonably judged that the risk of adversely affecting cognitive development in children should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.”
Facts:
There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that adjustment of existing levels of fluoride in water causes any adverse effects on cognitive development. It is not the responsibility of anyone to disprove unsubstantiated claims in regard to cognitive development or anything else.
3. Jeremy: “Furthermore, Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ne…”
Facts:
This is simply a link to a 2012 press release in regard to Choi and Grandjean’s review of the 27 Chinese studies. See my previous comments as to the flaws of these studies.
4. Jeremy: “Then there is your absurd notion of “optimally fluoridated water”.
Facts:
Your personal opinion that the United States Department of Health and Human Services recommended optimal level of fluoride is “absurd”, is meaningless.
Allow me to explain the optimal level. The optimal level of fluoride in drinking water is that level at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur, with no adverse effects. This optimal level was originally set by the US Public Health Service in 1962, as a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was set as a range in order to allow for different amounts of water consumption between different climates. Recent scientific evidence has demonstrated that, due to air-conditioning and other modern amenities, there no longer exist any significant difference in water consumption due to climate differences. Thus, there is no longer a need for a range. In recognition of this fact and of the greater availability of fluoride now, than when the optimal was originally established, the CDC, in 2011, recommended that the optimal range be consolidated into simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. After several years of careful study and consideration as to whether this consolidation would significantly reduce the dental decay prevention of fluoridation, the US DHHS determined that it would not. Thus, in keeping with the original goal of providing maximum dental decay protection while minimizing any risk of adverse effects, the US DHHS recently announced that the optimal recommendation had been officially consolidated into the low end of the previous optimum range. The current optimal level is 0.7 ppm, the level at which most water systems have been fluoridating for years, anyway.
5. Jeremy: “First of all, you are ignoring the facts that (1) water fluoridation is a violation of fundamental medical ethics….”
Facts:
There are no “medical ethics” prohibiting local officials from approving the adjustment of the levels of naturally occurring minerals in public water systems under their jurisdiction.
6. Jeremy: “and (2) you can’t control the dose.”
Facts:
The desired “dose” of fluoride in drinking water is that amount which will provide maximum benefit while remaining below the threshold of adverse effects. This is precisely what is accomplished with the establishment of the optimal level. This level is attained and strictly maintained in fluoridated water. Non-fluoridated water is where “dose” is uncontrolled. Concentrations of existing fluoride in water can vary widely. The only limiting factor in non fluoridated water is the EPA mandated maximum allowable level of 4.0 ppm. Fluoridated water is capped and maintained at 0.7 ppm. Thus, what you are advocating is for less control over the fluoride level in water which, given the claims you have made about fluoride, makes absolutely no sense.
7. Jeremy: “Since the 1980s numerous studies have identified that adults and children are exceeding these agreed limits, contributing to a rapid rise in dental fluorosis—the first sign of fluoride toxicity.
Facts:
A. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects from “toxicity” of optimally fluoridated water.
B. The only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered mild dental fluorosis to not be an adverse effect.
In a 2010 CDC study often misrepresented by antifluoridationists, Beltran-Arguilar reported that 41% of adolescents examined showed signs of dental fluorosis. This was comprised of 37.1% mild to very mild and 3.8% moderate dental fluorosis, with the moderate being attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste and/or exposure to high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride during the teeth developing years of 0-8.
—-Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H.
8. Jeremy: “You say the “optimal” level is 0.7 ppm. But that’s the new “optimal” level, down from the previous “optimal” level of up to 1.2 ppm, an “optimal” level the US government admitted was overexposing people and causing increased rates of dental fluorosis, which, again, is a symptom of fluoride toxicity.”
Facts:
A. The optimal level of fluoride in drinking water established in 1962 was a range of 0.7-1.2 ppm. See my previous comments on the recent consolidation of this range into the low end of the range, 0.7 ppm.
B. The US government has “admitted” no such thing. See my previous comments on the reasons for elimination of the range.
9. Jeremy: “Furthermore, correlations between the fluoride intake or the presence or degree of fluorosis and the presence (or prevalence) or severity of other effects generally have not been examined on an individual basis, which could permit identification of individual differences in susceptibility or response”
Facts:
It is not the responsibility of anyone to disprove the constant flow of unsubstantiated claims made by antifluoridationists. These activists are requesting the sudden cessation of a very valuable public health initiative which has benefitted hundreds of millions of individuals of all ages for over 70 years, with no proven adverse effects. It is therefore encumbent upon these activists to provide evidence to support their request, not the other way around. They have not.
10. Jeremy ; “In addition, fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, and…..”
Facts:
‘Water intoxication provokes disturbances in electrolyte balance, resulting in a rapid decrease in serum sodium concentration and eventual death.”
—Fatal water intoxication
D J Farrell and L Bower
J Clin Pathol. 2003 Oct.;56(10);803-804
If you want to fear-monger about the properties of fluoride without consideration of proper use level, then you should also do so about plain water, as consumption of this toxic substance can lead to death.
11. Jeremy: “Oh, and There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.”
Facts:
The link you provide is to the Cochrane Report, the recent review which has been completely misrepresented by antifluoridationists. This report does not claim that there is “insufficient evidence to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping fluoridation programmes”. It concludes that within the small number of fluoride studies it chose to review that there was insufficient evidence for it to make that determination.
The Cochrane group was an update of the 2000 York Review. As such, it set narrow parameters for fluoridation studies it would review, consistent with the parameters originally set by York. It then culled the scientific literature and found 155 studies, out of 4,600 fluoride it considered, which fit within its parameters. This immediately excluded well over 4,000 quality, peer-reviewed fluoridation studies which it chose not to review. Within these 155 studies Cochrane deemed the majority to fall within the parameters it had established for them to be considered at high risk of bias. It did not state that the studies were biased, nor invalid.
—-Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries
(Review)
Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV, Walsh T, O’Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, Alam R, Tugwell P, Welch V, Glenny AM
The Cochrane Collaboration
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Sslott, you are simply parroting points made by David Fierstien. So I refer you for the most part to my replies to his comments.
You’re begging the question, which precisely illustrates my point.
I repeat: the practice violates fundamental medical ethics. It violates the right to informed consent, and you can’t control the dose.
Again:
And I otherwise reiterate what I’ve said previously.
Jeremy
1. I don’t “parrot” anyone. I state facts supported by valid evidence. That you cannot properly address those facts is a function of how uninformed you are on this issue.
2. I don’t “beg” points. I state facts supported by valid evidence. The optimal level of fluoride in drinking water is, by definition, the official recommendation of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It currently stands at 0.7 ppm. That you fail to understand this is a function of your sole reliance on misinformation you glean from the “Fluoride Action Network”. If you decide to properly educate yourself on this issue, I will be glad to provide you with proper sources of accurate information.
3. Contrary to your seeming belief, the more you repeat misinformation does not make it any more valid. There are no medical ethics violated by the approval by local officials of routine additives to public water supplies. If you believe you know any legitimate source of medical ethics which states otherwise you are certainly free to properly cite it. Bear in mind that the opinions of the “Fluoride Action Network” are evidence of nothing other than the gullibility of any who accord it credence.
See my previous comments in regard to your stale copy/paste arguments about consent and dose. They are self explanatory.
4. Your personal opinion as to what is stated in “numerous studies” is, obviously, meaningless. If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects from “exceeding these agreed limits” attributable to optimally fluoridated water, then present it, properly cited.
5. Reiterate whatever nonsense you please. Your inability to properly address the challenges I’ve presented to you is clear demonstration of your total lack of understanding of this issue.
Steven D. Slott, DDD
1. What I mean by saying you are “parroting” David is that you are making the same arguments. So, again, see my replies to his comments.
2. You begged the question, a logical fallacy.
3. Mass medicating entire communities most certainly violates basic medical ethics. (Repeatedly denying a logical truism doesn’t make it any less true.)
4. The quote you are referring to is not my “personal opinion as to what is stated in ‘numerous studies'”. Had you read more carefully and bothered to try to comprehend what I wrote (which I made clear with the use of a blockquote and link to the source), you’d have recognized that the following quote:
Was from this paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
And certainly not “meaningless”.
5. I reiterate my previous points, which for a second time now you’ve chosen to respond to with such as the above, rather than substantively addressing them. Consequently, you are banned for trolling.
Jeremy, you are the typical antifluoridationist coward. When faced with facts and evidence you cannot counter, you, like most such antifluoridationists, resort to censorship. It is always very satisfying and truly comical to expose such cowardice and obvious lack of confidence in your position.
Yet once again:
1. Whatever “replies” to which you refer are meaningless. Your inability to address the challenges I have given you is indicative of your total lack of understanding of this issue.
2. I don’t “beg” questions. I present facts supported by valid evidence….facts which you are obviously unable to address.
3. In order to “mass medicate”, one must first have medication. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water. I will be glad to cite the peer-reviewed science if you so desire. US courts have rejected the “mass medication” nonsense every time antifluoridationists have attempted it.
4. You have as yet to properly cite any “medical ethics” which deem it a violation for local officials to approve routine additives to public water supplies under their jurisdiction.
5. The paper you cite is one by Awofeso and Peckham, two long time antifluoridationists. Peckham is the former chair of the British antifluoridationist faction, “Hampshire Against Fluoride”. The paper you cite was published in “The Scientific World Journal” an open access publication established in 2001 by the dubious publishing company, Hindawi. Hindawi charges an average $800 fee to those wishing to see their work in print, with apparently no other options available to them. This journal was not even listed in the 2015 “Journal Citation Reports” due to “anomalous citation patterns”. Thus it does not have an impact factor.
“Three Hindawi journals have faced delisting from the Journal Citation Reports for anomalous citation patterns, particularly self-citations and citation stacking. The three include The Scientific World Journal, although the problems with this journal occurred partly before Hindawi acquired the journal.[6] Open access journalist Richard Poynder considers this incident anomalous itself,[7] and Retraction Watch has noted that Hindawi’s sanctions for authors who manipulate citations – including 3 year bans of author submissions – are stricter than those of many other journals.[16]”
“Two of its journals (Chemotherapy Research and Practice and ISRN Oncology) were targeted in the Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? sting operation and rejected the fake paper.[17]”
“In 2015, after an internal investigation, Hindawi flagged 32 published papers for re-review due to three editors subverting the peer review process with fake email accounts.[18]”
—–https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_Publishing_Corporation
6. The “quote” you reference was not in quotation marks, nor followed by any citation. Thus, it was nothing more than your own personal opinion……which is unqualified and meaningless.
7. You have presented nothing that bears “addressing”. If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence which you believe supports your position, then produce it, properly cited. Thus far you have presented none.
8. Reiterate whatever misinformation you choose. With no valid supporting evidence, it is, obviously, meaningless.
9. Yes, a frequently employed tactic of uninformed antifluoridationists is to attempt to “ban”, or censor comments, when backed into a corner by facts and evidence. History is littered with the failures of those who have utilized such tactics.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Oddly enough, these guys are not parroting each other, they are just working from the same set of scripts.
For a really startling read, here’s the Pew Foundation’s self-congratulatory report on the pro-fluoridation PR and lobbying effort they sponsor:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdhp-fluoridation/CDHP_FlouridationAdvocacyReport_FINAL.pdf
David Fierstien is a paid industry shill
BeeDear says, “David Fierstien is a paid industry shill.”
This is a perfect example of an unsubstantiated lie, conjured up by a typical water fluoridation conspiracy-theory whack-job, who hides behind a pseudonym, and therefore has to offer no proof of the lie. If you don’t use your real name, how can you be held accountable for lying? Pathetic.
Name a single person who has never been harmed or had their quality of life diminished by oxidative stress and inflammation caused by exposure to fluoride.
Johndmac: To answer your question: Me. I brush my teeth twice a day with fluoridated toothpaste, and drink fluoridated water. Since, at the age of 57, I have all of my teeth and not a single cavity, I would have to say that my quality of life has been improved from exposure to fluoride.
But that doesn’t answer my question: ” . . name one person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water for as much as a lifetime.”
Demonstrate to us that your IQ wouldn’t be higher if you weren’t deliberately exposing yourself to a known neurotoxin on a daily basis — which would seem to not be a highly intelligent thing to do.
I drink coffee every day, so yes, I am exposing myself to a neurotoxin. By the way, have you ever eaten chocolate, which also contains a known neurotoxin?
What a perfectly silly comparison. Show us, e.g., studies linking coffee or chocolate consumption with lowered IQ.
Oh, that’s right…
“Lifelongcoffee/caffeine consumption has been associated with prevention of cognitive decline….”
Unlike fluoride, “daily coffee and caffeine intake can be part of a healthy balanced diet”.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26677204
Same for dark chocolate, of course:
The cardiovascular benefits of dark chocolate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26026398
Cocoa and human health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23642199
Please try to at least pretend to be serious or you will be banned for trolling.
Show us, e.g., studies linking optimally fluoridated water, which is what is consumed when community water fluoridation (CWF) is practiced, which is what we are talking about here, with lowered IQ.
Oh, that’s right… there is no evidence of your ludicrous claim. That’s why over 100 of the world’s most prestigious health organizations fully support CWF, including (since you brought up Harvard) the Deans of Harvard’s Medical Schools who said, “As Deans of Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Dental Medicine and the Harvard School of Public Health, we continue to support community water fluoridation . . ” http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Files/harvard-deans-on-fluoridation.ashx
Again, in case you missed it, quote from Anna Choi, one of the authors of the “Harvard Study,” which you deceptively tried to associate with CWF, “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.”
Maybe you should be banned for your deceptive trolling . .
I refer you to my just-posted comment in reply to your other here:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/10/21/our-daily-dose-a-short-film-on-the-hazards-of-water-fluoridation/#comment-2426230612
There was nothing deceptive about it. I don’t like deception. That is exactly why I provided the link so the reader could see her quote in its full context. What I did was cite the relevant portion of her quote in the context of our discourse.
Since you were using the Harvard Review of non-peer reviewed Chinese, Iranian & Mongolian studies (which, by the way, have never been translated into English by a credible source) as an indictment against community water fluoridation, the portion of her quote which read, “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. . . , ” was on topic and a direct response to your erroneous claim. (I concede, maybe you weren’t being deceptive. Maybe you were just making a mistake.)
I can’t agree that Choi’s statement about the need for further research into the potential risks to health from fluoride exposure is irrelevant to this discussion.
And what “erroneous claim” are you alleging that I’ve made?
Jeremy, I can see you are one of those guys who can’t admit when you are wrong. I hope I am wrong about that.
What “erroneous claim” am I alleging that you’ve made? Without reviewing the thread, I am going to guess that you have cited the Harvard Review of 27 non-peer reviewed Asian studies, that have never been translated into English by a credible source, at least twice, and more likely three times, as proof that the levels of fluoridation seen in community water fluoridation in the U.S. lead to lower IQ levels.
And for at least the third time now I (and I see that Dr. Slott, in his comment above has also pointed it out to you) am pointing out to you that Choi and Grandjean’s “Harvard Study” has absolutely nothing to say about community water fluoridation, as Anna Choi herself plainly stated. — That was your erroneous claim.
I hope you will stop citing the “Harvard Study” as proof of anything relevant to this page and that we can get on with our lives now.
12
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
David Fierstein is a paid industry shill
The toothpaste label clearly says —- DO NOT SWALLOW.
Those companies have to protect their liability.
Elder citizens in these
fluoridated communities end up with more brittle bones, fractured hips,
arthritis, thyroid damage and cancer.
People are learning the truth about this big money scheme, so it is not
surprising that only 5% of world populations and only 3% in Europe fluoridate
their drinking water instead of the 74% in the U.S. Also 200 communities worldwide have voted it
out in the last five years.
Indeed, but while toothpaste may be clearly labelled “DO NOT SWALLOW”, during my last appointment at the dentist, I was instructed to brush with a fluoride-containing toothpaste and not to rinse afterward because the fluoride needs to be on the teeth for 30 minutes to have any effect.
That patently idiotic recommendation didn’t exactly instill me with more confidence in the medical establishment.
for some historical prospective:
from Wikipedia:
“”Mad as a hatter” is a colloquial phrase used in conversation to refer to a crazy person. In 18th and 19th century England, mercury was used in the production of felt, which was used in the manufacturing of hats common of the time. People who patronised these hat factories were exposed daily to trace amounts of the metal, which accumulated within their bodies over time, causing some workers to develop dementia caused by mercury poisoning (called mad hatter syndrome). Thus, the phrase became popular as a way to refer to someone who was perceived as insane.”
One can only ponder the long-term, cognitive effects from years of exposure to mercury vapours (from amalgamist fillings), that our dentists are exposed to on a daily basis.
there are so many such little incidences in my experience. it is hard to credit them with even a modicum of intelligence, sense, and logic.
and if they have any it must be suppressed to be part of the machine.
“Do Not Swallow” toothpaste. Well, here’s a clue, toothpaste has 1500 ppm Fluoride and is not intended to be swallowed, compared to optimally fluoridated water has 0.7 ppm F.
For the slow of learning, here’s an example of the same principle: Potassium, in high concentrations can blind you, cause skin blisters, choke you, and even kill you. http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926661 Bananas have low concentrations of potassium, yet bananas are safe to eat. Do you get it?
It isn’t clear to me what it is you are challenging about my previous comment.
Yes, looking back on the thread, perhaps my comment should have been directed at James Reeves. I really have no comment about your dentist’s recommendations for better oral health.
No harm no foul
One of the problems with fluoride, besides being linked to bone cancer, causing bone and dental fluorosis and being a neurotoxin, etc., is that it’s an endocrine disruptor (anti-thyroid). This “trailblazing” information predates the invention of the light bulb.
Fluoride mimics TSH, damages thyroid enzymes and displaces iodine in the thyroid. The reason why our table salt has added iodine is because we live on a “goiter belt“. Long story short: the foods grown in our soil are deficient in iodine because our soil is deficient. Iodine is an important nutrient for thyroid health.
Fluoride, on the other hand, is not a nutrient (despite often being peddled as such) and actually displaces iodine. From a leading thyroid specialist in the UK:
“To condemn the entire population, already having marginal levels of iodine, to inevitable progressive failure of their thyroid system by fluoridating the water, borders on criminal lunacy.” – Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield MBBS LRCP MRCS
Not surprisingly, 98% of Europe (bordering on over 99% once it is banned in Ireland) does not fluoridate their water.
Of grave concern are the effects of undiagnosed (and untreated) hypothyroidism during pregnancy (which is rampant in Canada and the fluoridated United States). Every cell in the human body requires thyroid hormones. Low maternal thyroid hormone is linked to increase risk of complications such as ADHD, autism, miscarriage and stillbirth.
In the United States 30% of pregnant women are iodine deficient. The last thing we need added to our water is another halogen that displaces iodine.
More and more I am playing the “game” of connecting the dots. Early on in this excellent documentary one use of fluorine is in the production of aluminum. Late in the film there is again a flash of the ALCOA logo. Not mentioned at all in this film is the link between fluoride and aluminum absorption across the blood-brain barrier. This is, IMHO, a much bigger problem than dental fluorosis.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/iage/201407/is-dementia-caused-aluminum-through-fluoridation
Yes, we need to protect the young, but the elderly also deserve our respect and help. Alzheimer’s is a growing problem as our populations (Canada and the US) age. Recently it was announced that for the first time there are more elderly in Canada than youth. And not long ago we were told that this generation will be the first to live shorter lives than their parents. What is going on?
Here is another documentary that every caring and concerned individual needs to watch. Please do!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ccKQUePGY
One more point. Lead and arsenic are also pointed out in this film. We know they are a problem.
Do we also know that arsenic is in most of the rice we consume, a staple in the diets of many countries?
And lead in gasoline has thankfully been removed (also from paint), but it has been replaced with benzene,
a known carcinogen. It used to be that all gas stations had gas jockeys that filled your tank. Now, most of us use the self serve option. In California they have vapour locks on their gas pumps. It is impossible to “top up” your gas. Warning signs tell us that laboratory results indicate that inhaling the vapours of benzene containing gasoline increases the chance of cancer.
Benzene is also one of the wonderful chemicals used in the fracking (hydraulic fracturing) industry.
Thank you, Mr. Seifert, for making this documentary. I will be sharing it far and wide.
Greg Shea (Lake Cowichan)
P.S. I recently attended a workshop put on by the Alzheimer’s Society of BC. Unbelievably the lady
giving the talk said that the link between aluminum and Alzheimer’s is a myth and it is okay to
start using your aluminum pots and pans again! That is totally irresponsible. We must apply the
precautionary principle or we are truly in trouble.
There is nothing new or different in ‘Our Daily Dose’ – it contains the same distortions of science that are found posted by fluoridation opponents all over the Internet. http://cyber-nook.com/water/DailyDose.htm
Willful ignorance isn’t an argument.
We’re still waiting for one of you village idiots (VIs) to explain the fluoride ‘science’ behind this idiocy:
What’s the matter, Jeremy? Can’t censor fast enough? Censorship is the tactic of cowards who have no confidence in their position. History is littered with the failures of those who have utilized this tactic to force their skewed personal ideology unto people.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
So, Jeremy, still scurrying around like a scared little mouse, censoring this comment and that, because you can’t address the facts and evidence otherwise? You gonna try to block me again and then cowardly reply to my comments after you believe I can’t respond?
You perfectly exemplify antifluoridationists. Cowardly zealots who use stale, worn out tactics, and censorship in lieu of facts and evidence. Why? Because the facts and evidence do not support your position, therefore you have no other options.
On the off chance that you would care to properly educate yourself such that you may be able to intelligently discuss this issue like a man instead of scurrying around censoring like a scared little mouse, the websites of the CDC, the EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation readily available to anyone……even you.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Why don’t the fluoride lovers out there just push for a way to access their own little personal bottle of concentrated fluoride they can drip into their own glass of water daily? And then leave the rest of us alone who would prefer to drink non-fluoridated water.
Oh wait that would make too much sense because they never expose the real reason they want the entire population exposed to this substance.