Steven Slott 
Member since May 31, 2018


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Colorado Brown Stain and Fluoridation

Still got somebody putting stuff into your body, Art? Gee, you really should notify the authorities.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Posted by Steven Slott on 06/24/2018 at 10:17 AM

Re: “Colorado Brown Stain and Fluoridation

Wow, Art, you have people putting stuff into your body against your will? Do they kidnap and tie you down, or what? This is really concerning. You probably should report this to the proper authorities as soon as you can get away. However, this bizarre situation of yours, as upsetting as Im sure it must be for you, is of no relevance to water fluoridation.

I certainly hope you get your problem resolved. In the meantime on this forum, lets stick to that which is relevant to the topic. Okay?

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Posted by Steven Slott on 06/23/2018 at 10:33 AM

Re: “In Defense of Fluoridation

Oh, wow!! I thought James had packed up his toys and gone home in a huff, like he said he was. Now here he is back again, cowardly shirking the NTP study along with his fellow FAN cohort, nyscof, mindlessly copy/pasting his little blurbs again!

This is just getting way too funny! Connett must really have lit a fire under these guys to sweep the NTP results under the rug as hard and fast as they possibly can!

The job market is good now guys. Surely you dont have to completely depend on Connett for your livelihoods.


Steven D. Slott, DDS

Posted by Steven Slott on 06/12/2018 at 5:14 PM

Re: “In Defense of Fluoridation

My, my, my......nyscof is becoming more and more frustrated with each post. Its as if she believes the more unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense she posts, the more she can obscure the recently released findings of the NTP study which her FAN instigated, promoted, and blustered would end fluoridation. The deafening silence with which she and her FAN have met these results is very telling indeed, not to mention more and more hysterical!

Cmon nyscof, you dont seriously believe that intelligent people would be hoodwinked into being diverted from your cowardice by this latest conspiracy hogwash, do you? Answer the question. Show that you have some shred of integrity left by addressing the NTP study results. The more you avoid it, the more comical it gets!

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Posted by Steven Slott on 06/12/2018 at 4:33 PM

Re: “In Defense of Fluoridation

So, nyscof.....still too cowardly to respond to the NTP study? Has Connett threatened to fire all you guys if you comment, or what? Is the job really too important to lose in order to salvage some semblance of your integrity?

Okay, lets look at this standard FAN copy/paste nonsense youve posted this time in another lame effort to divert attention from your cowardice....

A. The following was Levys response to antifluoridationist misrepresentations through plucking out-of-context quotes from his studies:

A 2013 letter to the mayor of Dalles from Levy:

June 27, 2013


Stephen Lawrence, Mayor
c/o City of The Dalles, City Hall
313 Court Street
The Dalles, OR 97058

Dear Mayor Lawrence,

I write as a concerned citizen and scientist regarding the misrepresentation of data from research that I have been involved in concerning the use of fluoridated water in reconstituting either powdered or liquid concentrate baby formula. I believe this information has originated from anti-fluoridation organizations such as Clean Water Portland and other anti-fluoridation advocates.

I have spent much of my professional career trying to better understand the fluoride levels of foods and beverages and fluoride intake from other sources. We have received nine different NIH grants related to this and are working on a grant application to continue this work. We have followed a group of nearly 1,000 children longitudinally from birth to current ages 18-21 and are studying dental cavities, dental fluorosis, and bone development related to fluoride and other factors. We have tested thousands of foods and beverages for fluoride content over the past 20 years.

Some of my recent research has confirmed previous studies that there is an increased risk of very mild to mild fluorosis to infants if optimally fluoridated water is used to reconstitute powdered or liquid concentrated infant formula. The data suggest that the increased risk is greatest if this reconstituted infant formula is the primary source of nutrition over an extended period (10-12 months).

As a result of research findings like these, and the National Research Council report from March 2006, the American Dental Association issued an Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children on November 9, 2006. While the opponents to fluoridation have used this ADA Interim Guidance as a springboard to play on the fears of the public in order to discredit fluoridation, I would like to state some important facts:

1) The appropriate amount of fluoride is essential to prevent tooth decay.

2) The interim guidance simply indicates that babies less than one year old need less fluoride than everyone else, because they are so small.
3) Breast milk is the most complete form of nutrition and is very low in fluoride content. I understand that Oregon new moms rank #1 in the United States for breastfeeding at 89%. Breastfeeding is encouraged for the first 12 months of life, the period with the greatest risk of fluorosis due to infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water. The Oregon law requiring a work place room for nursing mothers to pump their breast milk should increase this percentage even more.

4) It is important to understand that fluorosis is not a disease, and that any child with these milder forms of fluorosis will also benefit from fluorides protection against tooth decay.

5) To reduce this small risk of very mild to mild fluorosis, parents or caregivers who cannot use breast milk for the primary nutrition of infants can consider switching to ready to feed infant formula or use low fluoride bottled water to reconstitute the baby formula.

6) The greatest risk of enamel fluorosis is from the inappropriate use of fluoride-containing products (e.g., the swallowing of too much toothpaste by children under 6 years of age).

7) The dental professional community and the scientific community continue to support fluoridation based on the overwhelming number of juried scientific studies and reviews..

In fluoridated areas, community-based programs that serve formula-fed infants (as well as other infants, children, and adults) need to consider preservation of cavity prevention from fluoridated water for their broad populations and should not recommend reduction/elimination of water fluoridation just because of these issues related to formula reconstitution.

Nor should these issues prevent you, the elected representatives of the people of The Dalles from the continued support of this important public health prevention of tooth decay. In summary, I strongly endorse continued use and expansion of community water fluoridation as it is the most efficient and cost-effective means of cavity prevention. Thank you for your serious consideration of this important public health measure.

Sincerely,

Steven M. Levy, DDS, MPH
Professor and Principal Investigator, Iowa Fluoride Study



B. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated weakens bones.

In fact, just the opposite. As Li, et al demonstrated, bone fracture risk from fluoride is a U-shaped curve with the lowest rate of fracture being at the optimal levels, and the highest rates of fracture being almost identical between near 0 ppm and above 4 ppm.

Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks to bone fractures
Y Li, et al.
J Bone Miner Research; 2001 May; 16(5):932


From a 2010 study co-authored by Dr. Hardy Limeback, a long term, outspoken fluoridation opponent and close affiliate of your FAN:

Many decades of epidemiological studies have shown minimal evidence of any effects of fluoride administration on bone, and it is therefore very unlikely that municipally fluoridated water affects adults with healthy bone. In this study, no effects of fluoride on mineralization (by BSE) and no substantive negative effects of fluoride administration on bone mechanical properties were observed.

The Long-term Effects of Water Fluoridation on the Human Skeleton
Chacra, Limeback, et al
J Dental Research 89(11):1219-23November 2010

C. As clearly noted in your out-of-context quotes, neither Levy, nor Warren has indicated any adverse effects on infants, children, or anyone else from fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated. Your false implication that they have is yet one more example of your dishonesty and that of your FAN.

As nyscof so nicely examples, here and elsewhere, there obviously is nothing claimed by antifluoridationists which can ever be trusted as being truthful or accurate

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Posted by Steven Slott on 06/12/2018 at 8:25 AM

Re: “In Defense of Fluoridation

Instead of commenting, as she has repeatedly been challenged to do, on the recently released results of the highly regarded NTP study instigated and promoted by her antifluoridationist faction, FAN, nyscof predictably seeks to divert attention from her cowardice by continuing to put forth ridiculous conspiracy/corruption nonsense.

Cmon nyscof....how about the NTP study? Your FAN wanted the study, promoted it, claimed it would end fluoridation, proclaimed the integrity and extensiveness of the study, and pledged to closely monitor it. Now that the results completely contradict the litany of unsubstantiated claims of your FAN, there is suddenly deafening silence from your people in regard to the study.

Care to comment on your cowardice in addressing this study?


Steven D. Slott, DDS

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Steven Slott on 06/12/2018 at 6:52 AM

Re: “In Defense of Fluoridation

Yes, Karen, lets do keep it simple.

1. When the NTP study, which FAN instigated, began in 2017, FAN had no problem with the study design, and had confidence in the type and strength of findings which would result from the study.

Now, with the results of this study in and completely contradicting FAN claims, it seems FAN has suddenly developed a problem with these considerations and has mysteriously deemed the study it promoted to be questionable. Its interesting that the results of this study which Connett deemed in 2016 to be extensive are now somehow deemed by FAN to be dwarfed by the NIH funded study which you completely misrepresent. Hmmmm........

2. The NIH funded study did not find that exposure to low dose fluoride during pregnancy results in lower IQ in children. This is a completely false assertion on your part.

3. If you could get more specific you would.

4. There are no valid, peer-reviewed scientific studies which show fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated to be neurotoxic.....much less any ridiculous 10:1 ratio.

5. While your absurd fear-mongering with unsubstantiated claims about all of these disorders is typical of the desperate tactics of antifluoridationists, it obviously has no merit, as there no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any association of optimal level fluoride with these disorders, or any others.


Stick to the science and what you can substantiate, Karen. You fear-mongering, misrepresentation of scientific study, and false claims have no place in intelligent scientific discourse.


Steven D. Slott, DDS

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Steven Slott on 06/11/2018 at 6:55 AM

All Comments »

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Update (Thursday)
  • Events This Weekend (Thursday and Friday)

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2018 North Coast Journal

Website powered by Foundation