Editor:
Thanks to Barry Evans (“Colorado Brown Stain and Fluoridation,” May 31) for writing such an informative article about water fluoridation, its history and its impact. When it comes to science and health issues, it is an ongoing challenge for the public to find accurate information online. Unfortunately, some people use the web to mislead the public and promote conspiracy theories.
Fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in lakes, rivers, oceans and groundwater. Usually, the level of fluoride is too low to protect the enamel coating of our teeth. By adding a little more fluoride to drinking water, local water systems are able to reduce the rate of cavities in their community so that families can live, learn, work and prosper without toothaches or other dental problems. This is why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has named fluoridation one of the 10 “great public health achievements” of the 20th century. Do your teeth a favor and reduce environmental waste by choosing fluoridated tap water over bottled water in plastic bottles.
Matt Jacob, Washington, D.C.
Related Stories
This article appears in The Media Literacy Issue 2018.
Pregnant women exposed to fluoride are more likely to have kids with low IQ, study shows:
The research, the first of its kind, involved researchers from the world’s leading medical centers, including Harvard, McGill University, the University of Michigan, and the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico.
‘Our study shows that the growing fetal nervous system may be adversely affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure,’ said Dr. Howard Hu, the study’s principal investigator and professor of environmental health, epidemiology and global health at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4902988/Flouride-exposure-utero-linked-low-IQ-kids.html
Freaks bent on the word “science” can’t deny that about one of every three children show physical signs of over fluoridation (fluorosis). If it’s manifesting physically, parents might want to consider how it’s manifesting mentally. Ask yourself in all seriousness, how would you know your cognitive functions have been dumbed down a notch or two (or three or twelve)? You wouldn’t, let alone whether others are literally being stupified to some degree as well. Fluoride is a neurotoxin and only a fool would promote INGESTING any amount of it.
As for the Bashash study, here are the facts 1) Mexico uses salt fluoridation, and many of the women in this study may also have received water that was essentially fluoridated so this double fluoridation effect is not analogous to our situation in the U.S.; 2) Several of the coauthors of that study have cautioned opponents of fluoride against using its findings as a propaganda tool (not that this has stopped them from doing that).
After 70 years of use, it is obvious that fluoridation has failed in the U.S. Why risk people’s health with this toxic industrial waste fluoride?
The Journal of the American Dental Association (Dye 2017) reports, 65% of poor 6-8 year-olds and 12-15 year-olds have cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, respectively. More than 40% of children have dental cavities by the time they reach kindergarten. ” there has been little improvement in preventing caries initiation,” said Dye.
“Childhood tooth decay is the #1 chronic childhood illness in America.”
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) study released a study only a few months ago, and it found absolutely no link between fluoride and any decline in learning/memory skills. When the NTP agreed to study fluoride, the opponents of water fluoridation were thrilled. One anti-fluoride even said their study could end fluoridation, but opponents today are ignoring that study. Why? Because the experts in toxicology showed the scientific evidence doesnt support their view.
…..Freaks bent on the word science…. says one antifluoridationist commenting here, followed by his unsubstantiated claims out of the blue. Yeah, why would anyone want to depend on science in consideration of a healthcare issue when he/she can can rely on wild claims plucked out of the sky by an antifluoridationist??
Another antifluoridationist seems to believe that because there is an overwhelming problem with untreated dental decay in this country we should eliminate the most cost-effective means available to prevent this disease. Hmmmm….
Then that same activist completely misrepresents conclusions of a recent Mexican study, and plucks an out-of-context quote from one of the researchers on the study, which the activist inexplicably seems to believe is relevant to water fluoridation in the US.
Is there any doubt as to why antifluoridationists can never muster even a modicum of the credibility they so desperately seek?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
“Jake Comments” is wrong about the Bashash study. One of the only reliable determinants of total fluoride intake (from water, salt, food, dental products, medicines, etc) is urine fluoride levels. It doesn’t matter where it comes from.
For example, the Mexican women’s urine fluoride levels are similar to levels found in pregnant women in fluoridated New Zealand (Brough et al. 2015).
And US, Canadian and UK studies recorded a similar range of urine fluoride in its residents as found in the Mexican studies.
Therefore, the evidence is strong that pregnant US women have similar fluoride intakes as Mexican women, whether it comes from artificially or naturally fluoridated water, medicines, is absorbed from dental products, eaten from foods and beverages, especially ocean fish and tea which are high in fluoride, or inhaled from air pollution.
Over 300 studies, 50+ human, now link fluoride to neurological effects something that was virtually not considered when fluoridation began in 1945. Even the EPA admits that fluoride is a chemical with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.
Ok, so nyscof, the Media Relations Director of the New York antifluoridationist faction FAN, cites an oral presentation to the Nutrition Societies of New Zealand and Australia (Brough, 2015), to support her misrepresentation of the Bashash Mexican study. So, lets see what Brough actually did conclude:
Estimates of fluoride intake were lower using the prediction equation than based on extrapolation. The prediction equation suggested inadequate fluoride intakes for these pregnant women. Both methods suggested that toxicity was not a problem as intakes were below the Upper Level. Further research is required to ascertain if fluoride intakes in pregnant New Zealand women are adequate.
http://nutr2015.p.events4you.currinda.com/days/2015-12-02/abstract/307
Inadequate fluoride intake of these women, with toxicity not being a problem. Seems nyscofs support, does not…ummmm……support.
Strike one for nyscof.
Next, as is typical of nyscof and her FAN, she attempts to sneak in a half truth to imply that the Mexican study is somehow relevant to fluoridated water in the US and UK.
Nyscof claims: ……And US, Canadian and UK studies recorded a similar range of urine fluoride in its residents as found in the Mexican studies……
The similar range of urine fluoride recorded in these two countries was for healthy, non-pregnant adults. There is nothing similar about the urine content of pregnant women versus that of non-pregnant adults. As the Bashash study clearly notes, there is no data on pregnant women in the US to which the data on pregnant Mexican women can be compared. Contrary to nyscofs claim, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that pregnant US women have similar fluoride intakes as Mexican women.
Strike 2 for nyscof
And finally, nyscof raises that stale 300+ studies argument…..you know, those 300 + studies her FAN submitted to the EPA as support for FANs latest meritless petition to end fluoridation. To the surprise of no one with a modicum of understanding of fluoridation, the EPA summarily rejected the petition, explaining in detail the irrelevance, invalidity, and misrepresentation of study results by petitioners, of those 300 + studies. And if that wasnt enough, not only did the EPA reject those 300 + studies, but the recent NTP study which FAN gushed about when it began, also rejected those 300 + studies which FAN also submitted to the NTP, and concluded in no uncertain terms that:
….At these exposure levels, we observed no exposure-related differences in motor, sensory, or learning and memory performance on running wheel, open-field activity, light/dark place preference, elevated plus maze, pre-pulse startle inhibition, passive avoidance, hot-plate latency, Morris water maze acquisition, probe test, reversal learning, and Y-maze. Serum triiodothyronine (T3), thyroxine (T4), and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels were not altered as a function of 10 or 20 ppm F in the drinking water. No exposure-related pathology was observed in the heart, liver, kidney, testes, seminal vesicles, or epididymides. Mild inflammation in the prostate gland was observed at 20 ppm F. No evidence of neuronal death or glial activation was observed in the hippocampus at 20 ppm F……
Oddly enough……nyscof and her FAN have been deafeningly silent about the results of this NTP study which they instigated and gushed would end fluoridation. Wonder why the silence? They wanted the study. They claimed they would continually monitor this study which they stated would be handled with integrity by the NTP. So…why the silence?
nyscof?
nyscof?
are you there, nyscof?
……..crickets.
Oops, looks like nyscof has struck out.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The U.S. fluoridates 74% of drinking water, but Europe only 3% and the whole world only 5%. China and Japan rejected it years ago. Most everyone realizes that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.
Two studies from Harvard School of Public Health shows that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and unsafe to consume, particularly for children.
Ask your local health authorites to explain the findings of these two study:
www (DOT) hsph.harvard.edu
www (DOT) hsph.harvard.edu
” individuals, who are also exposed to other sources of Fluoride, e.g., living in a
F-endemic area due to industrial or volcanic activity, taking F-containing drugs, etc,
should always keep in mind that they have a significant risk of Fluoride toxicity when
consuming cigarettes and/or tea.” (THE EFFECTS, BOTH SEPARATE AND INTERACTIVE, OF SMOKING
AND TEA CONSUMPTION ON URINARY FLUORIDE LEVELS , Fluoride Journal)
“Urine fluoride concentration was related to fluorosis severity and nutritional status. Underweight children showed greater urine fluoride concentration as well as severe dental fluorosis.” (Dental fluorosis, fluoride in urine, and nutritional status in adolescent students living in the rural areas of Guanajuato, Mexico – JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF PREVENTIVE & COMMUNITY DENTISTRY
The Us dental fluorosis rate is skyrocketed because of multiple fluoride sources – including more moderate and severe dental fluorosis than every was anticicpated when fluoridation began in 1945 promising only 10% would be afflicted with only the mildest forms of fluorosis (white spots) It’s near or over 60% according to the latest federal statistics. There is no dispute that too many US children are fluoride overdosed. That’s why the government lowered the “optimal” fluoride dose down to 0.7 mg/L in water – by the way not every municipality has adopted the new recommendations.
Dental fluorosis, far from being only a cosmetic concern, is increasingly being identified as a biomarker for more serious disesases – like loweed intelligence.
The latest study links dental fluorosis to lower rates of excellent intelligence
The 2006 National Research Council fluoridation report: “The review acknowledged that ‘substantially’ higher intakes of fluoride from consumption of fluoridated water would result for individuals such as outdoor laborers in warm climates or people with high urine output disorders”
“children and others with poor control of swallowing could have intakes of fluoride from dental products that exceed the dietary intakes.”
“Preliminary findings suggest urine levels in women from fluoridated communities in the Canadian study are comparable to those found in the Mexico research, according to study director Christine Till, associate professor of clinical neuropsychology at Torontos York University.”
https://ensia.com/features/fluoridated-water/
Nyscof
1. Yes, excessive intake of any substance known to man can cause adverse effects, including plain water. So what? Thats why we monitor the level of substances we consume.
2. Water is fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm. The only dental fluorosis associated with optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with all other normal sources of fluoride intake 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.
3. In its final tecommendation, the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride In Drinking Water noted but three concerns with chronic consumption of fluoride at the level of 4.0 ppm: risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis.
As clearly noted by this committee, severe dental fluorosis does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content below 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm…..one third this threshold level.
Bone fracture is a U-shaped curve, with too little or too much fluoride risking an increase. The bottom of the U? At the optimal level at which water is fluoridated.
Skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the 74.5% fluoridated US as to be nearly non-existent.
4. Christine Till co-authored the ridiculous ADHD study which was so discredited in the scientific literature for its poor methodology, inadequate control for confounders, and reaching a conclusion not supported by the scientific literature….that it could not be any more meaningless what she claims is suggested in preliminary findings.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Here are reports by four dentists on the dangers of fluoride. There are many more just like them.
The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health. – Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2007)
“If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc.” – Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)
“When I looked at the research, it was like a knee in the gut. My bias was I thought (fluoridation) was safe and effective because I had not looked at the research.” – Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2016)
Fluorides make the germs in the mouth sick, and theyll make the kid sick, too. – Dr. David Kennedy DDS MPH, 3rd generation dentist and past president of IAOMT (2016)
Mr. Reeves – There are nearly 200,000 dentists in the United States. It shouldnt surprise anyone that you can find 4 people out of a pool that large who will say some inaccurate or unjustified things. Also, Dr. Osmunsons background was in cosmetic dentistry. He isnt a researcher.
What these 4 people claim isnt backed up by the evidence. What about the recently published study by the National Toxicology Program? Are opponents going to ignore that study forever? It found that there was absolutely no link between fluoride exposure and harms to learning/memory. You all wanted the NTP to study fluoride and they did. You all ignore the studies you dont like.
Mr. Jake:
Of course, we have no poll to see opinion of 200,000 dentists. I presented 4 who are opposed to fluoridation. The big money scheme ($200 million annually) pressures many to keep quiet. It is very much like the tobacco and asbestos issues, where big money maintained the wrong science for years. Eventually the correct science appeared as it is now appearing in fluoride. It will take some time to phase it out as most of the world has done (5% compareed to 74% in the U.S.).
Mr. Reeves – The big money scheme!? You didnt offer any evidence supporting your conspiracy theory about this so-called scheme. Face facts: Dentists would make a whole lot more money if people had many more cavities to fill or teeth to pull. If anything, Americas dentists have demonstrated their willingness to put health ahead of their wallets by supporting fluoridation.
It must be terrible to wake up each morning with such a cynical attitude. If you dont want fluoridated water, then drink bottled water instead. But its wrong to try to cut off other peoples access to fluoridated water based on what 4 people out of 200,000 believe.
Mr. Jake:
Of course you have absolutely no proof that we have only 4 in 200,000.
When did we agree to have bureaucrats prescribe fluoride ln our drinking water?
It is unethical to force EVERYONE to consume such without consent.
A doctor or dentist would lose their license to practice if they did it to ONE person.
Use as much fluoride as you wish in your own glass of water. Just leave the rest of us out of the bilg money fluoridation scheme.
Mr. Reeves – You would make decisions about public health based on the opinions of 4 people? We should make these decisions based on what the leading health and medical experts recommend. The CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, and many others recommend water fluoridation. They have far more credibility than the 4 people you mention.
Do you oppose vaccinations too? And do you deny that climate change is happening? Just curious because many fluoride opponents also ignore other areas of science. Alex Jones is one example. Lets respect the science over 4 people you mentioned.
Please dont deny kids and adults the cavity-fighting protection of fluoridated water just because you read some scary, unsubstantiated claims on the internet. You may have 4 people who agree with you, but the leading health/medical organizations support fluoridation.
NYSCOF,
1. The New Zealand (Brough et al. 2015) reference you used is an abstract, not a published study. No credible scientist can draw any conclusions from an abstract. The entire study, having undergone intensive peer-review and published in a credibly recognized scientific journal, can be thoroughly vetted for the findings of the study. However, a sensationalist wanting to write something negative could misinterpret such cursory information.
2. As mentioned by others here, the Mexican study (Bashash et al) DID NOT measure intakes of fluoride of the pregnant mothers. The fluoridated salt used in Mexico contains from 150-250 milligrams of fluoride. Again, the salt intake was not measured. Does everyone use salt on their food? Do some, like my late grandfather, have their food looking white after salting it because he loved salt? These Mexican pregnant moms also drank water that contained up to twice the amount of fluoride that is in community water fluoridation. Additionally, they used fluoridated toothpaste which is a dietary source of fluoride intake. NONE of these intakes were measured.
To compare fluoride in urine of pregnant moms in Mexico to NON-pregnant women in fluoridated communities in Canada and the U.S. is grossly flawed. We know fluoride intakes in moms from fluoridated water. You attempt to make a quantum leap that even a Co-author on the Bashash publication stated, Dr. Angeles Martinez Mier:
1. As an individual, I am happy to go on the record to say that I continue to support water fluoridation.
2. You can also say that if I were pregnant today I would consume fluoridated water, and that if I lived in Mexico I would limit my salt intake.
NYSCOF, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Warmly,
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist
President of the non-profit American Fluoridation Society, a non-paid group of healthcare professionals dedicated to the dissemination of credibly recognized , peer-reviewed research that has been published in credibly recognized scientific journals.
No opponent to community water fluoridation has responded to the National Toxicology Programs recent publication stating that there were no IQ changes or organ system impacts of fluoide intakes at levels of community water fluoridation (0.7 milligrams/liter, aka ppm).
You all pushed for this study and proclaimed it would end water fluoridation. However, the results do not support your desires.
Who will step up and give a response to this highest quality study from the opponents camp? How about you, NYSCOF? FAN? James Reeves? Art Spelling?
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist
President of the non-profit American Fluoridation Society, a non-paid group of healthcare professionals dedicated to the dissemination of credibly recognized , peer-reviewed research that has been published in credibly recognized scientific journals.
Only the U.S. heavily drugs the citizens (without consent) with fluoridation.
While 74% of the U.S. is forced to drink fluoridate water, only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their water. China and Japan have rejected it many years ago.
The big money fluoridation scheme is similar to tobacco and asbestos. It took years to reverse the illogical science. It will take some time to reverse this one as well.
Yes, Dr. Johnson, the silence from antifluoridationists such as nyscof, James Reeves, and Art, in regard to the results of NTP study instigated, promoted, and fully endorsed by their organization, FAN, is truly deafening.
The ones commenting on this page are obviously afraid to even acknowledge this study now, much less admit that it puts to rest their nonsensical claims.
Antifluoridationists have no interest in the facts and evidence….only in plucking out-of-context quotes they can misrepresent to their favor.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Mr. Reeves – Have you been instructed or asked not to mention anything about the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study? It just seems weird that you have never had anything to say about a landmark study that was published only a few months ago. The NTP study found absolutely no link between fluoride and learning/cognitive skills. Is that why you all will not talk about it because it conflicts with the claims that opponents are making?
Let me see if I understand your position. Do you believe any amount of fluoride in water is bad? Fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in lakes, rivers, oceans and groundwater. Just curious if you have bothered to read the NTP study and whether you refuse to drink any water that has even a trace level of fluoride.
The world’s most renowned medical journal, LANCET, in 2014 reported that fluoride is a neurotoxin in the same category as mercury, lead and arsenic.
Fluoridation causes enamel damage (dental fluorosis) in 41% of all children (CDC data) and has also been shown to lower IQ in children with 50 research studies. Now it has been proven to cause ADHD, as reported in the Journal of Environmental Health (by Malin & Till, 2015).
A 2015 study from England’s University of Kent found that drinking water with added fluoride can wreck your thyroid, and lead to weight gain and depression.
Colgate has just announced a Fluoride-Free toothpaste to help young children avoid these health issues.
Why are you so afraid to comment on the NTP study, James? Who has instructed you not to do so? Have all FAN personnel been so instructed?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Some still mistakenly cling to the disproved belief that fluoride helps CHILDRENS teeth as they form. That hypothesis was thoroughly disproved a quarter century ago.
It is important to ask — exactly why should an ADULT be sentenced to take this toxic chemical, fluoride, in every glass of water every day of life?
Fluoridation results in slow poisoning over a lifetime which causes premature ageing, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones (broken hips & arthritis), kidney damage, cancer and other health dange
rs.
Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.
Still no comment on the NTP study, James? That results of that study obviously, and understandably, have FAN, its personnel, and its followers rattled to the core.
Again, have all FAN personnel been directed to close ranks and ignore the results of this important study they instigated and promoted, in the hope that it will simply go away? Seems very likely given the response of you and nyscof here.
Sure you dont care to comment, James? Are you that afraid of Connett?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Promoters of the toxic fluoridation scam bragging on a single (ONE) study is comical.
They need to expand their reading material.
There are 50 published studies reporting an association of fluoride exposure with a lowering of IQ in children,
and over 200 animal-fluoride studies reporting damage to the brain and reduced learning and memory ability,
Two studies from Harvard School of Public Health shows that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and unsafe to consume, particularly for children.
Ask your local health authorites to explain the findings of these two study:
www (DOT) hsph.harvard.edu//fluoride-childrens/:
www (DOT) hsph.harvard.edu//fluoridated-drinking-water/
Still no comment on the NTP study, James? Should we see if Connett will grant you permission to comment on it?
While youre checking back with your master, lets once again look at this NTP study which you and your FAN so desperately seek to ignore now that the results confirm, in no uncertain terms, that FANs claims have no merit.
First we have the full endorsement and promotion of this study by FAN in early 2016…..
From a 2016 Newsletter of FAN, then Director Michael Connett stated:
…..As the Fluoride Action Networkreportedback in December, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is planning on conducting an extensive study to investigate fluorides effect on the brain, including learning and memory. Unlike the countless government whitewashes on fluoridation that we have seen in the past, we remain cautiously optimistic that the NTP is approaching its fluoride investigation with integrity.
Earlier this month, FAN submitted additional information to the NTP to explain why high dose animal studies can be relevant to the neurotoxic risks that vulnerable humans face in fluoridated communities. Fluoridation proponents like to dismiss any animal study that exposes animals to more than 1 ppm fluoride in the water; FANssubmissionexplains why this reasoning is superficial and flawed.
As we did during the National Research Councils historic three-year review of fluoride toxicity, FAN will continue to closely monitor the NTPs fluoride studies, and will continue providing the NTP with the best available science on fluorides carcinogenicity and neurotoxicity.
Thank you again for your support!………
Michael Connett
Executive Director
Now we have the recently released results of this study……
….At these exposure levels, we observed no exposure-related differences in motor, sensory, or learning and memory performance on running wheel, open-field activity, light/dark place preference, elevated plus maze, pre-pulse startle inhibition, passive avoidance, hot-plate latency, Morris water maze acquisition, probe test, reversal learning, and Y-maze. Serum triiodothyronine (T3), thyroxine (T4), and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels were not altered as a function of 10 or 20ppm F in the drinking water. No exposure-related pathology was observed in the heart, liver, kidney, testes, seminal vesicles, or epididymides. Mild inflammation in the prostate gland was observed at 20ppm F. No evidence of neuronal death or glial activation was observed in the hippocampus at 20ppm F………
-An Evaluation of Neurotoxicity Following Fluoride Exposure from Gestational Through Adult Ages in Long-Evans Hooded Rats
McPherson, C.A., Zhang, G., Gilliam, R. et al.
Neurotox Res (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12640-018-9870-x
So, James, where is the comment from you and your FAN on this study which little Connett promised FAN would closely monitor? See if you can get permission to comment.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I suggest you keep your day job. Your attempt at comedy is so juvenile.
Many doctors recognize the dangers of fluoridation. See what this one says.
Read the very good article on the dangers of fluoride by Dr. Axe. For example, he presents “6 Researched Dangers of Fluoride.”
1. May cause damage to the brain and central nervous system
2. Has been associated with moderate cancer risk
3. Could increase risk of bone fractures
4. Associated with hypothyroidism
5. May interfere with sexual development
6. Associated with diabetes risks
https://draxe.com/is-fluoride-bad-for-you/?rs_oid_rd=234655538940565&utm_source=curated&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20171023_newsletter_curated
James, your day job aside, just simply address the NTP study the best that you can. Thats all were asking for. Not a diatribe. Keep it simple. You know, like you say that your suggestions on water fluoridation are simple?
The NTP is…………….
Thats all we want. Something substantive from you, your thoughts and take on what this study showed, didnt show, how it was flawed, or whatever youd like to say. Im not going to be able to sleep well until I get an answer.
Warmly,
Johnny
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist
President of the non-profit American Fluoridation Society, a non-paid group of healthcare professionals dedicated to the dissemination of credibly recognized , peer-reviewed research that has been published in credibly recognized scientific journals.
Dr. Johnny:
I understand your desire.
After you read and report on the following hundreds of scientific studies showing the dangers of fluoridation, I will go read your little study.
There are 50 published studies reporting an association of fluoride exposure with a lowering of IQ in children,
and over 200 animal-fluoride studies reporting damage to the brain and reduced learning and memory ability,
Hmmmm, James……Its funny that Connett didnt deem the NTP to be a …little study…in 2016.
You know all those human and animal studies you claim to show this or that? Well, if you will recall, FAN submitted them to the NTP as evidence. So…if the NTP study has now somehow morphed into being a ….little study…, then what does that make all those human and animal studies which both the NTP and the EPA rejected? Teensie, weensie, little baby studies maybe?
Wonder if the magical morph of the NTP study, which Connett deemed to be an extensive study in 2016, into what FAN now seems to believe is nothing more than …a little study….could be due to the fact that this study puts to rest all of the nonsensical FAN claims, instead of putting an end to fluoridation as FAN proclaimed it would?
Just for the fun of it, lets once again take a look at what Connett had to say about this NTP research which FAN now deems to be ….a little study….
From a 2016 FAN newsletter:
………As the Fluoride Action Network reported back in December, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is planning on conducting an extensive study to investigate fluorides effect on the brain, including learning and memory. Unlike the countless government whitewashes on fluoridation that we have seen in the past, we remain cautiously optimistic that the NTP is approaching its fluoride investigation with integrity.
Earlier this month, FAN submitted additional information to the NTP to explain why high dose animal studies can be relevant to the neurotoxic risks that vulnerable humans face in fluoridated communities. Fluoridation proponents like to dismiss any animal study that exposes animals to more than 1 ppm fluoride in the water; FANssubmissionexplains why this reasoning is superficial and flawed.
As we did during the National Research Councils historic three-year review of fluoride toxicity, FAN will continue to closely monitor the NTPs fluoride studies, and will continue providing the NTP with the best available science on fluorides carcinogenicity and neurotoxicity…….
-Michael Connett
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network
So, James, it looks as though you checked with your master and he wll still not allow you to comment on this NTP study. Does he allow you to poddy on your own, or do you also have to obtain permission for that as well?
Check with him again, James. Maybe if you beg and plead, he will let you comment on it. Cmon, be a man. Lets hear how FAN tries to spin these study results. We all need a good laugh.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
James,
One “little” study? The NTP which you refuse to provide a single comment on, because perhaps you can’t or aren’t being allowed to?
How about the 2006 NRC Review of the EPA Standards on Fluoride in drinking water? Is that a “little” study too? They looked at all of the studies that you refer to and concluded that the only adverse health effect of fluoride in water at 4mg/L (ppm) is severe dental fluorosis. Like the NTP study, there were not IQ changes, mutagenic (aka cancer), thyroid changes or any other bodily systems affected at 6 times what is the fluoride level in community water fluoridation, 0.7ppm. And at 2mg/L (ppm), severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero.
Perhaps you should ask your good friend, Dr. Hardy Limeback, to explain that “little” 2006 NRC Study upon which he participated and signed off on the conclusions of that Committee. Or are you a spokesperson for him?
And the EPA denial of your group’s effort to end CWF in the U.S.? Is that a little study too? Can you begin to see how the readers are going to see your replies as a “little” attempt to avoid answering credibly conducted science and evaluations?
If you wish to persist in calling the NTP a “little study”, then provide some type of response to it. Humor me. We both know that FAN, NYSCOF, you, Hardy Limeback, or anyone else in your small world of opposition to water fluoridation has a clue as to how to try to discredit this most important study of fluoride on neurotoxic effects that you and your groups pushed for. The results do not jive with your wishes. So, instead of listening to science, you push forward deafening silence on this study. Try speaking with credibility instead of total dismissal of a study which failed to meet your expectations?
Man up, James. Either put up or walk away with your accusations. REAL scientists follow the credibly conducted studies which follow the scientific method show. You are failing to even acknowledge the NTP study and their findings. Quit using your usual tag lines. Try addressing a credible scientific study head-on instead of trying an end around. The truth only hurts once. Give it a noble try. And this ain’t football season or some childhood game.
Johnny……….standing by listening for an answer to the NTP study, AND ONLY THE NTP STUDY!
Bottom line.
The fluoridation issue is simple.
Use as much fluoride as you wish in your own glass of water.
Stop forcing EVERYONE to consume it without consent.
We all deserve freedom of choice, where even doctors or dentists cannot force ANYONE to consume fluoride. They would lose their license to practice if they forced a drug or chemical on anyone.
Bureaucrats should not have authority to force it on everyone either. Why must we be poisoned with fluoride just because somebody wants a bigger bottom line?
Oops, James it at it again. Cowardly refusing to acknowledge the results of the recent NTP study which his FAN instigated, promoted, labeled as extensive with integrity, and claimed would end fluoridation, James keeps desperately attempting to divert attention from this cowardice by posting the same, verbatim, nonsensical copy/paste blurbs he plasters all over the internet constantly.
Cmon, James, be a man. What about the NTP study? Are you afraid of the income loss if Connett fires you? Youre obviously shaking in your boots about this. Dont feel alone, though. This type of fear and cowardice is common amongst antifluoridationists.
So, James….the NTP study?
James?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
NOTICE that the promoters of this toxic chemical, fluoride, cannot answer one important question.
Some still mistakenly cling to the disproved belief that fluoride helps CHILDRENS teeth as they form. That hypothesis was thoroughly disproved a quarter century ago.
It is important to ask — exactly why should an ADULT be sentenced to take this toxic chemical, fluoride, in every glass of water every day of life.
Oh, thats just too funny!!!!!
Reeves now lamely attempts to divert attention from his cowardice by ridiculously claiming others wont answer some question or other. This guy is just too much!!!
Cmon, James, what about the NTP study? I mean, maybe we can put in a good word with Connett for you, or something, if its your income youre worried about.
The more you keep posting your little copy/paste blurbs in lieu of answering the question, the more your cowardice becomes exposed.
So, James….the NTP?
James?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Dr. Slott has become ridicules and obnoxios, so it is time to close this.
As the lawyers say, “if you don’t have the facts, attack the person.”
It makes us wonder if dental schools teach such bad manners.
Being insulting and presenting ad hominem attacks reveals his weakness.
It apppears that the bilg money fluoridation scam is not getting its value in paying these promoters to cover up the dangers.
Goodbye.
James Reeves – It is interesting you are saying goodbye without addressing any of Dr. Slotts or Dr. Johnsons comments about the published NTP study which did not show any of the harm from exposure to fluoride ions expected by fluoridation opponents (FOs). It appears you and other FOs have ignored it because it did not meet your expectations – just as you have ignored the hundreds of studies which have demonstrated the safety and effective of fluoridation for over 70 years.
That scientific evidence is why over 100 national and international science and health organizations and their members continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation, why there are no recognized science/health organizations that recognize the anti-F opinions as legitimate, and why FOs must distort the evidence to try and scare and scam the public into believing their propaganda is true.
~> http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/
You have also posted at least 15 comments, and you have provided not a shred of scientific evidence (citation of a published study with author quotes) to prove your paranoid opinion that there are “hundreds of scientific studies showing the dangers of fluoridation”. Stating an opinion without providing any evidence is something that you and other FOs do continually.
Specific citations and author quotes are important because your vague references to various studies like the Two studies from the “Harvard School of Public Health”, “LANCET in 2014”, “CDC data”, “2015 study from England’s University of Kent”, etc. are all bogus. The studies did not provide any proof that drinking optimally fluoridated water was harmful or ineffective. If you can provide the citations and author quotes in context, there will be something specific to discuss instead of your vague unsubstantiated claims.
You continue to make claims about a “bilg [sic] money fluoridation scam” without providing a shred of proof thats expected since there is no proof and no conspiracy.
You continually reference fluoridation as medication when, like all your other claims it is bogus. Fluoridated bottled water is regulated by the FDA as a “Food for Human Consumption”, not a drug. You have been shown the evidence repeatedly and continue to ignore it.
~> http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=165.110
You have provided no explanation of how bureaucrats (or anyone else) have ever forced ANYONE to consume fluoride. When making such an absurd claim you should at least provide some conclusive evidence that would stand up in court but again, FOs only need to rely on their opinions and the opinions of others to prove to themselves their paranoia is valid.
You provide opinions from the very few dentists and doctors who have also ignored the scientific evidence and allowed their anti-F paranoia to distort their interpretation of evidence. FOs with professional training and credentials are extremely rare because they must dismiss their scientific training and rational thinking.
For proof of the outlier status of professional FOs, check the FAN Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation. Initiated in 2007, had collected about 4,700 signatures worldwide by March, 2015, and by January 2018 a whoppin 4,790 signatures had been collected out of the millions of working and retired medical, dental and scientific professionals in the world. For example:
** 378 dentists worldwide signed the petition (there were 195,722 practicing dentists in the U.S – 2015) – that is less than 0.02% of the 1.8 million practicing dentists in the world.
** 581 physicians signed the petition (there were 926,119 professionally active physicians in the U.S 2016) – that’s about 0.005% of the 10-15 million practicing physicians in the world.
** 106 pharmacists signed the petition – that’s about 0.005% of the more than 2 million practicing pharmacists world-wide.
So, Goodbye.
Oh, poor, James. His cowardice having been fully exposed, is predictably packing up his toys and going home in a huff. Daddy Connett will be so pleased with him. Maybe he will give James a hanky and a lollipop.
Given the extreme irresponsible, measures these antifluoridationists are taking to avoid responding to the NTP study, all the lame diversions they attempt, anything and everything they can do to get out from in between this rock and a hard place in which they have inserted themselves with their ignorant blustering about this study when it began…..obviously FAN is decimated by these results. It wont stop their cowardly continuing to push their volumes of misinformation, but this, at least gives yet another clear example as to why these activists cannot be trusted and that their agenda has nothing to do with anything but their own self-serving, skewed personal ideology.
Thanks, James. You can count on having your cowardice about this study being fully exposed on every site on which you plaster your dishonest little copy/paste blurbs.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
One last comment.
Even though the promoters won’t — or can’t —answer my few simple, important questions on the immoral and unethical practice of the toxic fluoridation, one must give them credit for earning their pay with extensive, meaningless words.
Just as what happened with other big money issues like tobacco and asbestos, people are learning the truth that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health. Consuming it in every glass of water, every day of life results in slow poisoning. Why are ADULTS forced to consume this poison?
Fluoridation is on the way out just like the others. Good riddance.
Oh my! James just couldnt resist groveling with yet another lame attempt at diversion from his cowardice.
Cmon, James, before you go whimpering back to Daddy Connett with your tail between your legs, sure you dont want to be a man, think with your brain instead of his, and try to regain some small semblance of self-respect? Is whatever he pays you really worth the humiliation you continue to suffer?
Again, James….the NTP study?
This exposure of your blatantant hypocricy and cowardice will simply continue to dog you until you grow some integrity and respond to these study results.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
James Reeves — So, you have come back with one last comment to provide no response to previous questions, only more unsubstantiated opinions. You clearly demonstrate how fluoridation opponents (FOs) avoid providing specific evidence to prove their claims and try to distract with meaningless opinions.
As mentioned earlier the failure of FOs to provide non-existent evidence is to be expected since such evidence does not exist. Instead you provide:
1) A non-question, since fluoridation is not toxic to humans. The only unethical and immoral practice is that of FOs demanding that a safe and effective public health measure that reduces dental decay and related harmful health issues in citizens be halted.
2) You bring up two completely unrelated and irrelevant issues to try and divert attention from the fact that you cant prove your claims. Unlike fluoridation which has over 70 years of evidence that clearly demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of the practice, there has never been any evidence or a scientific consensus that exposure to tobacco and asbestos have beneficial health effects.
3) You seem unable to describe how or provide evidence that anyone, children or adults, are being forced to consume fluoride ions in their drinking water. Is physical force used or mind control?
You have still provided not a single citation with quotes from the authors (in context of course) that proves any of your claims.
Good bye
James
There are no alternative approaches to bring the entire population fewer cavities aside the water fluoridation.
As is common for opponents you insist that the water not be fluoridated so you have a “choice.”
Firstly, your desire to avoid is without objective foundation,. There is no scientific evidence that 0.7 ppm fluoride causes any harm whatsoever. This has been widely studied in the past 72 years and there is overwhelming scientific consensus on this. America’s pediatricians and Family Physicians are part of nearly 150 organizations and societies on record that fluoridation prevents cavities and is safe.
Here is a convenient place to read what the many organizations supporting fluoridation have to say, in their own words
http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/
Secondly, there are many people benefiting from fluoridation who in no sense can make a choice.
The little 4 year old with a mouthful of rotten teeth requires operations under general anesthesia (a child died last year in Vancouver, WA from the sedation) and includes pulling teeth, root canals and placement of unsightly metal crowns.
Here’s what these cases look like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p878bel9fqfthws/Severe%20Caries%20OR%20and%20Child%27s%20slide%20simple.jpg?dl=0
Fluoridation avoids about 3/4ths of these operations. The cases avoided with fluoridation save about 50% of the Medicaid dental budget for kids 6 and under. The return on investment for these little children alone has been reported to be 150% in Colorado and 900% in New York. So much money is saved that in New York the Medicaid plans are buying fluoridation systems. They end up with more money to pay for poor kids medical and dental care.
These kids don’t get to choose their parents, the mother’s mouth bacteria, if they are seen by dental professionals, their food, the instruction to brush properly. Older people who are no longer able to brush effectively may have no oral health prevention other than their tap water. Nursing home dental care is nearly non-existent. What choice do they have?
Your view is equivalent to the “let them eat cake” quotation supposedly spoken by “a great princess” upon learning that the French peasants had no bread.
The return in lower dental bills for adults is 12% for the smallest cities and over 13,000% for some large systems.
Courts have uniformly dismissed your demand for “choice.” The Oregon Supreme Court’s decision speaks directly to your viewpoint:
“Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own regardless of the injury that may be done to others.” (Baer v City of Bend)
My view is that people like yourself who want to choose avoiding fluoride can satisfy their choice by purchasing a Reverse Osmosis filter for under $200 at Home Depot or purchasing bottled water. The price for everyone else – children, adults and the aged, is just too high to avoid fluoridation and honor this view of “choice.”
“If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc.” – Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)
Fluoride is not a mineral no matter how many times fluoridationists say so. Chemists call it an enzyme poison. The EPA calls it a contaminant and neurotoxicant (brain poison). The FDA calls is an unapproved drug. Fluoride is also an inflammatory drug and hormone disruptor.
Endorsements, marketing literature and top ten lists are not science. Substantial science in the past year have provided significant evidence of dental and mental damage from fluoridation policy.
Per US government statistics, over half of American teens have fluoride damaged teeth. One in five have brown stains on at least two brittle teeth that will require costly crowns or veneers in young adulthood because of overconsumption of fluoride during early childhood. Authors recommend action be taken to reduce exposure to fluoride. (Wiener et al. 2018)
Low F- doses in children consistent with ‘optimal’ (CWF) to ‘safe’ (MCL) concentrations in US water result in lower IQ and increased dental fluorosis on a dose-response line. (Yu et al. 2018)
Low F- doses in pregnant women consistent with ‘optimal’ (CWF) doses in American towns result in lowered IQ in their children on a dose-response trend line. This from a NIH/EPA sponsored project conducted by top scientists at world class US & Canadian research facilities. (Bashash et al. 2017; Thomas et al. 2018)
Re the NTP animal study v. the three recent human studies on neurotoxicity, let’s keep it simple:
Not all scientific studies are equal. Study design, type and strength of findings are just a few of the considerations. In the matter of fluoridation neurotoxicity studies, the NIH funded study that found low dose exposure to fluoride during pregnancy results in lower IQ in children dwarfs the recent NTP animal study, which has a number of issues with questionable design and limitations.
I could get more specific, but again, let’s keep it simple. Ten to one, both human and animal studies show fluoride to be neurotoxic. Those are the odds, 10:1. How do you want to bet? If you lose you, your child will be more likely to have a learning disability, mood disorder or have an IQ up to 6 points lower than he would have had otherwise. (Increased risk of stained teeth, broken bones & kidney disease, too.)
Ok, Karen Spencer, yet another close affiliate of the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN, has posted here:
1. The unsubstantiated, erroneous personal opinion of some antifluoridationist.
2. A false claim about the EPA
3. The usual lame attempt to discredit the opinions and recommendations of some of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world……..including the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the US CDC, the US EPA, the US National Academy of Medicine, the American College of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics……..as if these organizations were not on top of the latest science of a public health initiative such as water fluoridation with which they allow their names to be publicly associated.
4. An unsubstantiated, false claim about some phantom science.
5. An unsubstantiated, false claim about some phantom government statistics
6. False and misrepresentitive claims about 2 studies.
Of note is the fact that Spencer, like her FAN and seemingly all other antifluoridationists, has failed to mention the results of the recent NTP study which her FAN instigated, promoted, and blustered would end fluoridation. Given the no uncertain terms in which this study completely dispels the claims of FAN, it leaves no room for the usual misrepresentation by antifluoridationists. Therefore, as FAN obviously has no interest in legitimate science which it cannot twist and mangle to fit its ideological agenda, those such as Spencer, James Reeves, and other FAN parrots cowardly refuse to acknowledge or comment on this NTP study.
So, Karen, are you just another FAN coward like your buddy James Reeves, or do you care to comment on the NTP study? Now, run back to Connett, the head coward himself, and see how he wants you to handle this.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
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
Karen Spencer,
Now, I suspect that you are stating that the “NTP animal study, which has a number of issues with questionable design and limitations.” is said with you biting your lower lip trying not to laugh at what you’re typing. You know that FAN, including you, James, the Connetts, Osmunson, and others were holding your breath for the results to come out. Osmunson even touted that this was the best group in the world to evaluate for neurotoxicity at levels in CWF and up to the EPA maximum fluoride in drinking water in the U.S., 4ppm.https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdhp-fluoridation/FAN+Article+-+NTP+Study+(2015).pdf
Please share the human studies that you are quoting which where done in fluoridated communities. I’m certain you’ve seen the one from Broadbent et al from New Zealand that showed NO IQ changes over their 38 year longitudinal study of people on community water fluoridation (CWF).
References on any health effects of credibly conducted, evidence based, scientific research which has been published in credibly recognized peer reviewed journals:
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Warm Regards,
Johnny
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist
President of the non-profit American Fluoridation Society, a non-paid group of healthcare professionals dedicated to the dissemination of credibly recognized , peer-reviewed research that has been published in credibly recognized scientific journals.
Politics and money support fluoridation Science does not. Since the power and money is in the hands of the fluoridationists, it’s up to individuals to take matters into their own hands. There is no dispute that too much fluoride damages bones and developing teeth. Learn where the fluoride is and avoid it. For example, powdered eggs (like the ones you get for “free” at some hotels) is allowed to contain up to 900 parts per million fluoride – almost as much as fluoridated toothpaste which carries a poison warning and admonition to spit out. Here’s a list put out by Cornell University https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/180.145
The USDA has a database of the fluoride content of commonly consumed foods. Google “USDA fluoride in foods database.”
With fluoride, less is best, none is better!
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
“There has been an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis,” reports Steven Levy, DDS, Professor, University of Iowa, in the May 2003 Journal of the Canadian Dental Association(2) while cavities in primary teeth are still a problem(3).
Levy, also Principle Investigator of the Iowa Fluoride Study, ongoing for more than a decade, measures children’s fluoride intake, food and beverage fluoride levels, and relates it to fluorosis, cavities and bone development.
“At low levels of chronic exposure such as with optimally fluoridated water, fluoride appears to slightly increase trabecular bone mass …,” writes Levy and Warren.
Other researchers report fluoride thickens but weakens bones(4).
90% of 3-month-olds, Levy studied, consumed over their recommended 0.01 mg daily-fluoride-dose from water, supplements and/or dentifrice.
Some babies ingest over 6 mg fluoride daily, above what the Environmental Protection Agency says is safe to avoid crippling skeletal fluorosis(4).
“There is no specific nutritional requirement for fluoride…given the increased prevalence of fluorosis, it may be necessary to revise downward the adequate intake levels for fluoride,” write Levy and Warren.
“The optimal level of fluoride intake is not known with certainty,” writes Levy.
“Total fluoride intake is the true fluorosis risk factor However, this is very difficult to quantify,” writes Levy who found:
* 77% of soft drinks had fluoride levels greater than 0.60 ppm (or 0.60 mg in approximately one quart)
* Two ounces daily baby chicken food provides their maximum dose
* Children’s specially-flavored toothpaste increases fluoride ingestion
* Soy-based infant formulas deliver more fluoride than milk-based
* Other foods high in fluoride: teas, dry infant cereals, dried chicken, fish and seafood products
* Fluoridated water added to powdered concentrate ups fluorosis risk
* Grape juices, especially white, contain very high fluoride levels
* 42% of all tested juices and juice drinks had fluoride levels greater than 0.6 ppm
* Fluoride supplements are generally not recommended
* Cereals processed in a fluoridated area contained from 3.8 to 6.3 ppm fluoride
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
NTP……Just stick to this one point. Then we can move on.
NYSCOF, FAN, JW, KS, et al: Isn’t there one of you that has a spin on this fantastic and extensive study on fluoride intakes from fluoride in water? You all requested it and hailed this group the greatest thing since sliced bread. I agree that they are all of that and much more!!
Conclusions:
“The NTP research studied rats during their prenatal development through their adulthood. These rats consumed water with three different concentrations of fluoride (0, 10 and 20 ppm) and two different fluoride levels in food: 20.5 ppm (a standard diet) and 3.24 ppm (low-fluoride diet). Although fluoride critics often claim that fluoridation is harmful to the thyroid, the NTP study revealed that thyroid hormone levels were not altered by exposure to levels as high as 10 or 20 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride.
The only side effect found by the NTP study was inflammation of the prostate gland, which was observed only at a fluoride exposure that was far above the level of human exposure by drinking fluoridating water.”
So far only the crickets have been singing. How about weighing-in?
Stick to the point.
Cheers,
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist
President of the non-profit American Fluoridation Society, a non-paid group of healthcare professionals dedicated to the dissemination of credibly recognized , peer-reviewed research that has been published in credibly recognized scientific journals.
In 1945 dentists set out to prove that adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies safely prevented childrens tooth decay, not IF it did. The studies failed; but early fluoridationists ignored this inconvenient truth and forged ahead. Now Americans are fluoride overdosed, suffer from fluorides toxic effects and cavity rates climb.
In 1955, ten years into the experiment, researchers reported more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation in children purposely dosed with sodium fluoride-laced drinking water (1956. Journal of the American Dental Association). This is the first, and only, fluoridation human health experiment and it was carried out on the entire population in the city of Newburgh NY.
How did this happen?
In the early 1900s, brown and yellow discolored, but decay resistant, teeth were prevalent in healthier, wealthier U.S. populations drinking and irrigating their crops with naturally calcium-fluoridated water.
Researchers discovered fluoride was the tooth discoloring culprit and mistakenly thought fluoride was also the cavity-fighting hero unaware that calcium was required to grow sound dentition. And also unaware of Dentist Weston Prices extensive research published in 1939 showing that without fluoride, healthier populations had healthier teeth because of good diets.
Public health officials, so sure sodium fluoride safely benefited childrens teeth, had no misgivings about carrying out this very unusual experiment without first doing animal studies, without informed consent and without thought or interest about how sodium fluoride could afflict adults.
Mistakenly assuming all fluorides are the same, in 1945, sodium fluoride, waste products from industries such as Alcoa Aluminum Company (not natural calcium-fluoride), was added to Newburgh NYs water supply at about one milligram fluoride per liter of water. Kingston NY, the control city for comparison purposes, was left fluoride-free.
Kingston and Newburgh are thirty-five miles apart on the Hudson River in New York State and in 1940 had populations of 31,956 and 28,817, respectively. In Newburgh, 500 children were examined after ten years and 405 in Kingston. Adults were never tested.
Although planned to last ten years, due to political pressure, the Newburgh/Kingston study was declared a success after five years which caused many U.S. cities to start fluoridation prematurely.
Newburgh’s children were given complete physicals and x-rays, over the course of the study, from birth to age nine in the first year and up to age eighteen in the final year.
(R)outine laboratory studies were omitted in the control group during most of the study, they were included in the final examination, according to Schlesinger and colleagues, in Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.
The researchers report after ten years of fluoridation in Newburgh New York:
— The average age at the menarche was 12 years among the girls studied in Newburgh and 12 years 5 months among the girls in Kingston.
–Hemoglobin (iron-containing part of a red blood cell): a few more children in the range below 12.9 grams per hundred milliliters in Newburgh
–a slightly higher proportion of children in Newburgh were found to have a total erythrocyte (red blood cell) count below 4,400,000 per milliliter
–Knee X-rays of Newburgh children reveals more cortical bone defects, and irregular mineralization of the thigh bone.
Only twenty-five Newburgh children had eye and ear exams. Two had hearing loss; eight had abnormal vision. Even though researchers discovered more adult cataracts in surveys conducted before 1944 in communities with naturally high water fluoride concentrations Newburg and Kingston adults were never checked for this defect.
Only two groups of twelve-year-old boys were tested for fluorides toxic kidney effects.
In a statewide survey conducted in 1954, J. A. Forst, M.D a New York public health official reported observing one-third more dental defects, including malposition of teeth, in fluoridated Newburgh, New York, than in the non-fluoridated control city of Kingston.
The 2004 book “The Fluoride Deception,” by Christopher Bryson, reveals that in addition to NYS Dep’t of Health examinations the University of Rochester conducted its own studies, measuring how much fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues. Health Department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Rochester scientists, writes Bryson. Three times as much fluoride was found in the placentas and blood samples gathered from Newburgh as from non-fluoridated Rochester, reports Bryson.
Following back the scientific references in all current fluoridation safety literature will invariably lead back to the Newburgh/Kingston study which actually failed to prove fluoridation is safe for all who drink it although public health officials and dentists tell a different story..
So its not surprising that a toxicological review of current fluoride science by the prestigious National Academies shows that fluoride jeopardizes health – even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid
gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children’s teeth. Further studies linking fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible, they report.
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
It apppears that the bilg money fluoridation scam is not getting its value in paying these promoters to cover up the dangers.
The fluoridation issue is simple.
Use as much fluoride as you wish in your own glass of water.
Stop forcing EVERYONE to consume it without consent.
We all deserve freedom of choice, where even doctors or dentists cannot force ANYONE to consume fluoride. They would lose their license to practice if they forced a drug or chemical on anyone.
Bureaucrats should not have authority to force it on everyone either. Why must we be poisoned with fluoride just because somebody wants a bigger bottom line?
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