Pages

Translate

Sunday, December 20, 2015

CDC Can't Prove Fluoridation Safety; but Says It's Safe Anyway

The Centers for Disease Control says on its fluoridation page that “The safety and benefits of fluoride are well documented,” but provides no such documentation. In fact, they provide absence of evidence or evidence to the contrary.

These are the fluoridation safety references the CDC provides:

1) The US Community Preventive Services Task Force Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation," 2000 and 2013

According to the Task Force, the basis of its 2000 fluoridation report was a systematic review by McDonagh et al. (2000) dubbed the “York Review.”  Since officials such as the CDC, organized dentistry and other fluoridation promoters continually misrepresent the York Review as favoring fluoridation, the York reviewers were forced to explain, "We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence...We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide."

The 2013 Task Force findings are also based on most of the same unreliable studies included in the York Review.


The Task Force admitted poor data quality. It reports, “Quality issues across studies included failure to measure or acknowledge relevant factors such as the contribution of fluoride from other sources or access to dental care. Most of the studies also had measurement issues; many did not blind the examiners, and across studies there was a lack of consistency among indices used to measure caries and fluorosis.”
They admitted they couldn’t evaluate how race, ethnicity and total fluoride intake influenced fluoridation effectiveness because of limited data.Few studies provided data on socioeconomic status, "



NRC reveals that fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, bones, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth. NRC concluded that EPA's current MCLG [Maximum Contaminant Level Goal] is too high to protect health. EPA failed to heed NRC's advice even though EPA asked NRC to do this fluoride toxicology research for them. Warnings to avoid mixing infant formula with fluoridated water emerged after NRC's conclusions were publicized, with the American Dental Association leading the standpede of government and health organizations issuing cautionary advice.

NRC members were shocked at how little fluoride safety research has been done.  NRC recommends many safety studies be finally conducted and report that fluoride's link to lower IQ and cancer are plausible.

So consider yourself a guinea pig in this ongoing human experiment.


The Surgeon General's 2000 report identified oral health as a "silent epidemic,” despite 55 years of fluoridation, at that time.  And, nothing changed since then.  Tooth decay is a crisis in all fluoridated cities and states despite dozens of reports, meetings, hearings, webinars,  conferences, the hiring of state fluoridation consultants, dental directors and conducting fluoridation spokesperson training.
4) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Achievements in Public Health 1900–1999 — Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries, 1999[PDF-133KB]

This is neither a peer-reviewed published study nor objective. It's an outdated article written by the CDC to promote fluoridation.



This is not a safety study but sets limits on fluoride intake by age group and describes different fluoride sources, some of which have higher fluoride levels than the EPA allows in public water supplies.  For example, "brewed tea contains fluoride at concentrations ranging from 1 to 6 mg/liter depending on the amount of dry tea used, the water fluoride concentration, and brewing time." EPA set 4 mg/L as the maximum contaminant level of fluoride in public water supplies - a level too high to protect health according to the NRC Fluoride Panel in 2006. Yet, the CDC doesn't inform Americans that this level found in some teas can be equally as harmful as consuming highly fluoridated water.

6) National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Government, A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation, 2007

"This report has been used extensively in Australia in efforts to get more communities fluoridaed there, especially in Queesland. However, 

This "report is little more than a duplication of large chunks of the York Review but without the caveats the York Review provided," according to Connett, Beck, and Miklem in their carefully references book "The Case Against Fluoride." Even though this report came out after the extensive and detailed US NRC report of 2006, The only reference this report made to the NRC report and it's 1100 references was a brief mention in its introduction.
"Moreover, while claiming that there was no evidence to support any health effects from fluoridation at 1 ppm, nowhere did [they] acknowledge that practically no health studies had been conducted on this matter in Australia or, indeed, in any other fluoridating country," says Connett, et al.
 
·    7) World Health Organization, Nutrients in Drinking Water, 2005

    This report mainly discusses desalination as a source of drinking water.

     "WHO emphasizes that in setting national standards for
fluoride it is particularly important to consider climatic conditions, volumes of water intake, and intake of fluoride from other sources (e.g. food and air)," which the CDC and no other US government agency does.

"

And, by the way, fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth See: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/essential-nutrient/



Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Feds Fail to Inform African-Americans of Heightened Fluoride Risk



African-Americans are among the most fluoride-overdosed populations, afflicted with dental fluorosis (discolored teeth), but who still suffer with higher tooth decay rates. Civil Rights leaders are calling for an end to fluoridation. And high level government officials working with Organized Dentistry try but fail to convince these leaders' to ignore the evidence apparently protecting fluoridation instead.

Fluoridation was launched in the 1940’s with the mistaken belief that fluoride was an essential nutrient required to be ingested for healthy teeth. Modern science disproves all that. Fluoride’s benefits are topical; but risks are systemic. Fluoride is a drug with side effects, contraindications and overdose fears.

After 70 years of fluoridation, 60 years of fluoridated toothpaste, a glut of fluoridated dental products (and in higher concentrations) and a fluoride-saturated food supply, Illinois Congresswoman Robin Kelly reports (2015 Kelly Report: Health Disparities in America) that:
  • African Americans suffer from disproportionate rates of tooth loss and untreated dental caries.
  • 42% of African American adults have untreated dental disease, compared to 22% of White Americans. 
  • Untreated tooth decay among children ages two-eight is twice as high for Hispanic and African American children, compared to White children. 
No valid evidence proves fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups,” reports the trusted and objective UK-based research Group, the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane also reports that fluoridation’s claimed reductions in tooth decay were based on biased and scientifically invalid research.

Presidential Executive Order 12898 (2/11/1994) “directs federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations,” according to the EPA. But federal agencies fail to inform minorities of their heightened risk of fluorosis from government-promoted fluoridation schemes.

In spite of higher decay rates, dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth (See pictures: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/fluorosis/), which is  the outward sign of fluoride toxicity, is more prevalent and severe in African-Americans and Hispanics. No research is conducted to learn if fluoride also damaged the bones of those with dental fluorosis.

In 2005, 58% of Blacks had dental fluorosis compared to 32% of Whites, according to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. FOIA documents

Government health authorities knew over 50 years ago that black Americans suffered disproportionately from dental fluorosis solely from water fluoridation, but chose to keep it confidential. 

In 1945, way before fluoridated toothpaste and dental products were widely used or even invented, Grand Rapids, Michigan, experimentally added fluoride chemicals into the water supply (the first city to do so) anticipating that children’s tooth decay would decline without causing too much dental fluorosis. But, “negroes in Grand Rapids had twice as much fluorosis than others,” according to a January 10, 1962 internal memorandum, from a U.S. Public Health Service official, F.J. Maier. 

Based on this, Maier asked, “In a community with a larger number of negroes (say in Dekalb County, Georgia) would this tend to change our optimum fluoride levels?”

Protecting fluoridation at the expense of African-Americans Maier wrote “Would this observation indicate more studies in case opponents use this finding?”

No change was made. Worse, government officials still have taken no steps to educate the black community about their heightened dental fluorosis risk.

Modern day government officials seem to be just as protective of fluoridation. FOIA-revealed documents show a scramble among top level federal government officials in 2011, including the Surgeon General’s Chief of Staff, working closely with Organized Dentistry to devise strategy and have special meetings to presumably change the opinions of Civil Rights leaders who newly opposed fluoridation and still do.  See documents here:

Even though they are fluoride-overdosed, minority groups have the highest rates of tooth decay, tooth loss, untreated tooth decay and are least able to get dental care. Eighty percent of dentists refuse Medicaid patients.  Medicare doesn’t include dental benefits because the American Dental Association lobbied against its inclusion.  130 million Americans don’t have dental insurance. Many with insurance can’t afford dentistry’s high out-of-pocket expenses.

Fluoridation is newly promoted by to benefit the low-income folks who generally aren’t welcomed into dental offices. As a result, hospital ERs are flooded with victims priced out of dental care.  One hundred and one people died in hospitals as a consequence of untreated tooth decay, according to the Journal of the American Dental Association.

Environmental leaders and Civil rights leaders such as former Atlanta mayor and former U.N. ambassador Andrew Young and Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, former pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, both asked Georgia legislators to repeal Georgia’s mandatory water fluoridation law. The Rev. William Owens of the Coalition of African American Pastors, Alveda & Bernice King and the Portland NAACP all oppose fluoridation.

In 2011, the oldest and largest organization representing Hispanics in the US, the League of United Latin Americans Citizens (LULAC), adopted a historic resolution calling for an end to water fluoridation.

From 1 – 5% of the population is allergic to or intolerant of fluoride.  Studies link fluoride to many other health problems. Everyone should have the freedom to choose the chemicals they put in their bodies.

The most used fluoridation chemicals are hydrofluosilicic acid (HFA), waste products of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing never safety-tested in humans or animals. HFA is allowed to contain trace amounts of  lead, arsenic and other toxins which are never purified out before injecting into the public’s water supplies.

Lead is linked to more tooth decay.  In 1995 Stevens reported, “Of impoverished black children aged three to five living in American inner cities, 90% have elevated blood-lead levels.”  Other studies show that fluoridation chemicals enhance blood lead uptake when lead is already in the environment (Masters & Coplan; Macek)

The FDA regulates fluoride as a drug for topical application but considers fluoride for ingestion as an “unapproved drug.” The EPA regulates fluoride as a water contaminant. The US Centers for Disease Control promotes fluoridation, and has hired a PR agency to help them. But CDC says it is not responsible for determining fluoridation’s safety. Actually, no federal agency either oversees fluoridation or  informs sub-populations of their heightened fluorosis risk.

Since no American is fluoride-deficient; but too many are dentist-deficient, a viable solution is to legalize Dental Therapists (DT) in the US who need just two years training to do simple dentistry as they have successfully done in many other developed countries. Minnesota and Alaska have already.  Other states are trying.  But Organized Dentistry in the US lobbies against DTs legalization – some say it’s to preserve dentists’ lucrative monopoly

Jonathan Kozol describes life in the fluoridated Bronx (NYC) in his 1991 book, Amazing Grace (NYC has been fluoridated since 1965) 
“Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are routine matters for the children I have interviewed in the South Bronx. Children get used to feeling constant pain. They go to sleep with it. They go to school with it. Sometimes their teachers are alarmed and try to get them to a clinic. But it’s all so slow and heavily encumbered with red tape and waiting lists and missing, lost or canceled welfare cards, that dental care is often long delayed. Children live for months with pain that grown-ups would find unendurable. The gradual attrition of accepted pain erodes their energy and aspiration. I have seen children in New York with teeth that look like brownish, broken sticks. I have also seen teen-agers who were missing half their teeth. But, to me, most shocking is to see a child with an abscess that has been inflamed for weeks and that he has simply lived with and accepts as part of the routine of life. Many teachers in the urban schools have seen this. It is almost commonplace.”

Tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities and states. Vermont Senator and Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders’ report, Dental Crisis in America, says nearly 9,500 new dental providers are needed to meet the country’s current oral health needs.

In fact, according to an April 2015 Indian Health Services  report, despite wide implementation of fluoridation, topical fluorides, dental sealants and oral health education, three-quarters of American Indian/Alaskan Natives 5-year-olds have tooth decay - the highest level of any population group in the US.

Also little publicized is that routinely mixing infant formula with fluoridated water increases babies risk of developing dental fluorosis, according to many government, health and dental organizations.

When the Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in the early 1950s, the National Research Council (NRC) estimated that the “safe level” of fluoride is exceeded when “more than 10 to 15 percent of children” have “the mildest” type of fluorosis. The CDC now reports that up to 60% of US 12-15 year-olds are afflicted with dental fluorosis – up to 3% is moderate/severe.

Black children now far exceed the NRC’s safety threshold. One study from fluoridated Augusta, Georgia found 17% of black children suffering from advanced forms (moderate and severe) of fluorosis, the kind of fluorosis that was once only seen in naturally high-fluoride communities. (Williams 1990).

Communities of color have a greater incidence of kidney disease and diabetes. Because poor kidney function makes it more difficult for the body to get rid of fluoride, kidney patients should avoid as much exposure to fluoride as possible.   

Diabetics often drink a lot of water and therefore consume more fluoride.  Fluoride doesn’t boil out or dissipate like chlorine does.  It condenses in water upon boiling. There is no dispute that too much fluoride is extremely unsafe and unhealthy.

Sugar Causes Cavities – Not Fluoride Deficiency

The single cause of tooth decay is sugar. “Modifying factors such as fluoride and dental hygiene would not be needed if we tackled the single cause—sugars,” report researchers in the Journal of Dental Research

In fact, “Procter & Gamble, GlaxoSmithKline, and Colgate itself, had long ago launched products with the maximum amount of fluoride allowed by health authorities. Yet caries remaine a significant threat to public health in many countries, both developing and developed,” according to the Harvard Business Review.

Recently uncovered internal documents from 1959 to 1971 show the sugar industry successfully manipulated the National Institute of Dental Research to take the focus off of sugar as a proven decay causer in favor of unproven therapies including fluoride use. (PLOS Medicine)

Heavy consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is almost double among more impoverished children and teens compared to better-off counterparts. African-American youth saw twice as many TV ads for sugar-sweetened beverages than white youth, and that ad spending on Spanish-language TV had increased 44 percent in the last three years, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer

Federal nutrition programs could be a vehicle for improving kids’ dental health, according to Meg Booth of the Children’s Dental Health Project. 

Booth writes, “Researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill are calling for renewed policy efforts to address the long-ignored impact of sugar intake on children’s oral health. Citing the influence of special interest groups such as the sugar, food, and drink industries, experts seem to agree that advocates and policymakers must redouble their efforts aimed at improving diet and restricting sugar intake in accordance with well-established guidelines such as those endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO).”


IT’S NOT KNOWN FOR SURE WHY AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE MORE DENTAL FLUOROSIS PRONE; BUT SOME THOUGHTS:

1) According to the CDC, it may be a result of “biologic susceptibility or greater fluoride intake.” (Beltr├ín-Aguilar et al., 2005).

2) African Americans consume significantly more total fluids and plain water, and thus receive more fluoride from drinking water, than white children (Sohn et al., 2009). In fluoridated Detroit, studies show that, even when fluoridated water was the most consumed beverage, tooth decay rates were extensive when diets poor

3) According to CDC, “non-Hispanic blacks had a lower prevalence of breastfeeding initiation than nonHispanic whites in all but two states…”  Human milk is very low in fluoride.  Formula made with fluoridated water will have 100 to 200 times more fluoride than a breastfed baby.

4) Leite et al. (2011) report that rats treated with both lead and fluoride had worse dental fluorosis than rats treated with fluoride alone. Thus it is possible that children with lead exposure will be more susceptible to developing dental fluorosis. African-Americans in the inner-city have had more exposure to lead than white children.

5) Fluoride’s toxicity is exacerbated by inadequate nutrition; including lower intakes of iodine and calcium. Certain racial groups are more likely to be lactose intolerant than others and may be indicative of lower rates of calcium-rich milk consumption. Calcium also protects the body from fluoride toxicity and is the antidote for fluoride poisoning.

More information can be obtained from The Fluoride Action Network’s submission on “Water Fluoridation and Environmental Justice,” a report submitted to the Environmental Justice Interagency Working Group September 2015:  

Additionally, cryolite is a fluoride containing pesticide which is used on fresh vegetables and fruits, is allowed to leave behind fluoride residues of up to 7 parts per million. Sulfuryl fluoride, a post harvest fumigant, also leave fluoride remains on food.

The water supply should never be used to deliver drugs or nutrients to the entire population prescribed by legislators, delivered by water engineers (and not side-effect describing pharmacists) and dosed based on thirst and not age, weight health and need. People need the freedom to choose what they put into their bodies and how much.

                                                                         ***

Since fluoride is not essential, instead of an RDI (recommended Daily Intake) an Adequate Intake (AI) was calculated to prevent  moderate dental fluorosis

According to the Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academies, the AI for:

-- 6-month-olds and younger is only 0.01 milligram per day (mg/d)

-- 6 to 12-month-olds -- 0.05 mg/d

-- 1 to 3-years-old -- 0.7 mg/d

-- 4 to 8-year-olds – 1 mg/d


The American Dental Association describes moderate dental fluorosis as “All tooth surfaces affected; marked wear on biting surfaces; brown stain may be present” (2005 Fluoridation Facts).

 All infant formula contains fluoride at levels that are too high for 6-month-olds  See: http://safbaby.com/images/Posts/fluorideinformulas.png



                                                             END


Thursday, October 08, 2015

Fluoridationists Behaving Badly Part 1

I was kicked out of a free pro-fluoridation strategy session funded by my taxes and in my neighborhood.

In return for required continuing education credits, pro-fluoridation spokesperson training was offered for free to dental hygienists, at SUNY Farmingdale which is near  my home. I received a free ticket; but upon arrival  was told to leave by a person who didn't think I was moving fast enough.  She said it was because I wasn't a hygienist.   The below  Freedom of Information obtained emails shows the chatter about me.

To summarize, Meg Atwood, a dental hygienist, and Matt Jacob with a University of Arkansas Bachelor's Degree in Journalism, go around the country training "dentists and others with a vested interest in community water fluoridation how to be effective spokespersons for community water fluoridation...[and] how to respond to tough or hostile questions, from media, the general public, legislators, etc." 

Apparently, the teachers are ill-equipped to respond to their expected tough questions from me. I'm never hostile, By now, they should know that.  I was a member of the Nassau Suffolk Oral Health Coalition until they created a new requirement to pledge to be pro-fluoridation in order to remain a member and in order to get me to leave which I did quietly.

This fluoridation spokesperson meeting was funded by the NYS Department of Health and held in a tax-payer funded institution. The OK to exclude me came from dentist J.V. Kumar who at the time headed the NYS DofH Dental Bureau (He now works in California)


On March 31, 2015, Mercedes Susi, Grant Project Coordinator for the New York State Dental Foundation informed  Erin Knoerl, MPH, NYS Dept of Health's fluoridation coordinator that "FAN Has been signing up for our fluoride events and children's dental health workshop.  It is their media director Carol Kopf. How is she not smart enough to know to use an alias? Anyhow, I will be removing her from the events (I wasn't representing FAN [Fluoride Action Network] and never said I was. I also wasn't representing the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation which worked diligently to keep Long Island fluoridation-free nor was I representing the Levittown Safe Water Association which stopped 29 years of fluoridation in 1983)  I use my real name because I have nothing to hide but apparently these fluoridationists have something they don't want the public to know about.) 

Erin was glad to be informed and asked Kumar  what to do about me. He said it's OK to exclude me. How is that legal?

On April 22, 2015, Meg Atwood said she knows how to handle me.  Just let her know. Mercedes Susi acknowledged that I may have died out (?)  

I think Atwood was the angry lady who wanted me out faster than I was moving.







Wednesday, October 07, 2015

Fluoridation 101 (Fluoridation History)

The chemical fluoride (hydrofluosilicic acid), purposely added to most US water supplies, doesn't treat the water but does treat the water drinker who is told fluoride is a safe and effective cavity fighter. But it's neither.

A 1940's concept, water fluoridation's goal was for every faucet in America to dispense one milligram fluoride (sodium fluoride) daily via approximately 1 quart of water for the benefit of children only (up to age nine). It was mistakenly believed that swallowed fluoride incorporated into young children's developing teeth making them decay resistant. However, modern researchers discovered that fluoride ingestion only causes adverse effects (tooth and bone damage, etc) and that fluoride’s perceived benefits are only topical.  So there’s no longer any scientifically valid reason for swallowing fluoride or continuing water fluoridation.

In fact, just this year (2015) one of the most trusted research bodies, the UK-based Cochrane Collaboration, was the latest research body to reveal that no valid evidence exists to prove fluoridation helps the poor, adults or that stopping fluoridation increases decay rates. Cochrane reports that fluoridation may reduce cavities in children (2 primary teeth or 1 permanent tooth) but cautions these studies have “high risk of bias” and were mostly done before preventive measures were widespread, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste and sealants

Fluoridation came at a time when scientists discovered health-requiring nutrients prevented “diseases,” such as Vitamin C deficiency caused scurvy, vitamin D deficiency caused rickets, etc.  So dental researchers thought their magic bullet against tooth decay was fluoride. Many studies, research grants and decades later, we now know that teeth don’t need fluoride at all.  Fluoride-deficiency does not cause tooth decay.  Rotten diets cause rotten teeth and no amount of fluoride changes that.

Public health officials predicted fluoride would eradicate tooth decay like vaccines prevented some diseases but they were wrong. Today, the US is facing a tooth decay epidemic after 70 years of fluoridation, 60 years of fluoridated toothpaste, a glut of fluoridated dental products (and in higher concentrations), a fluoride-saturated food supply and fluoride-containing medicines.  Up to 60% of US adolescents are afflicted with fluoride-overdose symptoms – dental fluorosis (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth) but 50% of them still have cavities. Tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities and states.  See: http://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com

Also back in the 1940’s, fluoride tablets were first prescribed to and recommended for children who live in communities that wouldn't or couldn't fluoridate with no or very poor research to back that up.

Fluoride supplements still haven’t been safety tested by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were "grandfathered" in because sodium fluoride was already being sold pre-1938 when drug testing laws were enacted.  Sodium fluoride was sold as a rat poison.  The FDA says, “We don't have information on the medical uses of fluoride before 1938.

Many modern reviews conclude that fluoride supplementation is useless and harmful including the Cochrane Collaboration which reported fluoride supplements fail to reduce tooth decay in primary teeth and permanent teeth cavity-reduction is dubious.
Studies now show tooth decay rates are virtually the same in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, alike. In fact, some non-fluoridated communities enjoy lower tooth decay rates.

Dental fluorosis has gotten so bad that some dental experts say that it costs more to repair teeth damaged by fluoride than would have been saved had water fluoridation actually reduced tooth decay.

HOW WE GOT INTO THIS MESS
At the turn of the last century, healthy, wealthier residents of the
Southwest US had unusually ugly teeth. They called it "Colorado Brown Stain." Dental researchers sought to discover the source of this disfiguring tooth malformation. The culprit was high levels of natural calcium fluoride in the water. Since these ugly teeth resisted decay, well-meaning but misguided dentists assumed the fluoride also caused the teeth to resist decay. However, they overlooked calcium which we now know is essential for healthy teeth..

Dentists always settle where people can afford them – something that hasn’t changed today.  So what they actually discovered was that a healthy lifestyle creates decay-free teeth and that fluoride discolors teeth. This had already been proven by dentist Weston Price in his 1939 book, “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.”

In another highly unbelievable move, the dentists convinced public health people to experiment with this new fluoride discovery. They hypothesized that, if natural fluoride (calcium fluoride) in drinking water makes teeth resist decay, let's see if artificially fluoridating a town's water supply with sodium fluoride makes any difference. (Calcium fluoride is much less toxic than sodium fluoride because calcium binds tightly to fluoride.  Calcium is the antidote for fluoride poisoning)

So they used all the people in a few cities like
Grand Rapids Michigan and Newburgh New York as their guinea pigs. In Newburgh, NY, they added sodium fluoride into the water supply in 1945 and left Kingston, NY, unfluoridated to act as the control.

They prematurely declared fluoridation a success after only five years even though the teeth of the children who were born into the experiment hadn’t even erupted yet. They said fluoride was safe because they examined school children who weren't sick two weeks before the examination date - virtually eliminating the very children who may have been made ill by the fluoride. And they never even checked out the adults. Long range and brain effects weren’t even considered.

Ten years later, the State University of New York found that children in fluoridated
Newburgh had more cortical bone defects and higher rates of hemoglob anemia. Recent studies show that tooth decay and fluorosis rates are higher in fluoridated Newburgh than never-fluoridation Kingston
.

And what's even more perverse is that the chemical used to fluoridate your drinking water is an industrial waste product that, along with fluoride, purposely puts lead, arsenic, and other toxins into the public water supply.

The silicofluorides haven't even been safety tested in animals. With the map of the
USA
as a laboratory, researchers are finding that silicofluorides increase children's lead absorption, increases women's risk of hip fractures, increases dental fluorosis, can lower IQ and contribute to cancer risk and DNA damage. Fluoridation has provided a lucrative sector for researchers to apply for federal grants to study the after effects of the crazy decision to put fluoride into humans' water supply and then see what happens. 

Over 67% of US communities fluoridate and most foods and beverages sold in the
US are made with that water. US children are overdosed with fluoride whether rich or poor, healthy or malnourished from various sources. No human is, or ever was, fluoride deficient. So it's not a surprise that after 55 years of pushing fluoride (now 70) as a panacea to tooth decay, the US Surgeon General reported in 2000 that an oral health epidemic exists among the poor and certain minority groups, who most often already live in fluoridated communities. If their bodies were nourished, their teeth would prosper. But instead dentists are lobbying legislators all over the US to fluoridate water supplies - even when the people have voted against it and even when the studies say fluoride is hurting our children. Meanwhile, the American Dental Association reported to the press on June 16, 2000 that they have a new cavity fighting tool - calcium.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Fakes, Frauds, Fabricators and Fluoridationists

Fluoridation protectionists have faith in fluoridation; but fluoridation research reviewers need science. And it's just not there.

The trusted UK-based Cochrane Group is yet another respected scientific research body to find that fluoridation’s benefits are built upon a house of cards (June 2015).  Cochrane reports that studies purporting to show fluoridation’s ability to reduce tooth decay are out-dated, have a high risk of bias and were conducted before the widespread use of fluoridated dental products, in other words - scientifically invalid. 

Unlike the US Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association which work very closely together with industry promoting fluoridation, Cochrane does not accept commercial or conflicted funding which Cochrane says “is vital for us to generate authoritative and reliable information, produced by people who can work freely, unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.”

Fluoridation is newly framed as a boon to poor kids. But, Cochrane reports, “There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries [cavities] levels across SES [socio-economic-status or income]."

Other untrue arguments fluoridationists present to too-trusting governing bodies aren’t supported by valid science either e.g. fluoridation benefits adults and tooth decay rates go up when fluoridation is stopped. Cochrane could find no proof that this is true.

As is often the case, new information doesn’t stop organized dentistry from spinning the results to protect and promote fluoridation.

The Cochrane’s fluoridation review was conducted using a precise scientific method over a necessary period of time. It took the British Dental Association (BDA) less than one day to spin Cochrane’s results via a news release, cherry-picking data to report favorably - that fluoridation reduces cavities by up to 35%. Cochrane answered its critics on its blog

The BDA's figure is based on the poor and biased science, revealed by Cochrane, which shows a child’s  fluoridation “benefit” is just less than two primary teeth or one permanent tooth over their lifetimes. Even if this “benefit” was based on sound-science, this small decay reduction doesn’t justify the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into fluoridation schemes, lobbyists, hand-outs, research reviews, strategy meetings, spokesperson training and fluoridation consultants and PR agents hired by the CDC and many states and organizations to protect and promote fluoridation. The costs to remedy fluoride's health-damaging effects add to the country's financial burden.

According to Dr. Stan Litras BDS BSc, Cochrane pooled old data from as long as 70 years ago when decay rates were 10 times greater than today. Thus the slim cavity reduction Cochrane reports reflect savings over the entire period from the 1930's to the present. "This is not an indication of any reductions to be expected in contemporary society," he writes

After the BDA's news release, an unnamed author wrote an article on an American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) fluoridation-promoting website, also criticizing Cochrane in an all-too-familiar knee-jerk non-scientific fashion. 

The CDC funded the Cochrane Review to upgrade the 2013 U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force’s Fluoridation Recommendation (which itself is based on the same low-quality evidence.

When Cochrane's review didn't come out the way CDC would have liked, the CDC diverted attention away from Cochrane in favor of the out-dated Task Force Review. 

It should be noted that the Task Review says the basis for its report is a previous 2000 fluoridation systematic review dubbed the "York Review" (McDonagh 2000). In 2003, the York (McDonagh 2000) reviewers were forced to explain: "We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence...We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide."

Fluoridation protectionists will always pick apart any study or review that’s critical of fluoride or fluoridation; but never look in their own backyard – even when objective researchers point out flaws.

It was admitted that fluoridation gives dentistry “political viability” in a 1981 Journal of the  American Dental Association article. (“Fluoridation Election Victory: A Case Study for Dentistry in Effective Political Action”)

In the 1940s and 1950s, dentists in their eagerness to have a magic bullet that would enhance their professional prestige, promoted fluoridation heavily and dismissed legitimate debate over the merits of fluoridation within the scientific, medical and dental communities, according to an American Journal of Public Health article by Catherine Carstairs, PhD (June 2015). 

Carstairs writes, “Moreover, some of the early fluoridation studies had methodological problems, which may have exaggerated their benefits.”

Carstairs concludes “After 70 years of investigation, there are still questions about how effective water fluoridation is at preventing dental decay and whether the possible risks are worth the benefits,” she writes. 

Also surprised by the lack of valid fluoridation science, John Doull, PhD, Chairman, US National Research Council fluoride panel that produced the groundbreaking 2006 fluoride toxicology report was quoted by Scientific American as saying:

“What the com­mittee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many yearsfor too long, reallyand now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these ques­tions are unsettled and we have much less infor­mation than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of igno­rance, controversy is rampant.”

Maybe Doull was surprised  because voices of opposition have been suppressed since the early days of fluoridation, according to Chemical and Engineering News (1988). Journals rarely published articles critical of fluoride or fluoridation.

A Nassau/Suffolk (NY) Oral Health Coalition created a rule that members had to sign an affidavit claiming they would promote the goals of the NYS Oral Health Coalition so that the one fluoridation dissenter would be forced to leave or lie.  I left.


On another occasion (April 18, 2015), I was rudely asked to leave a free pro-fluoridation strategy session funded by my taxes, in my neighborhood and at a public university.  Only later did I discover through a freedom of information request that organizers were fearful of my attendance and that the decision to oust me came from the then Dental Bureau Chief, dentist J. V. Kumar. Ironically, they were teaching dental hygienists how to answer questions from those who oppose fluoridation!

Authors of a 1999 textbook (revised 2005), by Burt and Eklund,  admitted that the early fluoridation trials, which are the foundation for the entire fluoridation program, “were rather crude…statistical analysis by today’s standards, were primitive; data from the control communities were largely neglected after the initial reports, with conclusions based on the much weaker before-after analyses.”

Some examples of those mistakes were reported in  Fluoridation Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials, by Sutton

In 2001, a National Institutes of Health (NIH)/CDC panel convened to evaluate tooth decay research, published between 1839 and 1965, and reported

 "... the panel was disappointed in the overall quality of the clinical data that it reviewed.  According to the panel, far too many studies were small, poorly described, or otherwise methodologically flawed" (over 560 studies evaluated fluoride use).

Even pro-fluoride dental researchers worried that the lack of evidence-based-dentistry practiced in the US will hurt their reputations. For example, Dentist Amid Ismail, when he was a Professor at the University of Michigan School of Dentistry, in a report to the NIH panel wrote,

"If the current weak trend of caries research in the United States continues, history will be harsh on all of us for our failure to use our knowledge and resources to reduce, if not eliminate, the burden of one of the world's most prevalent diseases."

In 2001, Cohen and Locker reported that fluoridation may be immoral with benefits exaggerated and risks minimized Journal of the Canadian Dental Association .   "Ethically, it cannot be argued that past benefits, by themselves, justify continuing the practice of fluoridation," they write.

A 1990 New York State  Department of Health report concluded

“The effectiveness of water fluoridation alone cannot now be determined…the effects of fluoride exposure cannot be accurately assessed based solely on the fluoride content of drinking water in an area”

In 1978, Pennsylvania Judge John P. Flaherty who had a science background, presided over a court case (Aikenhead v. Borough of West View), where fluoridation proponents were sworn under oath to tell the truth and were subjected to cross-examination. He concluded,

“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary...”


In the 1950’s, Francis Bull, the state dental director in Wisconsin, argued that cavities could be decreased by practicing good oral hygiene, restricting sugar consumption, and improving diet, but he didn’t trust the public to do that.  Fluoride, in his view, offered the first real preventive from dental caries, according to Carstairs AJPH article.

Bull infamously lead dental directors in 1951 to “sell” fluoridation with slick PR and political strategy but to never ever debate. For example:

“Now, why should we do a pre-fluoridation survey?  Is it to find out if fluoridation works? No. We have told the public it works, so we can’t go back on that.”

“You know these research people – they can’t get over their feeling that you have to have test tube and animal research before you start applying it to human beings.”

The “say this; not that” approach to political fluoridation activism is still encouraged by a pro-fluoridation activism website claimed by the American Academy of Pediatrics's  that was created by a PR agency.

Fluoridation promoters generally use a CDC slogan as proof that fluoridation is safe and effective.  But few realize that the CDC does not do original research but relies on others’ reports and reviews, many of which do not prove that fluoridation is safe and effective, as former CDC Oral Health Division Director erroneously presented to a Fairbanks, Alaska, city council.

In 2009, the American Public Health Association used the same misinformation

Other believers presented the same misinformation more recently e.g. (slide 9)

Taxpayers should be shocked to learn that the CDC does spend time and money on political strategy to win fluoridation referenda, according to “The Public Votes on Fluoridation – Factors Linked to the Outcome ofFluoridation Campaigns,” (CDC April 2010)

Here’s some of the advice given:

“For the most part, the less visible the campaign, the more likely that fluoridation was approved by the voters.”

“Conduct social marketing research with voters…This could be valuable in developing the most effective campaign messages and finding the best ways of promoting these messages to the public.”

“In all four sites where fluoridation was approved, fluoridation advocates were able to write or influence the wording of the ballot. Ballot wording becomes an important piece of voter education, the way a ballot measure is phrased can influence how voters interpret and cast their votes.”

“The take-away message is that it cannot be assumed that people will trust only official and/or governmental sources of health and scientific information. The American public is becoming increasingly confident about making their judgment about what is good science. The term “junk science” may no longer be an effective communication strategy.”

But “junk science” is the exact phrase still used by many fluoridation promoters e.g. Shelly Gehshan, when she represented the Pew Foundation.

You would think some investigative reporter would write a book about this.  Oh yeah, someone did.

 “Fluoride science is corporate science. Fluoride science is DDT science. It’s asbestos science. It’s tobacco science It’s a racket,” said Christopher Bryson, the award-winning investigative reporter who wrote, The Fluoride Deception, after ten years of study.


We've had 70 years of fluoridation reaching record numbers of Americans, 60 years of fluoridated toothpaste, a glut of fluoridated dental products and a fluoride-saturated food and beverage supply.  Yet, the US is still facing a tooth decay epidemic along with a steep increase in fluoride overdose symptoms - dental fluorosis (discolored teeth).

The Surgeon General reported in 2000 that tooth decay is a silent epidemic in the US. Since then things have gotten worse. According to Wendell Potter on the Huffington Post:
--  Since 2000, the number of people living in areas where they can't easily see  a dentisthas climbed from 25 million to 47 million.
-- The number of people seeking treatment for dental problems in hospital  emergency rooms--one of the most expensive and least effective places to treat patients in pain because of bad teeth and diseased gums--nearly doubled from 1.1 million in 2000 to 2.1 million in 2010.
-- Dental decay is still the number one chronic illness among children.

-- More than a third of elementary school children have untreated tooth decay; the rate is twice as high for Hispanic and non-Hispanic black children and even worse for Native Americans.
-- Even though more children have dental benefits, half of all kids on Medicaid  did not get in to see a dentist in 2011, in large part because 80 percent of dentists nationally still do not accept Medicaid payment

Harvard describes a court case about a few corporations that sell fluoridated toothpaste and reported they "had long ago launched products with the maximum amount of fluoride allowed by health authorities. Yet caries [cavities] remained a significant threat to public health in many countries, both developing and developed." 

Every fluoride modality promises that steep cavity declines can occur.  Tooth decay should be obliterated by now if all that was true. But it's getting worse.

So, why is fluoridation still promoted?
Maybe the wheels of government turn slowly.  It took 50 years before the cancer/smoking link emerged from the scientific literature into popular acceptance.

Or, maybe, we might say Follow the Money!

                                                       END