False Data Propels Fluoridation on the Backs of the Poor in New York State

Last year, without public knowledge or input, New York legislators were successfully lobbied by private organizations to use Medicaid money to fund fluoridation schemes and to enact a new law taking power from local legislators and their constituents to stop fluoridation. That power was placed in the hands of pro-fluoridation bureaucrats/activists which is stated to be a blueprint for the nation.

The science upon which that decision was made is fatally flawed as described below.  NYS Department of Health statistics actually prove fluoridation has failed New Yorkers, especially poor NY children.

Also, ignored is a 1990 NYS Department of Health report alerting bureaucrats about fluoride's potential harm to kidney patients, diabetics and the fluoride hypersensitive even at optimal levels.

The companion document and its references to approve Medicaid funds be spent on fluoridation, reveals legislators and pro-fluoridation activists have been mislead

1) The companion document says, “Analysis of dental procedures in predominantly fluoridated community water versus nonfluoridated drinking water communities in New York State suggests savings of $24 per child.” 

However, this statement is based on one reference - a flawed study (Kumar et al., “Geographic Variation in Medicaid Claims for Dental Procedures in New York State: Role of Fluoridation under Contemporary Conditions,” Public Health Reports Sept-Oct 2010).

Kumar uses Medicaid data but fails to explain that most NYS dentists refuse to treat Medicaid patients. Low-income New Yorkers in extreme dental pain seek urgent care in hospital emergency rooms where their infection isn’t classified as “dental.” So these cases don’t show up in Kumar’s calculations.   

Kumar, himself, explains more limitations within his paper  He writes, “This study was subject to several limitations…[and] one should be cautious in attributing this geographic variation solely to water fluoridation.”

Further, DrBicuspid.com reports that "Some 23 New York state general dentists and six orthodontists received $13.2 million in Medicaid payments in 2012 for services that appeared unnecessary or may not have been performed at all, according to a new report by federal health investigators." This type of information is not included in Kumar's calculations.

In another paper published in the Journal of the American Dental Association (Jan 2012) , Kumar et al, reports that [despite NYS’s 72% fluoridation rate] emergency treatment for NYS toddlers' severe tooth decay has grown substantially in numbers and costs; many toddlers required general anesthesia. The reason:  “There is a limited number of dentists willing to treat patients younger than 6 and/or accept Medicaid," admits Kumar, et al.

Another Kumar study published in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry (Winter 2003) reports that severe tooth decay was responsible for two thirds of hospital visits by children under six in New York State. Also, In New York City, 100% fluoridated since 1965, more children required cavity-related hospitalizations, proportionately, than two of New York State's largest non-fluoridated counties, Suffolk and Nassau (Long island) whether payment was made by Medicaid or privately.

In 2009, NY City spent about $24 million on fluoridation annually (Page 2 ). Yet tooth decay is rampant in NYC’s low-income population Further, NYS DoH statistics show that highly-fluoridated NYS counties don’t have less tooth decay and fluoridation has not leveled out tooth decay between
lower and higher income children in 2004  (The following two charts are based on NYS Dep’t of Health statistics)

AND IN 2012

Income breakdown is not available for 2012 data as it was for the 2004 but Dr. Kumar says “disease prevalence among lower-income children remained high”

The above chart shows no relationship between fluoridation and less tooth decay; but NYS 3^rd-graders cavities are related to consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (SSB), according to Kumar et al. (“Sugar Sweetened Beverage (SSB) Consumption and Caries Experience.” (page 61 of abstracts presented at the 2014 National Oral Health Conference). They concluded that. Future interventions need to focus on educating parents and children on negative oral health effect of SSB.

The math claiming fluoridation saves money isn’t accurate according to Thiessen and Ko in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (March 2015) who write: “Recent economic evaluations of CWF [community water fluoridation] contain defective estimations of both costs and benefits.” They concluded “Minimal correction reduced the savings to $3 per person per year for a best-case scenario, but this savings is eliminated by the estimated cost of treating dental fluorosis [white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth due to fluoride overdose].”

Many dentists advertise their pricey services to cover up fluorosed teeth such as this NYC dentist: https://www.smilesofnyc.com/gallery/before-and-after-photos/case-37#content

Mild fluorosis is often dismissed as not harmful. But NYS dentist Elivir Dincer, writing in the NYS Dental Journals says, “Such changes in the tooth’s appearance can affect the child’s self-esteem.”

2) The MRT companion document says “Systematic reviews of the scientific evidence have concluded that community water fluoridation is effective in decreasing dental caries prevalence and severity.” Three citations are used to support this claim - (a,b,c below) but they fail to prove fluoridation effectiveness.

a) McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ 2000;321 and dubbed the “York Review.”  But this was the actual conclusion

“Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research.”

Pro-fluoridation activists continue to misrepresent this study so the York researchers were forced to issue this statement in 2003, “What the ‘York Review’ on the fluoridation of drinking water really found.”

Excerpts: “We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.

What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence

was poor.”

“The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.

b) The next reference they gave you is equally misleading - Truman BI, Gooch BF, Evans CA Jr, editors. “The guide to community preventive services: interventions to prevent dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries.” Am J Prev Med 2002;23(Suppl 1)

This was updated in 2013

 U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force’s Fluoridation Recommendation.

The Task Force also admitted it couldn’t evaluate how race, ethnicity and total fluoride intake influenced fluoridation effectiveness because of limited data. “Few studies provided data on socioeconomic status, and most studies had measurement issues; many didn’t blind examiners and there was a lack of consistency among indices used to measure caries."

The Task Force members, themselves, had data quality issues. They write:

“Included studies provided limited data on other sources of fluoride or race or ethnicity. Thus, the extent to which these factors influenced the effectiveness of CWF could not be evaluated…[and] there was not enough evidence to clearly determine the effects of community water fluoridation on health disparities between groups.

 

“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 write.

 

c) Researchers from the University of York criticized the third reference (Griffin et al. “Effectiveness of Fluoride in Preventing Cavities in Adults.” J Dent Research 2007)

“This review concluded that fluoride helps prevent caries in adults of all ages. The authors' conclusions appear to follow from the results presented, although the paucity of more recent studies and poor quality of the included studies limit their reliability and relevance to current populations.”

In fact, when NYS Dept of Health dentist J Kumar published a study to show that fluorosed teeth had less tooth decay, he included national data that shows that, as fluoridation rates increase, fluorosis rates go up but that decay rates stay the same.  Here’s a graph of those findings.

Besides the limitations of the references described above, more evidence points to the lack of valid data showing fluoridation is safe or effective. 

--- After reviewing all available fluoridation studies, the independent and trusted UK-based Cochrane group of researchers reported in 2015, that they could not find any quality evidence to prove fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” Neither could they find valid evidence that fluoride reduces adults’ cavity rates nor that fluoridation cessation increases tooth decay.

-- A 1990 NYS Department of Health report alerted bureaucrats that fluoride can potentially harm kidney patients, diabetics and the fluoride hypersensitive even at optimal levels. But it is ignored.

-- A 1988 report "A Study of Fluoride Intake in New York State Residents," by Featherstone reveals that NYC 6-month-olds consume unsafe levels (0.4 milligrams daily from food and beverages). To avoid moderate dental fluorosis (yellow teeth) the Institute of Medicine (1997) recommends 6-month-olds and younger consume only 0.01 milligrams fluoride daily from all sources.

-- All infant formula contains fluoride at levels higher than recommended for 6-month-olds. (Journal of the American Dental Association )

-- Hidden fluoride in baby foods can also mar babies’ teeth, also, according to General Dentistry and Infant juices, too.

-- Fluorosis  is more prevalent and severe in African Americans and known since 1962. In fact, J. Kumar, formerly with the NYS Dept of Health corroborates this

by reporting that fluorosis is more prevalent in NY’s African American Children. African Americans also have higher rates of tooth decay.

The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) is reviewing hundreds of studies linking fluoride to adverse brain effects. The report won't be finalized until 2018 and may signal an end to the fluoridation program nation-wide. At least 314 studies investigated fluoride’s effects on the brain and nervous system. This includes 181 animal studies, 112 human studies, and 21 cell studies. Fifty studies link fluoride to children’s lower IQ.

The majority of these studies were published after the 2006 National Research Council’s fluoride toxicology report concluded, "It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."

But it’s just not the brain. Science, shows fluoride can do a lot of damage and has some nasty side effects which you can see here: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/issues/health

While you may have heard the oft-repeated CDC slogan that fluoridation is one of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, The CDC also reports the following: 

“In the earliest days of fluoride research, investigators hypothesized that fluoride affects enamel and inhibits dental caries (cavities) only when incorporated into developing dental enamel...” but now CDC admits that: “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…”

CDC also admits that

“The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.” 

and 

"Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low --- approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas. This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity."

Fluoride is not a nutrient or essential for healthy teeth – meaning consuming a fluoride-free diet does not cause cavities. Fluoride is a drug with side effects which shouldn’t be funded by Medicaid, prescribed by a legislator, delivered by water engineer, and dosed based on thirst and not age, weight, health without monitoring for side effects and overdose symptoms.

                          END

**Dental Therapists need just two years training to do simple dentistry.  Other developed countries have successfully employed DTs for decades. Rural Alaska and Minnesota legalized DTs, other states are trying.  No New Yorker is, or ever was, fluoride-deficient.  Many are “dentist-deficient” for many reasons which floods our Emergency rooms with dental patients in severe pain costing  taxpayers often ten times the amount of a simple filling – wiping out any projected “cost savings” of fluoridation.
DTs will go into mouths and areas where Dentists refuse to go and can charge less, having less student debt and will accept Medicaid, unlike most New York dentists. Promoting fluoridation wastes money and endangers workers and water-drinkers health.  Legalizing Dental Therapists costs nothing but will lower dental costs to individuals and Medicaid. Articles supporting Dental Therapists:

Former Surgeon General Satcher says Dental Therapists are necessary in Indian Country

Is Crony Capitalism a Big Reason for America's Dental Health Care Crisis?

Dental therapy practice patterns in Minnesota: a baseline study.

Pew Foundation: Dental Therapists in New Zealand: What the Evidence Shows

“Governing” magazine: Dental Therapists Fill Medicaid Holes and Dentists’ Pockets

Kellogg Foundation: study finds Alaska dental therapists provide safe, competent and appropriate care

Debris in Fluoride Chemicals

The CDC  finally informs us that some fluoridation chemicals were contaminated with black particles, a bird’s nest, plastic bags,  waxy material, iodine and 1,2-dichlorobenzene.  That’s in addition to the lead, arsenic and other toxins the CDC welcomes in the fluoridation chemicals added to public water supplies even though the safe level of lead and arsenic is zero.

The CDC updated its “waterfluoridation additives” page, on March 31, 2016, and directs our attention to “Trace contaminants in water treatment chemicals: sources and fate” by MacPhee, et al. published in the December 2004 peer-reviewed Journal of the American Water Works Association (AWWA).

The authors tell us they used the same information in an earlier published article but in more detail ( MacPhee et al in 2002) which was funded by the AWWA Research Foundation.

After surveying 266 water treatment plants in 38 states, the MacPhee 2002 research regarding hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate, commonly used fluoridation chemicals, revealed the following:

-- Frequent low levels of black particles in hydrofluorosilicic acid deliveries attributed to breakdown of tank liner in delivery vehicle.  One respondent characterized frequency of occurrence as “always”.

-- Bird’s nest and dead bird in solid sodium fluorosilicate jammed and broke feed equipment. Fluoride feed was disrupted for several days during repairs. No microbial contamination of finished water was detected, though utility was concerned since this organic material was fed to the system after chlorine addition.

-- One incident where plastic bags clogged feed lines during delivery of sodium fluorosilicate. Bagged material was used to supplement delivery because vendor did not have enough bulk material on hand.

-- One incident of hydrofluorosilicic acid delivery with layer of waxy material of indeterminate composition.

-- One facility traced the occurrence of 1,2-dichlorobenzene in the finished water to contaminated hydrofluorosilicic acid.

-- Iodine contamination was identified in some fluoridation chemicals

The researchers write “Four commercially available hydrofluorosilicic acid products were analyzed during this study. One product contained 3.3 percent hydrofluoric acid, well in excess of the AWWA Standard of one percent. Therefore, this product would not be suitable for drinking water use....Arsenic was the only trace metal found above detection limit in all three products…Titanium, vanadium zinc, and cadmium were found in one product…”

The researchers report that, because it’s so corrosive, hydrofluorosilicic acid is routinely delivered in specially lined tanker trucks.

We are left to wonder why more recent information isn't made public or if  any federal agency is bothering to look.  And what would be the results if every water treatment plant in the country were surveyed. According to the CDC's recently released 2014 fluoridation statistics, there are 5,956 Community Water Systems "adjusting" fluoride - which means adding contaminated and artificial fluoride chemicals into your bodies.  This is down from 5,999 from its 2012 statistics' report.

The CDC says, the EPA gave authority to a private company, NSF International, to determine fluoridation chemical safety. So, NSF doesn't have to answer our questions or release any documents under the freedom of information laws.

Although the safe levels of lead and arsenic are zero, the CDC and EPA allows the use of lead- and arsenic-laced fluoridation chemicals to be added into public water supplies.  Testing equipment used by water employees on the finished product often can’t detect these small lead and arsenic contaminants that probably meet standards, not for ingestion, but for acceptable levels in water. Acceptable to whom, we are left to wonder.

Remember there is no safe level of lead for ingestion.  Children shouldn’t be fed any lead because it can especially damage the brain and accumulates in the body. See: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/

NSF tested just 216 hydrofluorosilicic acid samples, from 2007 to 2011, to reveal 50% were contaminated with arsenic. NSF also lists contamination by lead, barium, chromium , copper, lead, radionuclides, radionuclides beta, and thallium. See:  http://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet_on_Fluoridation.pdf

Results from 2000-2006 using  245 samples showed similar results but also include mercury and cadmium and selenium

Children are forced to imbibe this chemical stew masquerading as fluoride, to satisfy the political ambition and financial interests of  organized dentistry and fluoride-selling corporations and the government officials they influence (See:  Fluoridation: Follow the Money) ,

Silence means acceptance.  Whether you approve of fluoride ingestion or not, tell your local, state and federal legislators to cease fluoridation to stop this chemical attack on our children.  Dosing babies with fluoride should be a parent's job - not your lobbied legislator's job. 

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth - meaning consuming a fluoride-free diet does not cause tooth decay.  Rotten diets make rotten teeth and no amount of fluoride will change that.

Further, studies show that fluoridation chemicals themselves can leach lead from water pipes. Other studies show that fluoridation chemicals can  cause children to absorb more lead when lead is anywhere in their environment (air pollution, lead paint, toys, etc.), according to a report from the Fluoride Action Network

                                                  END FLUORIDATION

Arkansas Fluoridation Study Fraudulent?

In 2011,  Arkansas enacted a state-wide law requiring fluoridation, which some say was enacted to over-ride those Arkansas cities which voted repeatedly against fluoridation. The new law was sold, in part, with an Arkansas Morrilton/Perry County study which was said to prove  that children in fluoridated Morrilton  have less cavities than children in non-fluoridated Perry County.  It's repeated by many pro-fluoridation groups as fact. The problem is the study doesn't seem to exist. 

Repeated  requests  to the Arkansas Department of health, Dr. Lynn Mouden, who spearheaded the ill-advised fluoridation mandate law,  the Pew Foundation which financed the effort, and others haven't unearthed the alleged study.

However, when the Pew Foundation apparently asked for the evidence, they and I were sent what appears below from the Arkansas Department of Health.  The "study" begins on page 12.

It's actually a compilation of incomplete and possibly selective data that has so many easily identifiable flaws to render it junk-science.

 .

For example:

1) There is no indication of age just of school grade.  Children generally lose teeth in kindergarten. Yet, some kindergartners are missing permanent teeth due to decay which begs the question “how old were the examinees?”

2)  Dr. Mouden reported  that this data is especially “compelling because the screenings involved virtually every kindergarten child in the area.” However, it’s odd that so many kindergarten classes had a very small number of children, e.g. 6 – 12 children in Ann Watson Elementary School’s Kindergarten classes; 4 – 9 children in Casa Elementary  Kindergarten classes. There is no explanation for this.  Were they small classes, children unavailable for examination, or was there a high refusal rate?  This information is usually provided in tooth decay studies.

3) The data isn’t presented by socio-economic-status (SES).  Poverty is strongly  linked to more tooth decay whether water is fluoridated or not.  Tooth decay studies usually put students in at least two SES categories (those who do and don’t get free lunch)  and studies usually also report by race since minorities also have the most tooth decay, according to government reports.   Morrilton, which Dr. Mouden says has less tooth decay because it is fluoridated, also is a higher income area than the schools chosen in Perryville which doesn’t make this a legitimate comparison study at all.

4) I’ve never heard of schools asking to be part of a study.  Dr. Mouden wrote, “In October of 2002, all kindergarten students from the City of Morrilton also received a dental screening at the request of the school.” 

5)  There are several pages detailing Perryville; but only one chart on Morrilton which  puts children in 7 undefined groups with no identifying details. 

6)  Despite being fluoridated, Morrilton’s children’s primary teeth don’t look so good either:

71% of group 3 had caries

64% of group 2 had caries

59% of group 7 had caries

56% of group 2 had caries

Several non-fluoridated Perryville Kindergarten classes have lower rates than the above.

I am left to assume this massaged data was used solely to pass the Arkansas state-wide fluoridation mandate. It's clear, scientific integrity was not an objective.

Neither Dr. Mouden nor Rhonda Sledge who conducted the "study" have replied to my requests for an explanation.

If the below doesn't work for you, try this link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-3-v9GxfN2JU3VwVnpWSVZMaFE/view?ts=56c1bcee

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, "

2) National Research Council (NRC): Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, 2006

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.

3) US Public Health Service, Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2000

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.

5) Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Guidelines, 1997

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/

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.” (Beltrán-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:  

http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/ej-report-9-25-15.pdf

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.

http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/pesticide/fluoride-residues-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