Fluoride Abundant in Foods, Beverages, Dental Products; Fluoridation Unnecessary

Former New York State Department of Health Dental Director, J. Kumar, cautioned that total fluoride intake should be tallied before prescribing more. He wrote: “Because of the availability of fluoride from multiple sources, practitioners should prescribe other forms of fluoride therapy based on an understanding of patients’ total exposure to fluoride and the need for it,” (NYS Dental Journal, February 1998). But his advice is rarely heeded - even by him.

Legislators should know how much fluoride children already ingest before feeding them more via the water supply. 

Absent from labels, fluoride is in virtually all foods and beverages, including, soda, baby foods and all infant formulas, It’s high in tea (up to 6 mg/L) and ocean fish. Grape products (raisins, juice, wine, jellies, jams) because of fluoride-containing pesticide residues. 

It’s even in chocolate and french fries.

Fluoride ingested daily from toothpaste ranges from 1/4 to 1/3 milligram (National Institutes of Health) “Gels used by dentists are typically applied one to four times a year and can lead to ingestions of 1.3 to 31.2 mg fluoride each time.” 

Fluoride is in 20% of medicines, food packaging and inhaled from air pollution 

How much is too much? 

According to the National Academy of Sciences, “without causing unwanted side effects including moderate dental fluorosis,” (yellow splotched teeth), the adequate daily intake of fluoride, from all sources, should not exceed: (But does) 

 -- 0.01 mg/day for 0 – 6-month-olds (which is in every infant formula – concentrated or not) 

-- 0.5 mg/day for 7 through 12 months 

-- 0.7 mg/day for 1 – 3-year-olds 

-- 1.1 mg/day for 4 – 8 year olds 

This is what moderate dental fluorosis looks like, according to the US Centers for Disease Control 

The US Department of Health and Human Services (1991) estimated that total fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities ranges from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day 

Further, parents need to know that fluoride supplements have “not been found by FDA to be safe and effective.” 

No evidence proves anyone is or ever was fluoride-deficient. Fluoride isn’t a nutrient or essential for decay-free teeth – meaning that fluoride-free diets do not cause cavities. Fluoride is a drug with side effects. In fact, 70% of US kids are fluoride overdosed and afflicted with dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth which created a lucrative market for cosmetic dentistry because fluoride is everywhere. But tooth decay is still epidemic 

The EPA regulates water fluoride levels to protect against fluoride-caused bone damage. So It's important to know that fluoride concentration in drinking water does not equate to an individual's daily dose. Fluoridation should never begin without fore knowledge of the community's fluoride intake from all sources.

                                                   END 

Fluoridation a 78-Year-Old Blunder

Seventy-eight years ago, on January 25, 1945, dentists convinced government officials to experiment on all Grand Rapids, Michigan, residents to prove that (not if) dosing the public’s water supply with untested sodium-fluoride chemicals would make children's developing teeth cavity-free. It ended prematurely, control city was fluoridated, promoted with PR, and evidence of harm ignored or untested.

Planned to last 15 years, the 1945 study ended prematurely after 6 ½ years.  Teeth of most children born into the experiment hadn't even erupted yet. Muskegon, the non-fluoridated comparison or control city began fluoridating its water in 1951; thereby, negating the experiment.

An American Dental Association (ADA) news release reported, "many communities did not wait for the studies to be completed before starting their own fluoridation efforts.  By 1950, [fluoridation] had the full support of the ADA." This support came without any safety evidence.  

Grand Rapids citizens' health was untested. But Newburgh NY's healthy schoolchildren were examined in another 1945 human experiment, also cut short prematurely. Newburgh kids suffered more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation after 10 years (Journal of the American Dental Association, 1956). These findings were dismissed.

In 1951, dentists strategized ("Proceedings 4^th annual conference of state dental directors") on how to sell fluoridation using  misinformation and misdirection e.g. "We have told the public it works, so we can't go back on that." And "those 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."

Edward Bernays, the father of public relations, promoted fluoridation, consulting on strategy for the National Institute of Dental Research. "Selling fluoride was child's play," Bernays told the author of The Fluoride Deception. Bernays said citizens trust medical authority. So Bernays fooled doctors to believe in fluoridation – a tactic used by today fluoridation PR flacks.

Chemical & Engineering News reported: "Rational voices of opposition were suppressed from the start.”  Science justified those fears. Fluoride isn't a nutrient or required for healthy teeth and has serious side effects, rendering fluoridation unnecessary and harmful.

Fluoridation is celebrated  ignoring strong fluoride/brain links, 100 years of damning fluoride/kidney & thyroid research and that cavity experience and inequities increased in the last 20 years despite widespread fluoridation contributing to US children's fluoride-damaged teeth- dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow splotched teeth afflicting 70% of US children and adolescents).

Instead of putting themselves out of business as predicted 78 years ago, fluoridation has created a new lucrative market for cosmetic dentistry http://tinyurl.com/DentalFluorosisBeforeAfter

Babies Most Vulnerable to Fluoride's Neurotoxic Effects

As of Jul7 2022, 76 studies found fluoride lowers IQ -  23 published since 2017  The fetus and formula fed infants are the most vulnerable to fluoride's neurotoxicity. 

These studies are the basis of a current lawsuit against the US EPA which could end the artificial fluoridation program in the US to protect the brains of the fetus and babies. The next court date is October 26, 2022. Counsel for the plaintiffs is Michael Connett, JD, Partner, Waters Kraus & Paul. 

Fluoride from foods and beverages consumed during pregnancy is associated with lower cognitive neurodevelopment in boy babies, even when fluoride is ingested at recommended levels, report researchers Cantoral et al. in Neurotoxicology (December 2021) and funded by the US National Institutes of Health.

Fluoride's adverse neurological effects are backed by hundreds of animal and cell studies.

Few know that fluoride, besides being added to many public water supplies, is in foods and beverages at varying and inconsistent levels – either naturally or from fluoridated pesticides; fluoridated water used in processing; feed regimen of animal products; food storage containers (Teflon-coated containers); and food packaging (migration of perfluorochemicals into food). Too much fluoride is health-harming and indisputable. Topical fluoride application also invites some absorption into the bloodstream.

“Specifically, a 0.5 mg increase in dietary fluoride intake during the third trimester and across pregnancy was associated with a 3.10-points and 3.46-point lower cognitive score in boys, respectively,” reports Cantoral’s team.

“Fluoride is not an essential nutrient and…fluoride ingestion in pregnancy does not strengthen enamel during tooth formation in the fetus but has been associated with increased risk of neurotoxicity, even at optimal exposure levels,” they write.

Prominent scientists proclaim “It is time to protect kids’ developing brains from fluoride”

Cantoral’s team writes that “The National Toxicology Program concluded that fluoride is ‘presumed to be a cognitive developmental hazard to humans’ based upon a growing body of high-quality epidemiological studies conducted in endemic and non-endemic fluorosis areas.”

“These findings suggest that the development of nonverbal abilities in males may be more vulnerable to prenatal fluoride exposure than language or motor abilities, even at levels within the recommended intake range,” they write.

After 77 years of water fluoridation, 70% of US children and adolescents are fluoride-overdosed and afflicted with dental fluorosis (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth) while tooth decay remains a US epidemic.

SCIENTISTS WHO CAUTION THAT FLUORIDE CAN DAMAGE BABIES' DEVELOPING BRAINS

Experts who testified in the US Federal Lawsuit  Case No. 17-CV-02162-EMC, challenging water fluoridation safety, that's set to continue in September 2022, include:

 

1) Kathleen M. Thiessen, Ph.D. a risk assessment scientist at Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

   

Dr. Thiessen testified that “The animal data on fluoride neurotoxicity are consistent with the epidemiological data in showing a risk of cognitive deficits at doses of fluoride ingested from fluoridated water.”

 

2) A Fulbright Scholar, Dr. Phillipe Grandjean is on the faculty of Harvard University and the University of Southern Denmark. He’s received multiple awards throughout his long career for his research on the effects of environmental toxins affecting children and has also been recognized for his advocacy in protecting future generations from the effects of neuro- and developmental toxins.

 

Dr. Grandjean testified that "… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development."

 

3) Dr. Howard Hu, from the University of Washington’s School of Public Health, has led international research teams investigating the environmental, nutritional, social, and epi/genetic causes of chronic disease and impaired child development in the USA, Mexico, India, China, and elsewhere around the world.

 

Dr. Hu advises pregnant women and infants to avoid fluoride ingestion to assure normal brain development (Journal of Pediatrics “Current Best Evidence,” July 2020). He wrote, "Fluoride is not essential for growth and development, a cautious step could be avoidance of fluoridated products and water by women during pregnancy and by infants during the first 6 months of life."

 

4) Dr. Lanphear is on the faculty at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, where his research focuses on preventing common diseases and disabilities in children, as well as quantifying the impact of risk factors to children’s health including exposures to heavy metals and chemicals.

 

An Op-Ed by Dr. Lanphear; Linda Birnbaum, PhD, Former Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and Christine Till, PhD, co-author of the JAMA-Pediatrics research article “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada”  wrote:

 

“Mounting evidence suggests fluoride may be hampering brain development and reducing kids' IQ. The US needs to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children.”

 

 

JAMA Pediatrics Journal editor Dimitri Christakis, MD, said. “I would advise them [pregnant women] to drink bottled water or filtered water because it is not a particularly odious thing to do and actually does reduce the risk,” in a discussion of the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride/IQ study.

 

Fluoridation was declared safe for 75 years. “Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent,” write Till and Green in “Controversy: The evolving science of fluoride: when new evidence doesn’t conform with existing beliefs.” Till and Green both advise pregnant women to avoid fluoride.

 

Dr. Till's youtube presentation about her research which garnered intense scrutiny before being published in JAMA-Pediatrics is here: 

 

EPA scientists, in a recent research paper, write "Fluoride was observed to have the greatest increase in impacting cognitive ability and it is often reported to affect memory and cause cognitive deficits."  (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 2020) 

 

 

                                                            END 

US Govt Report Reveals Fluoridation Futile. Fluoride Confirmed Neurotoxic. EPA Sued.

Despite increases in public water fluoridation, dental visits, sealants, fluoride varnish applications, and significant financial, training, and program investments, oral health hasn’t improved in 22 years in the US, according to a National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) Oral Health in America Report (December 2021).  Further, there is no dispute that fluoride is neurotoxic, especially to babies' developing brains. Fluoridation promoters would have you believe a little brain poison is worth saving one cavity over a lifetime.

A new UK study, entitled CATFISH, shows a modest cavity reduction of 4% and 3% in 5-year-olds and 11-year-old's, respectively over their lifetimes, between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas and admits disparities persist.

Hundreds of studies support 76 human studies which show fluoride damages babies' developing brains. Prominent scientists urge us all to protect babies' brains from fluoride

These studies are the basis of a current lawsuit against the US EPA to lower allowable fluoride contaminant levels in drinking water,  The next court date is April 11, 2023 (Food and Water Watch, et al). 

InsideEPA.com reports (3/15/23), "The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has quietly unsealed its 2022 draft report on fluoride toxicity, publishing for the first time its finding 'with moderate confidence' that common drinking water fluoridation levels are associated with drops in childhood IQ -- a conclusion environmentalists plan to use in their suit seeking TSCA limits on fluoridation." 

Fluoride chemicals are added to about 70% of US public drinking water supplies ostensibly to prevent tooth decay in tap water drinkers. But after 77 years of fluoridation, 50% of US 6-8 year-olds still have cavities, according to the CDC. Fifty-seven percent of adolescents aged 12-19 years have cavities (Journal of Public Health Dentistry). Seventy percent of US children and adolescents are afflicted with fluoride overdose - dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth - according to published federal data (NHANES)

Last year, the State College Borough Water Authority in Pennsylvania, made up of scientifically trained professionals representing various aspects of water quality, source water protections, engineering and business management, voted to reject fluoridation unanimously after members read the science and didn't  just rely on outdated and unscientific endorsements.  

  

They criticized fluoridationists who "misrepresented and discredited the scientific evidence"

US Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy: "Nine out of 10 adults 20 to 64 years of age have had dental caries, a figure that hasn’t meaningfully changed during the past 20 years...dental care costs have increased by 30%," reported in the New England Journal of Medicine

The Pew Charitable Trusts  writes: "the nation has failed to reduce the prevalence of untreated tooth decay among certain populations...limited access to dental care is a persistent factor contributing to oral health inequities among racial and ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, older Americans, rural residents, and other marginalized groups." (February 9, 2022)

America’s shockingly poor dental system, poverty and poor diets are to blame Fluoridation can't fix that."

It’s obvious that Americans need dental care; not fluoride in their drinking water.

NIDCR  reports little improvement since the 2000 US Surgeon General’s Oral Health report revealed “a silent epidemic” and its now-failed Call to Action “to eliminate oral health disparities.”

For example, the NIDCR reports:

·  The military continues to face challenges in meeting recruitment goals and military readiness because of oral health-related issues.

·  Untreated cavities among the poor remain twice that of non-poor. Disparities persist by race/ethnicity status.

·  Primary tooth decay increased in boys aged 6-11 and didn’t change in adolescents’ and adults’ permanent teeth.

·  Untreated decay in permanent teeth shows no progress.

·   In ages 2-11, decayed tooth surfaces increased with a greater impact on boys

·   Four out of 5 Americans aged 6 years and older experience cavities, irrespective of poverty or race/ethnicity status.

·   40% of children have eroded teeth. 

Dental Therapists could alleviate the dental access problem; but the politically powerful American Dental Association (ADA) lobbies against their legalization, according to the W K Kellogg Foundation and Wendell Potter

NIDCR admits vitamin D deficiency is a cavity risk. But the ADA turned this nutritional deficiency into a profitable fluoride drug treatment (Nutrients 2021). Forty-two percent of Americans are vitamin D deficient.  None are fluoride-deficient. Fluoride, like all drugs, has side effects.

Politics, not science, supports fluoridation as evidenced by the ADA's lobbying the US National Toxicology Program to conclude fluoridation is not neurotoxic when the science says it is. Adverse health effects, outside of the oral cavity from ingested fluoride, are not within the purview of dentistry, according to the California Board of Dental Examiners. 4433/http://www.nofluoride.com/cal_dental_examiners.cfm

Further, dentists are advised to "propagandize" fluoridation information. "Complete knowledge of the detailed scientific literature is not a prerequisite," according to the Journal of the American Dental Association

Few know that fluoridation chemicals aren't natural, but are lead- and arsenic-laced waste products of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing (hydrofluosilicic acid or sodium fluoride) which often requires adding an acid-neutralizing chemical to the water such as sodium hydroxide.

Artificial fluoridation is outdated, unscientific, ineffective, politically motivated, harmful and must cease across the US

Many fluoridation reviews consistently found fluoridation studies faulty. For example:

The US National Institutes of Health (2001)

The UK York Review of Fluoride (2003)

Chairman of the US National Research Council's Report on Fluoride (2006)

UK Cochrane Research Group (2015)

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (2016)

Journal of Risk Assessment (2016). 

New York State Communities which have stopped or rejected fluoridation are:  Suffolk, Nassau & Rockland counties, the capital city of Albany, Elba, Naples, Levittown, Canton, Corning, Johnstown, Oneida, Carle Place, Beacon, Poughkeepsie, Riverhead, Central Bridge Water District, Homer, Ithaca, Rouses Point, Pulaski, Romulus, Amsterdam, Walden, Glens Falls and Manhasset.

NYS Dept of Health statistics show there is no correlation between the fluoridation rate of a county and tooth decay rates:  https://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_12.html     

And fluoridation hasn't protected NYS's 3-5 year-olds from getting hospital treatment for tooth decay, according to NYS Dep't of Health statistics  Note: both Suffolk and Nassau Counties are non-fluoridated; yet, have a much lower toddler cavity hospitalization rate then the 5 boroughs that make of neighboring New York City which are 100% fluoridated

More specific information about NYS, fluoridation and tooth decay is here: https://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/fluoridation-fails-new-york-state.html                                        

The ADA prioritizes political advocacy over scientific credibility. according to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN),  "For example, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first proposed regulating fluoride as a contaminant in drinking water, the ADA asserted that no such regulation was necessary, and that a federal regulation would 'undermine the efforts of the dental profession and government in promoting fluoridation of community water supplies," writes FAN Director, Paul Connett, PhD.

More information about scientific reviews which report fluoridation studies are faulty. For example:

2001 -- An NIH panel reviewing tooth decay research 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.

"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," wrote Amid Ismail, BDS, Professor, University of Michigan School of Dentistry in a report to the panel.

2001 -- The CDC reports: "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." 

2003 -- When members of the 2000 York Review of fluoridation found their work was being misrepresented by fluoidationists, they corrected the misreporting by writing a statement,: What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found. "We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide....The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable."

2006 -- Chairman of the National Research Council Report on Fluoride Toxicity (Toxicologist John Doull) wrote: "What the committee found is that we've gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years--for too long, really--and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled.  I mean, when the US 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."

2015 -- After reviewing all available fluoridation studies, the independent and trusted UK-based Cochrane group of researchers 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.

Fluoridation may reduce cavities in children (2 primary teeth or 1 permanent tooth). But Cochrane cautions these studies have "high risk of bias" and were mostly done before preventive measures were widespread, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste and sealants.

2015 -- Newsweek reports that scientists, who were assigned to review fluoridation research, are shocked at the lack of valid fluoridation-supporting evidence. Government agencies have a long history of minimizing reviews critical of fluoridation science.

2016 -- Sicca, et al. analyzed thirty systematic reviews on tooth decay prevention, from 2002 – 2015, and report “there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether the use [of] water fluoridation has a significant impact in the reduction of caries.” (Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry)

2023  - A suppressed National Toxicology Program fluoride report which government officials tried to hide from the public was revealed via a freedom of in formation request concluded "The data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children's IQ"

                                                                 END

Dentistry Treats Vitamin D Deficiency With Nonessential Fluoride Drugs for Profit

Vitamin D Deficiency, Not Fluoride Deficiency, Causes Cavities, Dentist/Researcher Reveals 

American Dental Association (ADA) internal documents reveal how it influenced the world to ignore a preponderance of evidence proving vitamin D can prevent tooth decay in order to promote nonessential fluoride so dentists could profit, reports Philippe P. Hujoel, PhD, DDS, Professor, Oral Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Washington (Nutrients December 2021).

Hujoel writes, “The ADA was a world‐leading organization and its governing bodies worked through political channels to make fluoride a global standard of care for a disease which at the time was viewed as an indicator of vitamin D deficiencies.” The ADA scientific council endorsed vitamin D for 15 years but reversed its decision in 1989.  

 

The evidence suggests that professional organizations of clinical specialists, such as the ADA, have the power to create standards of care which ignore key evidence and consequently can harm public health, reports Hujoel.

It seems the rich and powerful ADA uses legislators, the media and water engineers for its own political viability and financial gain to manipulate the public into believing fluoride is an essential tooth nutrient - which it isn't. Artificial fluoridation is based more on politics and deception than science. 

Vitamin D deficiency, now common in US adults and children, is also more prevalent in the same groups suffering the most tooth decay.

Many current studies link vitamin D deficiency to more cavities.

After 77 years of water fluoridation, intending to dramatically reduce tooth decay, 70% of US children are fluoride-overdosed, afflicted with dental fluorosis (discolored teeth). Yet, tooth decay is epidemic. Like all drugs, fluoride has adverse side effects.

Vitamin D, an essential nutrient, is free via sunlight exposure; fluoride is a huge money maker.

ADA’s Seal of Approval is paid for reports CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta).

“ADA governing bodies had several channels of influence to put fluoride experts on authoritative writing panels who globalized the now conventional wisdom of ignoring and dismissing the evidence of the role of nutritional deficiencies in dental disease etiology,” writes Hujoel. 

“It did not matter that the professional organization had a self-evident conflict of interest; topical fluoride applications in dental offices were revenue-generating procedures, vitamin D prescriptions were not,” writes Hujoel.

Hujoel explains that vitamin D was shunned to knock competition from physicians.

With its success in suppressing vitamin D supplementation, the dental guild went on to dismiss other dental-related deficiencies such as vitamin C for gingival bleeding, according to Hujoel.

He concludes, “Public health may well depend on looking at professional societies no different than the way we look at the pharmaceutical industry— conflicted organizations with a power to shape conventional wisdom based on fragile evidence. This historical analysis adds to the evidence that professional societies should serve their members and be kept at arm’s length from research agendas, disease definitions, clinical practice guidelines, and public health policies.” 

The powerful politics of the ADA is well documented as explained here and here and here.

Buried on its website but rarely, if ever, shared with the public, the ADA admits science shows (under "dental caries") Vitamin D deficiency is linked to more cavities.  

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

ADA is cited in this 2002 article admitting "It is important for pregnant women to receive sufficient amounts of nutrients, including calcium, protein, phosphorous and vitamins A, C and D." 

"This review aims to provide comprehensive evidence of how Vitamin D levels should be considered to promote good oral health, and to summarize how Vitamin D Deficiency may hamper oral development and its role in certain oral conditions." (Nutrients 2020)

High doses of vitamin D during pregnancy improved tooth enamel in offspring. (New York Times 2019)

                                                 END