NBC's Fact-Challenged Fluoridation Article Raises Questions

A well-done article draws complaints from both sides of an issue covered. But fluoridation proponents are enthralled with a recent viral NBC News article which appears to be influenced (or partially written) by the fluoridation lobby’s PR company. It is one-sided slanderous propaganda piece that is misguided and, too often, just plain wrong.

Conspiracy theory attackers - hold your fire.  This email exchange on twitter raises serious concerns.

(Protagonists in this story: Johnny Johnson is the President of a fluoridation advocacy group (The American Fluoridation Society)

Liz Shawen is a PR representative of the Moore Agency which counts the Florida Dental Association as one of its clients. @echuckles is the twitter account of Elizabeth Chuck who, without a science background, "wrote" the NBC News fluoridation article.)

Liz Shawen‏ @LizShawen Oct 17

Liz Shawen Retweeted NBC News

Great reporting by @echuckles on Brooksville FL fluoridation vote, the evidence backing the safety/efficacy of fluoridation, & the controversy that still surrounds it in spite of this. Love working w/ passionate advocate and expert @drjohnnyjohnson!

Johnny Johnson‏ @drjohnnyjohnson Oct 19 This story by @echuckles has been a real honor to work on with 
you, @LizShawen Having someone that knows their stuff and how to let others express themselves in an appropriate manner 
is a true gift.  You've got that!! Thank you!

Over 300 studies 50+ human show that fluoride causes neurological damage.  Even the EPA admits it is so.  However, the NBC writer decided that one poorly done study (The 2018 National Toxicology Program Animal Study) was enough to "prove" fluoridation is safe. She oddly used the same lame argument the fluoridationists use.

Nonetheless, the NTP animal study has already been debunked in  Medical Hypotheses  (December 2018) The authors identify ten major flaws in the NTP experiment, for example, they used fluoride-resistant rats.

Further, Brenda Staudenmaier further debunks the article in her video rebuttal here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE5ekdn96G4 (For example, the NBC writer erroneously said fluoride toxicity studies  are not published in peer-reviewed journals - but they are)

The writer, as all fluoridationists do, invokes the CDC which claims the  4 scientific fluoridation reviews prove safety Two aren't safety studies and the following two prove the opposite

1) The U.S. Public Health Service

This report lists many gaps in knowledge, e.g., fluoride's relationship to bone fractures, bone cancer, reproductive effects and genotoxicity.

2) The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, at the University of York (dubbed the “York Review”

This is what the York Review actually reported  in 2003. “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…we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor. The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.”

It’s important to note that in 2015 the independent and respected UK-based Cochrane group of researchers confirmed the York review. After reviewing all available fluoridation studies, they could not find any quality evidence to prove fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” And they neither could find valid evidence that fluoride reduces adults’ cavity rates nor that fluoridation cessation increases tooth decay. Cochrane reported that 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. Here’s how Newsweek reported on Cochrane: “Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows.”

Further, in 2008, a CDC official lied to the Fairbanks, AK, City Council about reviews he claimed proved fluoridation safety but they actually didn’t.

And an FOIA request uncovered the fears that CDC oral health dentists are privately concerned about fluoride’s kidney effects; but they won’t say so publicly

Even the American Dental Association shows concern for fluoride’s kidney effects

In fact, the National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation endorsement as many other organizations have done quietly over the years.

The NBC writer links to a 1999 CDC report which gave rise to an oft-repeated politically-motivated meme but she fails to link to a 2002 CDC report which says, in effect, that fluoride hardens teeth topically but the amount that's absorbed into teeth doesn't reduce tooth decay and 
"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.”

Elizabeth Chuck and her fluoridation informants took a undeserved and unverified pot shot at the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF) 

She wrote, “They spread the word on Facebook groups, like that of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, which blames fluoride for problems including thyroid damage and was slammed in 2012 for falsely claiming that the federal government “recommends avoiding fluoridated water when making infant formula.” 

The truth is that NYSCOF doesn’t accuse fluoride of causing thyroid damage – science does. NYSCOF just reports upon the science that shows the connection.

For example, according to the first-ever published review of the fluoride/thyroid literature, (2006 National Research Council Fluoride(NRC) report), there is clear evidence that small amounts of fluoride, at or near levels added to US water supplies present potential risks to the thyroid gland

“Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with iodine deficiency," says a co-author of the government-sponsored report. "The recent decline in iodine intake in the U.S could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals," she said.

Robert Carton, PhD, an environmental scientist who worked for over 30 years for the U.S. government including managing risk assessments on high priority toxic chemicals, says "fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day. With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male.”

This is confirmed by a recent University of Toronto  study which reports that  “Adults living in Canada who have moderate-to-severe iodine deficiencies and higher levels of urinary fluoride may be at an increased risk for underactive thyroid gland activity.”

Also, a February 2018 study published in Nature Scientific Reports  found that fluoride has impacts on thyroid hormones even in the standard concentration of less than 0.5 mg/L. “Application of standard household water purification devices was recommended for hypothyroidism,” the researchers advise.

More information on how fluoride affects the thyroid gland http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/thyroid/

The NRC was first to raise a red flag about mixing infant formula with fluoridated water in its 2006 report.  The American Dental Association sent an e-gram to all its members and supporters in 2006 with the advising them to inform their patients to  avoid mixing fluoridated water into infant formula to prevent dental fluorosis.  

The message has been softened over the years but not the science.  The Journal of the American Dental Association published the fluoride content of all infant formulas and found that infants exceed their adequate intake (0.01 mg per day) from the formula alone – whether concentrated, organic or ready to feed.  See: https://safbaby.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/infant-formula-fluoride-jadaoct09.pdf

Also, soy based formulas are higher in fluoride than milk based formulas. See:http://www.aapd.org/assets/1/25/McKnight-Hanes-10-03.pdf 

Fluoridationists pointed the NBC writer to a slanderous  “Science in Medicine” report which is an egregious assault on credible science by two unqualified individuals. Of course, she dutifully linked to it

It denigrated me personally and others opposed to fluoridation.  I reported the two authors to their respective state dental boards in 2013  

NBC's main fluoridation source, Dr. Johnny Johnson, also used ad hominen attacks against me in an email message to Potsdam, NY, city council members.  It’s here: https://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/p/johnny-johnsons-ad-hominem-attack-on-me_35.html

We are not the only ones to question fluoridation safety.  Here are samples:

Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Social Scientist Brian Martin PhD; investigative reporters in Scientific American, Chemical & Engineering News, Newsweek and ABC-TV.  In fact, US public health bureaucrats ignore their own published evidence of fluoride’s potential harm i.e. New York State Department of Health and Virginia Department of Health.

One has to wonder, if fluoridation is based on such solid science, why is it necessary to attack people.  Using endorsements instead of science is another way of circumventing the truth. And why did NBC editors allow this poorly-researched article to be published and where were the fact-checkers?

This is the original 2018 NBC article by Elizabeth Chuck https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/science-says-fluoride-water-good-kids-so-why-are-these-n920851

I was very surprised to learn today, 10/13/2024, that NBC deeply fact checked sketchy Alex Jones, on the fluoride issue, a few years ago, and NBC was shocked to learn he was totally correct about the science.  That's probably because Paul Connett, PhD, Author of the Book, "The Case Against Fluoride," and the Executive Director of The Fluoride Action Network reluctantly appeared on the Alex Jones show because only alternative media would report the truth about fluoridation and about the science showing ingesting fluoride is health damaging  

According to Megan Kelly:

"A few years ago I interviewed Alex Jones and I sat down with him...one of the things he was telling me was about fluoride and about early puberty and about the frogs when exposed that went from male to female. I went back to NBC, we had all these fact checkers. It was all true. We found out all this stuff he was saying was true. And here I am across from you, Harvard educated Johns Hopkins attending physician saying, yeah, fluoride, just like Alex Jones was saying, not good, it's crazy. But they'll shove it in your kid's mouth just on a general cleaning. They wanna saturate your kid in fluoride, like rinses or gels just for kicks." here: https://x.com/i/status/1845188983870914957

or here: https://rumble.com/v5ig6n1-alex-jones-was-right....html?e9s=src_v1_upp

                                                END

5 More Fluoride-Condemning Studies Published - Why Are They Ignored?

Five More Fluoride-Condemning Studies are Published – When Is It Enough?

New York – October 15, 2018 -- Five new published studies support previous research linking fluoride to thyroid disease; ADHD; overdosing formula-fed infants and bias in government reports. Another reveals pregnant Canadians have higher urine fluoride levels in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas which previous studies linked to offspring’s lower IQ, reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

1) Fluoride exposure coupled with iodine deficiency is linked to thyroid disease, report researchers in Environment International (December 2018).  They report that this is the first human population-based examination of chronic low-level fluoride exposure on thyroid function that considers residents’ iodine status.

“I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure,” 

said lead author Ashley Malin. “And not just from my study but the      other studies that have come out in recent years,” (quoted from Environmental Health News).

2) “Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with global measures of ADHD and more symptoms of inattention [in offspring],” researchers report in Environment International  (December 2018). This is consistent with a growing body of evidence linking neurotoxicity to early-life fluoride exposure, they report.

"Our findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that the growing fetal nervous system may be negatively affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure," said Morteza Bashash, the study's lead author and a researcher at University of Toronto's School of Public Health (NeuroscienceNews.com).

3) “Significantly more infants, particularly those under six months old, will exceed the UL [Upper Limit] when consuming formula reconstituted with 0.7 ppm [fluoride] water, increasing their risk of developing dental fluorosis.” (Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 2018).

“The primary adverse effects associated with chronic, excess fluoride intake are enamel and skeletal fluorosis.” (NAS 1997).

The CDC encourages the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies to reach 0.7 ppm without adequately informing parents about the consequences of fluoride overexposure.

4) Organizational bias compromised the integrity of fluoride research from the beginning and persists today (Medical Hypotheses by Spencer and Limeback, December 2018) The authors identify ten major flaws in a recent US National Toxicology Program's (NTP) fluoride experiment as an example of how institutional bias can skew science.

5) Canadian pregnant women have double urine fluoride levels in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas (Environmental Health Perspectives, October 10, 2018). Previous Mexican research links urine fluoride levels in pregnancy to offspring’s lower IQ.  The Canadian and Mexican women’s fluoride levels are similar which causes concern.

"We found that fluoride in drinking water was the major source of              exposure for pregnant women living in Canada," said Christine Till,        an associate professor of Psychology in York's Faculty of Health and        lead author on the study. (News Release from York University in Toronto)

Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says, “No more study is required. Fluoridation must be stopped. Politics, not science, keeps it afloat.  Let’s sink it.”

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, nyscof@aol.com, 

SOURCE:   

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

PO Box 263

Old Bethpage, NY  11804NYSCOF on TwitterNYSCOF on Facebook

Fluoride Can Cause Acne

Using her FBI intellligence analyst skills, Melissa Gallico identifies fluoride as the root cause of acne in many individuals whose physicians are ignorant of the connection in her new book,  "How Toxic Water Is Affecting Your Health and What You Can Do About It."  which is carefully scientifically referenced.

A video interview of Melissa can be seen here 

She shares her personal 20-year struggle with severe cystic acne which finally disappeared after she pinpointed fluoride as the protagonist in her story. 

Usual acne suspects - from diet to dirty pillowcases, hormones or genetics have not been able to explain the majority of acne cases or why chronic acne is on the rise.

She explalins how her travels around the world and her intelligence work helped her identify exactly what was causing her treatment resistent flare ups - fluoridated water, foods, dental products, and the systemic build up of chilhood fluoride treatments were the culprits.

Evidence that individuals can be allergic to or hypersensitive of fluoride has existed since the begining of the last century; but is mostly ignored or unknown by those who promote water fluoridation.

Fluoride hypersensitivity (some would call a toxic reaction) manifests as skin conditions in some. It's rarely diagnosed by physicians or dentists who have never been trained to look for it.

Acne sufferers have already written Melissa telling her their skin eruptions disappeared after excluding fluoride from their diets. 

More examples:

Here are two women in a video  speaking about their own fluoride reactions before a legislative body in 2013.

A 1975 article in JAMA Dermatology links fluoridated toothpaste to acne

‘The Physicians Desk Reference (1979) indicates fluoride may cause a variety of symptoms such as skin eruptions, eczema, gastric distress, headache, weakness, etc. in hypersensitive individuals.”

A 1990 NYS Department of Health report alerted bureaucrats about fluoride's potential harm to kidney patients, diabetics and the fluoride hypersensitive even at optimal levels purposely added to water supplies.

When water fluoridation ceased in Kuopio, Finland, researchers wrote  "the significant decrease in the number of other skin rashes [after fluoridation stopped] leaves room for speculation, seeming to favor the view that a small segment of the population may have some kind of intolerance to fluoride." [Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997].

A kidney patients painful skin condition disappeared after her water supplier stopped fluoridating. 

Rash is described as a side effect of fluoride supplements

More evidence of fluoride hypersensitivity is here

In the face of conclusive evidence that fluoride is not safe for all, why is fluoridation protected today?

Melissa describes fluoridation as a brand protected and promoted by the same strategies big corporations use to influence consumers as described in the book “Primalbranding: Create Zealots for Your Brand, Your Company, and Your Future,” by expert, Patrick Hanlon He identifies seven primal branding elements that inspire fans to rabid addiction: the creation story, the leader, the creed, rituals, icons, sacred words, and pagans.

Like the little boy who shouted the obvious to the naked emperor, Melissa  exposes community water fluoridation as unscientific and unsafe. It’s more like a religion created and promoted by believers, PR, money and powerful special interest groups.

She explains that fluoridation believers serve both as evangelists and defenders. When the brand is threatened they protest as if they are the ones under attack. Believers who express doubt are excommunicated and exiled to the opposing camp.

A current example of that – an internet public health dentist listserv exists to facilitate group discussions on dental issues. When a prominent public health dentist who is also a published fluoride researcher and university professor brought up doubts about fluoridation, he was banished from the listserv along with anyone else who dared question fluoride in any way.

The same fate awaits the respectful science-savvy who get blocked on twitter, facebook and uninvited or escorted out of meetings if they dare doubt fluoride. It happened to me  And it happened to Dan Stockin

After all, as Melissa shows the reader, fluoride is the whole foundation upon which modern dentistry is built. If the cornerstone is pulled out, the whole system may crumble. Americans’ health is not organized dentistry’s priority. 

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”)

Fluoridation began with zealotry and little, if any, valid science.

After attending a 1941 meeting where fluoridation was suggested, Dentist John Frisch became “a man possessed.” “Fluoridation became practically a religion with him.” (The fight for fluoridation, McNeill)

Frisch wouldn’t let science shake his belief in fluoride. For example, university biochemists reported in 1947, in a series of experiments, that whole milk prevented more tooth decay than 1 part per million (ppm) fluoridated water.

Frisch exploded with wrath and called the conclusions ‘’hogwash from the biochemistry department.” Frisch accused the biochemists of fudging the data so they could keep their dairy grants coming in. Of course, now we know for sure that calcium-rich foods, such as milk, help prevent tooth decay. In fact, calcium is an essential nutrient while fluoride is not. And calcium is the antidote for fluoride poisoning. And naturally occurring fluoride, upon which the fluoridation program is based upon, is generally calcium fluoride.

Fluoridation came about in the early 1900’s when it was discovered that healthier wealthier residents living where the water was naturally fluoridated had discolored or mottled but decay-resistant teeth. Dentists pinpointed fluoride as the tooth discoloring culprit. They assumed fluoride was also the cavity preventive. They ignored that residents grew and ate their own nutritious foods, drank calcium rich water and could afford dental care. Just like now, dentists settle where people can afford them.

So, Frisch, to prove his belief that sodium fluoride worked the same as natural calcium fluoride, experimented on his own 7- and 9-year-old serving them 1.5 ppm sodium fluoridated drinking water. When the 7-year-old displayed faint mottled enamel that was all the proof he needed. Early fluoridationists concurred. He went on to influence many cities to start fluoridation on his non-scientific say-so.

Frisch used “satire, ridicule and tartness” while criticizing those opposed to fluoridation for denying children the “benefit” of fluoride just like today’s fluoridationists. 

Another early fluoridationist, appropriately named Dr. Bull, put a positive spin on fluoridation and provided talking points for sticky questions – years before the first experimental fluoridation trials were planned to be completed – at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau in 1951.

Bull said: “Now, in regard to toxicity, I noticed that Dr. Bain used the term ‘adding sodium fluoride,’ we never do that. That is rat poison. You add fluoride…”

The first fluoridation experiments conducted on entire city popluations starting in 1945 were cut short prematurely - before the permanent teeth of those born into the experiments had even erupted. The belief in fluoridation was so deep, early fluoridationists couldn't wait for the science to catch up with their misguided but well-intended theories.

Modern day “Dr Bull’s” are paid PR-trained individuals and companies who teach pro-fluoridation spokesperson training to “cultish” followers who are instructed to avoid talking about fluoridation’s risks because that battle can’t be won.

Even Edward Bernays, the father of public relations got into the act, Melissa explains. In 1960, he counseled the NYS Health Commissioner to write to television executives to influence them to avoid fluoridation debates. Bernays’ campaign advice included sending government letters to influential newspaper editors and even dictionary and encyclopedia editors to leverage government influence to dominate the fluoridation narrative and marginalize opposition. In this way, pro fluoridationists manipulated the human tendency to defer to authority sources, such as doctors, dictionaries and the daily news.

It worked. In 1965 New York City began fluoridation over the objections of Arthur Ford, New York City’s water commissioner.

Fluoridationists appear to be an army protecting themselves, first and foremost. They claim fluoride science is settled, repeating the cult mantra, “safe and effective” even though, because of tooth toxicity, fluoride levels had to be lowered over the years in infant formula, twice in supplements, water supplies and amounts of toothpaste placed on brushes. Also, advice is given to avoid routine mixing of fluoridated water into infant formula. Fluoridation protectionists will rarely share this with the public preferring, instead, to protect fluoride.There is no dispute that too much fluoride is bad for teeth and bones. There’s also no dispute that large fluoride overdoses cause serious side effects. But consumers are rarely informed to tally daily fluoride intake, what’s too much and where it comes from. Fluoride isn’t revealed on food and beverage labels, unknown amounts are absorbed from dental products and consumed via the water supplies.

In fact, according to a fluoride supplement insert, " Prolonged daily ingestion of excessive fluoride may result in varying degrees of dental fluorosis. Account for all daily sources of fluoride intake."

But few parents, if any, are counseled to keep track of children's total fluoride intake and where hidden fluoride resides and how much is too much.

                                                           ***
Melissa has written a very informative and interesting book which is different from most on this subject. She engages the reader and has evidence to back up her conclusions. If you or your child has acne or other skin conditions and nothing has worked for you, you must read this book. It took Melissa 20 years to figure out for herself that fluoride caused her severe acne. You don't have to suffer that long.If you live in an area with fluoridated water, you should do all you can to get your local or state legislators and/or water departments to stop.


                                                 END

You're Getting Too Much Fluoride, Proponents Warn

Because fluoride overdose is a new concern, Zohoori and Maguire  in the British Dental Journal (Feb 23, 2018) suggest that manufacturers use non-fluoridated water in food processing and that food and beverage labels include fluoride content.

In February 2018, US researchers reported, "The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to be implemented to reduce its prevalence."

Fluoride, touted as decay preventive, is added to most US water supplies. This means fluoride is also flowing into foods and beverages made with that water. The consequences - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth (fluorosis) the outward manifestation of fluoride overdose.  Up to 60% of US adolescents are so afflicted.

Fluoride is also absorbed into the bloodstream via topical application e.g. toothpaste, varnish, gels and also found naturally in ocean fish, tea and fluoride-containing pesticide residues on produce.

“[C]ontrolling fluoride ingestion has regained the attention of researchers around the world due to the reported rise in the prevalence of dental fluorosis in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas,” write Zohoori and Maguire. Even the World Health Organization is concerned, they report.

"Dietary fluoride supplements increase the risk of fluorosis for those in nonfluoridated areas by more than six-fold. Children who begin using toothpaste before age 2 -- regardless of whether their drinking water is fluoridated -- increase their odds of having fluorosis by approximately three times" (Pediatric Dentistry 1995)

Up to 80% of children in some US areas are afflicted with dental fluorosis (The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 5/2018)

Even though many assume that swallowing too much fluoridated toothpaste is the major cause of dental fluorosis, the CDC’s Fluoridation Engineer, Kip Duchon, is reported in the ADA News as saying:  “A provider needs to understand a patient’s total fluoride exposure and fluoride in drinking water is the largest contributor to total fluoride exposure.”

Former NYS Dental Director and close associate of the American Dental Association, JV Kumar wrote, “practitioners should prescribe fluoride therapy based on an understanding of patients' total exposure to fluoride and the need for additional amounts. 

But that is rarely, if ever, done.

Why aren’t consumers informed?

Dentists are still taught to prescribe fluoride supplements based solely on the fluoride levels in drinking water, Even though fluoride supplements have never been FDA approved or tested for safety or efficacy.

In fact, the Cochrane Oral Health Group reports that fluoride supplements fail to reduce tooth decay in primary teeth, permanent teeth cavity-reduction is dubious and health risks are little studied.

Only expensive cosmetic dentistry can cover fluorosed teeth affording many dentists the ability to neglect low-income folks with serious tooth decay but inability to pay dentists' exhorbitant fees.

In a failed attempt to alleviate the fluorosis problem, recommended water fluoride levels were lowered and fluoride supplement doses were lowered  twice. 

In 1970’s, manufacturers voluntarily lowered the fluoride content of infant formula although they all still contain a little fluoride – whether the formula is concentrated, organic or ready to use. 

On top of that, it’s now discouraged to mix infant formula with fluoridated water if parents want to avoid lifelong discoloration of their babies’ permanent teeth. In Feb 2018 researchers reported "The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to beimplemented to reduce its prevalence." 

Fluoridation is the real problem. Science shows it must end.  But the politics of organized dentistry, enriched by corporations that profit from tooth decay, have more entre' to legislators' ears and pocketbooks than the average citizen who needs to use their own resources to organized and a substantial amount of voters to force their legislators to do what's best for their constituents instead of their own political viability.

Also concerned are the Centers for Disease Control and Colgate which urge parents to use non-fluoridated toothpaste until their children are able to spit it all out to avoid fluorosis.

Zohoori and Maguire write, even though the UK and the US have fluoride in foods databases, fluoride levels vary greatly.

“For example, the composition of animal products could be influenced by age, feeding routine and season. In addition, factors such as the country of origin and local growing conditions could affect the composition of plant products, while alteration in recipes, amounts and types of ingredients and even the material composition of the cooking vessel can affect the fluoride content of a particular product,” they write.

Of course, the best way to limit fluoride intake is to stop adding unnecessary fluoride chemicals into the public’s water supply that finds it’s way into the food chain and builds up in our bones, brains and children's teeth.

But that won’t happen until people organize and demand fluoridation be stopped where they live. 

Unfortunately, politics, not science, supports water fluoridation. Organized dentistry, with its pockets full of corporate cash, have too much influence over our lawmakers and bureaucrats, in my opinion.

Fluoride should be dispensed in doctors’ offices and prescribed like all other drugs – considering age, health, weight need and monitored for side effects and overdoses.

“The Iowa Fluoride Study (IFS) reported that during the first 12 months of age, up to 96% of total fluoride intake can be from diet, which then decreases to 53% at age 24 months,” report Zohoori and Maguire. 

IFS revealed  in 2009 "achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.”

Recent IFS results (2018) show no benefit from ingested fluoride

  

The End of Fluoridation is Near – If You Help.  Take Action http://fluorideaction.net/take-action 

New Study: Fluoride Perilous to Babies’ Brains

New Study: Fluoride Perilous to Babies’ Brains

Fluoride exposure during pregnancy is linked to children’s lower IQ at one- to three-years-old, according to Occupational & Environmental Medicine  (March 2018), and at levels commonly found in U.S.

Researchers, Thomas et al., found that, for every increase of 1 milligram per liter of fluoride in pregnant women's urine, their offspring averaged 2.4 points lower IQ scores at age 1-3 years-old.  This finding is statistically significant and was adjusted for confounders.

This builds upon previous research from the same prestigious team funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) showing in utero fluoride levels associated with lower IQ in 4 and 6-12 year-olds (Environmental Health Perspectives, September 2017).

Fluoridation protectionists try, but fail, to scientifically debunk these studies. Environmental Health Perspectives is a leading peer-reviewed journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health, an NIH division, They were funded by U.S. government grants. The authors are some of the world’s foremost experts who study neurotoxicity from fetal and early childhood exposures.

Fluoridationists, who rarely challenge pro-fluoridation outcomes, often use knee-jerk criticisms to protect  negative fluoride research – even making it up sometimes.

For example, the American Dental Association (ADA) said the researchers “did not adequately address a number of potential confounders.

But the truth is that maternal age, gestational age, birth weight, mother’s education, lead and mercury were all measured.

As an aside, studies the ADA promotes to claim fluoridation is safe and effective almost never control for important confounders such as diet, poverty and total fluoride intake.

So, in direct contradiction to the ADA , one of the most important strengths of these studies is how comprehensively and carefully it did control for potential confounders.

Although fluoridated salt rather than fluoridated water was the main source of fluoride in Mexican pregnant women in these two studies, fluoride intake is similar and applicable to those consuming artificially fluoridated water. For example, the Mexican women's urine fluoride levels are similar to levels found in pregnant women in fluoridated New Zealand (Brough et al. 2015). 

Further, US, Canadian and UK studies recorded a similar range of urine fluoride in its residents as found in the Mexican studies. 

Therefore, the evidence is strong that pregnant US women have similar fluoride intake as Mexican women, whether it comes from artificially or naturally fluoridated water, medicines, is absorbed from dental products, eaten from foods and beverages, especially ocean fish and tea which are high in fluoride, or inhaled from air pollution or ocean mist.

Over 300 studies, 50+ human, now link fluoride to neurological effects – something that was virtually not considered when fluoridation began in 1945. Even the EPA admits that fluoride is a chemical “with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

These studies form the basis of the legal challenge against the EPA by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN)  et al., under the Toxic Substance and Control Act, to ban the deliberate, unnecessary and health-damaging addition of fluoride chemicals into the public’s drinking water supply for the failed effort to reduce tooth decay  Fluoride also taints foods made with that water at home or purchased in supermarkets and restaurants.

Attorney Michael Connett, FAN’s Legal Director says, “The new finding from NIH’s fluoride/IQ study further strengthens the evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity.  The fluoride levels at issue in the study are within the range that pregnant women in the U.S. will receive, so the findings are clearly relevant to our ongoing case against the EPA.”

Also of interest - researchers reported that drinking fluoridated water increased lead absorption which is also linked to lower IQ.

Fluoride/brain studies http://FluorideAction.Net/issues/brain

                                                 THE END

Tea-Drinkers Risk Fluoride Damaged Bones, Studies Show

Tea-drinkers risk fluoride-damaged bones and more, studies shows

Some teas contain more fluoride than EPA allows in public water supplies, which can do skeletal damage, according to research published in Environmental Pollution (Das, et al. 12/2017).

It’s undisputed that excessive fluoride ingestion can cause many adverse health effects, not just to bones.

But Waugh and a team of researchers, paint a more dismal picture in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2016)

Tea plants (Camellia sinensis) absorb fluoride from soil and air then released from 1.47 to 6.9 milligrams fluoride per liter (mg/L) when brewed, reports Das’ research team

“It can be predicted that long-term consumption of copious quantities of traditional tea might increase the chances of fluorosis in the consumers,” they report.

Fluoride from  tea, alone, has reportedly caused skeletal fluorosis, an arthritic-type disease that most US physicians aren’t trained to diagnose and consumers aren’t informed about.

The US EPA caps fluoride water contamination at 4 mg/L to protect against skeletal fluorosis. But an EPA-requested review of fluoride toxicology research (NRC 2006) revealed 4 mg/L doesn’t protect bones. The level must be lowered – some say to as close to zero as possible.

Additionally, Waugh et al. brewed 54 different brands of tea to find  fluoride levels reaching up to 6.1 mg/L.  Waugh concludes that individuals’ total fluoride intake “could readily exceed the levels known to cause chronic fluoride intoxication.” Heart, liver, kidneys, endocrine and nervous systems are also at risk, they caution.

Alarmingly, some studies found 9 mg/L fluoride in brewed tea.

Without determining  constituents’ total fluoride intake from foods, medicines, dental products, etc., as advised by JV Kumar (formerly NYS DoH),  legislators, lobbied by rich and powerful special interest groups, often pass fluoridation laws quietly to avoid confrontation with science-savvy voters opposed to fluoridation.  This happened in California, Arkansas and New York State. Fluoridation is doing more harm than good as proven by dental researchers, themselves.

No one disputes that excessive fluoride is bad. Local market basket analyses of commonly consumed foods and beverages must be calculated before ever considering water fluoridation. 

“Among populations habitually consuming black tea, water fluoridation
is not only unnecessary but also possibly harmful…The target organs of
chronic fluoride intoxication are not only the teeth and skeleton, but
also the liver, kidney, nervous and reproductive systems,” reports Cao et al. in Food Chemistry (2004). 

A March 2008 Food and Chemical Toxicology study found up to 4.5, 1.8,
and  0.5 mg/L fluoride in black, green and white teas, respectively,
when brewed for 5 minutes (61 teas sampled).

Brewed teas could contain up to 6 mg/L fluoride depending on the
amount of dry tea used, the water fluoride concentration and the
brewing time, according to the American Dental Association (ADA).

According to 1997 ADA data, 3 and 4 milligrams daily is adequate for
women and men, respectively, to prevent fluoride’s adverse effects.
It’s much lower for children. In 2006, the National Research Council
reported the basis for those levels should be reduced.

Case Reports by Cao and Yi in the Journal of Fluorine Chemistry
(February 2008) “Tea and fluorosis:”

--A 57-year-old Englishman’s misdiagnosed Paget’s disease (weakened
bones) with osteoarthritis was finally correctly diagnosed as skeletal
fluorosis caused by his long-term heavy tea-drinking habit.

--A Pakistani woman’s dental fluorosis resulted solely from tea which
she consumed from age two.

--A 36-year-old Chinese woman’s ten-years of joint pain disappeared
when she stopped drinking tea.

--French doctors identified 5 patients who developed bone softening
(osteomalacia) from drinking tea.

-- An American woman's fluoride-caused debilitating joint pains
disappeared when her two-gallon-a-day iced-tea habit stopped.

"By 2020, one in two Americans over age 50 will be at risk for
fractures from osteoporosis or low bone mass," according to the
Surgeon General.

Fluoride is in many foods as determined by the USDA 
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=6312

 

                             STOP FLUORIDATION