Karen Gay is the Eastern Shore of Virginia Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader. The next meeting will cover the topic of water fluoridation on Wednesday, February 20 at 6:00 at Peacewerks, 3100 Main Street, Exmore. Consider joining our ESVA Weston A Price Foundation Chapter Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/esvawapf/. For more information contact Karen at 240-393-5625 or karengreergay@gmail.com. All are welcome!
For several years now, I’ve been keeping my eye on articles about fluoride in our water supply. In the 1960s I remember my mother complaining that our water supply was going to be fluoridated. Her concern was that it is not ethical to put medications in our water supply because it may hurt some people and it removes one’s right of refusal. Her other issue was that the fluoride being proposed to be used in our water supply was not pharmaceutical grade, rather it was to be purchased from chemical companies. Without this purchase the phosphate and aluminum processing companies would have to remove the fluoride buildup from their smokestacks and pay to have the toxic waste removed and stored. Instead, we humans, are processing the fluoride in our bodies and excreting what is not stored.
A lightweight Newsweek article in June 2015 (https://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251) tells a partial story. It references several studies and concluded that “there is insufficient evidence that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded).” Evidence is also somewhat inconclusive regarding the impact of water fluoridation on children’s teeth though. Some of the earlier studies indicated a 14% increase in children without cavities but many of these studies were more than 40 years old and of poor quality. A more recent and surprising chart in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) (KK Cheng et al. BMJ 2007; 335: 699) shows that rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation. 97% of the European population drinks non-fluoridated water. Austria, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland provide fluoridated salt.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website proudly proclaims “community water fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” This so-called accomplishment is parroted by the American Medical Association (AMA), American Dental Association (ADA), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). If this achievement is true, why does most of the western world not fluoridate? Why have cavities in Europe declined as fast as those in the U.S.?
But before I continue, I wanted to examine the water fluoridation situation on the Eastern Shore. When we bought our house in 2002, we just assumed that the water was fluoridated, and we installed a reverse-osmosis water filter to remove the fluoride. I was pleasantly surprised to find out from Dave Fauber, the Cape Charles Director of Public Works and Utilities, that our town does not fluoridate. It seems that the equipment to dispense fluoride broke and after discussions with the Department of Health, they decided not to replace it.
Although many of the Eastern Shore residents have wells for their drinking water, I wondered about the towns large enough to fluoridate. The only water report I was able to find with water fluoridation was the Town of Onancock. I called Dan Horne, a field director from the Virginia Department of Health on the Eastern Shore, and asked him if the lack of fluoridation is a happy but unexpected meeting of minds or an economic issue. He was careful to point out that fluoridation is not mandated and that the Board of Health follows the CDC’s recommendations which were recently lowered from 0.9 parts per million (ppm) to 0.7 ppm.
Is there a problem with water fluoridation, even if it doesn’t do what our Government advertised? The Fluoride Action Network, an advocacy group that seeks to broaden awareness of the toxicity of fluoride, states “As of June 2018, a total of 60 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and over 40 studies have investigated the relationship [between] fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 53 studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans, while 45 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory brain.” In recent years, even the AAP and ADA have reversed their recommendation that infants receive fluoride supplements. We are gradually seeing a slow backtracking of their advice for infants and one wonders when and if they will finally declare that they were wrong all along. You can find the studies at this link: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/.
Having been a parent of small children I was completely unaware of the risk to intelligence. Even though I knew that fluoride was a toxin, I let my children brush their teeth unsupervised. I never looked on the tube to see the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statement: WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.” This warning is placed there because small doses of fluoride can cause symptoms of acute fluoride toxicity (i.e., poisoning). Early symptoms of fluoride poisoning include gastrointestinal pain, nausea, vomiting, and headaches. Another issue with water fluoridation is dental fluorosis causing a mottled and pitted look on teeth. While this is cosmetic, it can impact a child’s self-image and seems to occur most often in African-American children (Williams & Zermer 1990).
There are other problems too. Does anyone remember being asked to give permission to be given toxic waste to ingest? The end of World War II brought with it the Nuremburg Code which sought to ensure that unethical medical experiments were no longer carried out. Even the American Medical Association Code of Ethics supports the notion of informed consent and states that patients have the right to receive information from their physicians and to have opportunity to discuss the benefits, risks, and costs of appropriate treatment alternatives, including the risks, benefits and costs of forgoing treatment. In addition, patients may make decisions about the care a physician recommends and to have those decisions respected. Mass water fluoridation does not sound like informed consent to me! Yet, there were no objections from the AMA.
Those living in fluoridated communities have very little wiggle room in removing fluoride; tap water may be over-fluoridated, a reverse-osmosis water filter, to remove fluoride, is very expensive and removes much needed minerals, and bottled water carries the risk of dissolved plastics which are carcinogenic. According to the Guardian, the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a study of microplastics in bottled water. “In the new study, analysis of 259 bottles from 19 locations in nine countries across 11 different brands found an average of 325 plastic particles for every liter of water being sold.” Plastics are known endocrine disrupters, and no one knows the impact of years of ingestion.
It took our government from 1932 to 1972 (40 years!) to finally condemn the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. As late as 1969, the CDC and AMA officially supported continuing the study even though in 1947 penicillin became the drug of choice for syphilis. Now that new fluoride research has come to light, I wonder how long it will take the CDC, AMA, ADA and other organizations to revoke their original recommendations? In the meantime, affluent citizens of fluoridated water communities can purchase water filters to remove fluoride, but everyone else is stuck between a rock and a hard place!
I came across a new article in the journal Pediatric Medicine by Dr. David Bellinger, after I had sent this article to the Mirror. Here is a link to a summary.
http://fluoridealert.org/news/world-expert-on-lead-now-warns-of-fluorides-neurotoxicity/
It’s a shame that the chart from BMJ did not make it into the article. Here is the link to the study by Cheng where you can see the chart : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/.
The actual article “summarized” by the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN, reports IQ studies which have been performed on the effects of chronic exposure to high levels of fluoride from environmental pollution and well-water, pointing out the flaws of these studies. They have no relevance to the highly controlled minuscule amount of fluoride in optimally fluoridated water in the US. The article makes no mention of the numerous studies which are relevant to fluoride at the level in fluoridated water, which have found no adverse impact on IQ or neurological development.
The American Academy of Pediatrics publicly recognizes the public health benefits of community water fluoridation. If it had concerns about the safety of this initiative, it would not do so.
The “chart from BMJ” is simply a skewed graph of WHO data created by staff of the New York antifluoridationist faction FAN. The data it misrepresents is of raw, uncontrolled caries incidence in various countries. Seeking to assess but one preventive factor, water fluoridation, with raw data controlling for none of the myriad other factors involved in dental decay…..is obviously ludicrous.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Forgive my previous reply, I did not see your comment above. The chart which you say is a skewed graph is part of the published study by Cheng. Of course, FAN makes use of it. The fact that it is published in the BMJ means that it passed at least some scientific scrutiny. The AAP and other organizations can have very conflicting missions: protect those who pay the freight (doctors) or protect the patients. And once they adopt a view it becomes really hard to roll it back without saying “Ooops, we were wrong;” witness the Tuskegee study.
1. FAN not only “makes use” of the skewed graph, it created it.
On page 6 of Paul Connett’s non-peer-reviewed book, “The Case Against Fluoridation”, you will see this exact graph without the credit chopped off as it is in the Cheng study you reference.
“Graph based upon plots by Chris Neurath. Source World Health Organization 2004.”
Chris Neurath is a FAN staff member.
An explanation of the distortion of this WHO data by FAN may be viewed:
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/fluoridation-connetts-naive-used-of-who-data-debunked/
2. The American Academy of Pediatrics is composed of 67,000 of the most highly respected pediatricians in the nation. It’s worldwide respect and credibility is well recognized. That you believe an unsubstantiated, libelous attack from you on the credibility of this organization has any merit whatsoever, is interesting, to say the least.
The question is in whom do intelligent people wish to trust with healthcare decisions directly affecting the health and welfare of their families….the AAP, or the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN?
3. The “Tuskegee study” has no more relevance to community water fluoridation than do little green men from Mars. Let’s stay focused on the issue at hand. Okay?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Well, it looks as if we’re at an impasse. Studies for and against water fluoridation! For me and my family I choose the conservative approach and avoid fluoride wherever I can. Even a tiny bit is poison.
I’m surprised by your fawning attitude towards the American Academy of Pediatrics. Sure they’ve got caring, intelligent members, but AAP is after all, just an organization. It is subject to error, hasty enthusiasms and conflicts of interest. What saddens me is that so many of these organizations care more about their public face than the most vulnerable. That’s why I brought up the Tuskegee Study and AMA’s 40 year long support of it as an example of fallible organizations. These and other organizations in the news today aren’t bad, nor are their members. But their leadership is quicker to cover up than admit fault and slow to remedy errors.
1. I am at no “impasse”. I simply state facts and evidence.
2. Critical analyses of studies are what are important. When reviewing studies claimed to be against fluoridation, they are generally invalid, irrelevant to fluoride at the optimal level, or misrepresented.
3. That you indescriminately avoid fluoride for your family is a detriment to their health and well-being, just as was allowing your small children to brush with fluoridated toothpaste unsupervised.
There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated is “poison”. Your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary are meritless.
4. Readers are free to take your unsubstantiated personal attacks on the highly respected AAP, and other such organizations, for what they’re worth…..zero. Such unqualified attacks are simply transparent attempts to compensate for the fact that that there are no credible organizations which oppose fluoridation.
5. The “Tuskegee Study” has no relevance to community water fluoridation. Attempts to associate fluoridation with such things, with no foundation for so doing, is just one of the many unscrupulous tactics utilized by antifluoridationists.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Steven D. Slott, is a major player with the American Fluoridation Society. He will say whatever is necessary to get hydrofluorosilicic acid into good drinking water around the U.S. (and soon Canada). Follow the $$$ and Educate Don’t Fluoridate.
The author of this article could’ve saved time and simply referred readers to any little misinformative antifluoridationist website on which the same verbatim false claims and misinformation may generally be found.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I see that you are a dentist and follow the ADA party-line. You’ve used one of the oldest ways in the book to disparage the article by calling names. Where are your facts? And I’m guessing that you would never read the studies I referenced because it might upset your view of the world. Clearly you aren’t concerned about lowered IQ or the possibility of accidental ingestion of toxic fluoride by children. After all, they’re not your children and why let new information get in the way of your lucrative practice.
1. I have no idea what may constitute an “ADA party line”, unless that’s some reference to a phone system of the early to mid 1900s.
2. I see no place where I have been “calling names”. I simply stated facts.
3. I have read your”studies” countless times. That’s how I know what’s in them, and their invalidity and/or irrelevance to optimally fluoridated water in the US. Had you actually read them yourself instead of the FAN filtered versions, you may have realized the same.
4. I’ll be glad to provide whatever facts you so desire. Would you like me to refute the stale claims made in this article? I’ve done so dozens, if not hundreds, of times each. What’s once more?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Doc, I grew up in Trenton-which flouridated the heck outa their water.
Didn’t get a cavity until I was over 40.
Don’t sweat the anti-sciencers. They got a thing for vaccinations too.
Which is why we are seeing the return of polio, TB, etc……
…..measles.
Some children who have reached the age at which they can legally decide for themselves, are rebuking the ignorance of their parents and seeking to have themselves vaccinated against these preventible disorders. With proper education and understanding, this hopefully also occurs with children deprived of the benefits of fluoride growing up, and will not make the same mistake with their own children as their parents made with them.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Ok, let’s look at the claims in this article.
1. Article: “Her concern was that it is not ethical to put medications in our water supply because it may hurt some people and it removes one’s right of refusal”
Facts:
A. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water.
B. There is no effect on anyone’s “right to refusal” of anything, in regard to water fluoridation. Individuals are free to consume or not consume fluoridated water. Entirely their choice.
2. Article: “Her other issue was that the fluoride being proposed to be used in our water supply was not pharmaceutical grade, rather it was to be purchased from chemical companies.”
Facts: Not only is “pharmaceutical grade fluoride” far more expensive than the fluoridation substances currently utilized, but it has the strong potential to introduce greater levels of contaminants into the water, possibly in excess of the EPA mandated maximum allowable levels.
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/wfadditives.htm
3. Article: “Without this purchase the phosphate and aluminum processing companies would have to remove the fluoride buildup from their smokestacks and pay to have the toxic waste removed and stored. Instead, we humans, are processing the fluoride in our bodies and excreting what is not stored.”
Facts:
A. Conspiracy nonsense is irrelevant
B. Yes, humans process fluoride in our bodies and excrete what is not stored…..just as we do for all other substances we ingest.
4. Article: “A lightweight Newsweek article in June 2015 (https://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251) tells a partial story”
Facts: This article is by antifluoridationist/freelance writer, Douglas Main, notorious for for his misinformative antifluoridation articles in the dubious online publication, “Natural News”. Why the once proud Newsweek has sunk to the depths of such “tabloid journalism” is anyone’s guess. Nevertheless, Main’s article is rife with misinformation, and has no credibility, whatsoever.
It is understandable why the author sees the need to cite filtered and edited information from third parties such as Newsweek and FAN instead of from the original sources. However such edited information obviously has no credibility.
5. Article: “Evidence is also somewhat inconclusive regarding the impact of water fluoridation on children’s teeth though. Some of the earlier studies indicated a 14% increase in children without cavities but many of these studies were more than 40 years old and of poor quality”.
Facts: There is nothing “inconclusive” about the countless quality peer-reviewed studies clearly demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation in the reduction of dental decay in entire populations. This science is current through the present. While early studies demonstrated a 60-70% reduction from fluoridation, current availability of fluoride from other sources has made such determinations much harder to separate. Even so, the CDC still places decay reduction from fluoridation at 25% above and beyond reduction achieved from all other fluoride sources. The following are examples of some of most recent studies:
A. 2018
“These findings confirm a substantial caries-preventive benefit of CWF for U.S. children and that the benefit is most pronounced in primary teeth.”
J Dent Res. 2018 May 1:22034518774331. doi: 10.1177/0022034518774331. [Epub ahead of print]
Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents.
Slade GD, Grider WB, Maas WR, Sanders AE.
B. 2015
Conclusion
The children living in the well-established fluoridated area had less dental caries and a higher proportion free from disease when compared with the other two areas which were not fluoridated. Fluoridation demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of better oral health for young children.
—The Dental Health of primary school children living in fluoridated, pre-fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in New South Wales, Australia
Anthony S Blinkhorn, Roy Byun, George Johnson, Pathik Metha, Meredith Kay, and Peter Lewis
BMC Oral Health 2015, 15:9 doi:10.1186/1472-6831-15-9http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6831/15/9
6. Article: “A more recent and surprising chart in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) (KK Cheng et al. BMJ 2007; 335: 699) shows that rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.”
Facts:
A. The cause and preventive factors involved in dental decay are myriad. Attempts to assess but one preventive measure, fluoridation, based on snapshots of raw dental decay incidence data which controls for no other variables, is ludicrous.
B. The “recent and surprising chart” is one created by personnel of the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN, who took raw WHO data and skewed it into a graph that distorts this data. An explanation of this distortion may be viewed:
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/fluoridation-connetts-naive-used-of-who-data-debunked/
7. Article: “97% of the European population drinks non-fluoridated water. Austria, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland provide fluoridated salt.”
Facts: The reasons why different countries may not not fluoridate their water are many. These include such things as logistics of existing water systems rendering fluoridation of them to be cost-prohibitive, use of fluoridated salt and/or milk programs in lieu of fluoridated water, existing water fluoride levels already at, or above the optimal level, and equal access to comprehensive dental care by all members of a population.
8. Article: “The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website proudly proclaims “community water fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” This so-called accomplishment is parroted by the American Medical Association (AMA), American Dental Association (ADA), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). If this achievement is true, why does most of the western world not fluoridate?”
Facts: These healthcare organizations are among the most highly respected in the world. They do not “parrot” anything. They rely upon facts, evidence, and the peer-reviewed science for their recommendations.
The author of this article, on the other hand, relies on nothing but misinformation from little antifluoridationist groups.
9. Article: “Why have cavities in Europe declined as fast as those in the U.S.?”
Facts: One would have first have to accurately analyze comparative dental decay rates between countries, then adequately control for as many of the numerous variables involved as possible prior to making any credible assessment of the reasons for any declines.
10. Article: “Is there a problem with water fluoridation, even if it doesn’t do what our Government advertised?”
Facts: As countless peer-reviewed studies continue to demonstrate, water fluoridation does exactly “what out Government advertised”. It prevents significant amounts of very serious dental infection in entire populations.
11. Article: “The Fluoride Action Network, an advocacy group that seeks to broaden awareness of the toxicity of fluoride, states “As of June 2018, a total of 60 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and over 40 studies have investigated the relationship [between] fluoride and learning/memory in animals…….”
Facts: The Fluoride Action Network is an antifluoridationist faction in New York notorious for its dissemination of large amounts of misinformation on fluoridation. In a 40 page rejection of the latest FAN meritless petition to end fluoridation, EPA reviewers cited facts and evidence to completely dismantle FAN arguments, while explaining in detail the irrelevance, invalidity, and misrepresentation by petitioners of these same “studies” FAN puts forth as its “evidence” of adverse impact on IQ and a laundry list of other disorders. This rejection may be viewed in entirety on the US Federal Register:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/27/2017-03829/fluoride-chemicals-in-drinking-water-tsca-section-21-petition-reasons-for-agency-response
12. Article: “In recent years, even the AAP and ADA have reversed their recommendation that infants receive fluoride supplements. We are gradually seeing a slow backtracking of their advice for infants and one wonders when and if they will finally declare that they were wrong all along.”
Facts:
A. Neither the ADA, the AAP, nor any other credible organization has recommended against optimally fluoridated water for infants.
B. There is no valid evidence to remotely suggest that the AAP and ADA were ever wrong about fluoridation. Just the opposite, as is borne out in the peer-reviewed science.
13. Article: “You can find the studies at this link:”
Facts: See my response #11 in regard to the FAN “studies”.
14. Article: “Having been a parent of small children I was completely unaware of the risk to intelligence.
Facts: There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any “risk to intelligence” from optimally fluoridated water.
15. Article: “Even though I knew that fluoride was a toxin, I let my children brush their teeth unsupervised”
Facts: There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels….including plain water.
16. Article: “I never looked on the tube to see the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statement: WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age…… “
Facts: Toothpaste contains fluoride at a concentration 1200-1500 times that in optimally fluoridated water. That’s the reason for the warning on the label, and why the author of this article should not have let her small children brush with it unsupervised.
17. Article: “Another issue with water fluoridation is dental fluorosis causing a mottled and pitted look on teeth. While this is cosmetic, it can impact a child’s self-image and seems to occur most often in African-American children”
Facts:
A. “A mottled and pitted look” is a defining characteristic of severe dental fluorosis. As clearly noted by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, this level does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content below 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at one third this level.
The only dental fluorosis which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effects on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.
The Association Between Enamel Fluorosisand Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren
Hiroko Iida and Jayanth V. Kumar
J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140;855-862
B. Peer-reviewed science has demonstrated there to be no difference in prevalence of dental fluorosis in regard to race.
“Enamel fluorosis was not associated with race/ethnicity. Our analysis suggests that exposure to similar levels of fluoride in the water does not appear to place certain race/ethnic groups at a higher risk for developing enamel fluorosis, and lowering the optimal range of drinking water fluoride to a single value of 0.7 ppm will provide a level of protection against enamel fluorosis that will benefit all race/ethnicity groups.”
—Does water fluoridation affect the prevalence of enamel fluorosis differently among racial and ethnic groups?
Shivani Arora, BDS, MPH, CPH; Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH; Mark Eric Moss, DDS, PhD
Journal of Public Health Dentistry ISSN 0022-4006
18. Article: “There are other problems too. Does anyone remember being asked to give permission to be given toxic waste to ingest? The end of World War II brought with it the Nuremburg [sic] Code which sought to ensure that unethical medical experiments were no longer carried out”.
Facts:
A. Local officials are not required to obtain “permission” before approving the concentration level of existing minerals in public water supplies under their jurisdiction. Permission for them to do their jobs is conveyed upon election/appointment to office. Any who do not like the content of the local water supply of their community are entirely free not to consume, or otherwise utilize it.
B. The “Nuremburg [sic] Code” has no relevance to community water fluoridation. There are no “medical experiments” involved in community water fluoridation.
19. Article: “Even the American Medical Association Code of Ethics supports the notion of informed consent and states that patients have the right to receive information from their physicians and to have opportunity to discuss the benefits, risks, and costs of appropriate treatment alternatives, including the risks, benefits and costs of forgoing treatment. In addition, patients may make decisions about the care a physician recommends and to have those decisions respected.”
Facts:
A. Local officials are not required to obtain “informed consent” before approving the concentration level of existing minerals in public water supplies under their jurisdiction. Permission for them to do their jobs is conveyed upon election/appointment to office.
B. There is no medical treatment involved in water fluoridation. It is simply a preventive measure.
20. “Mass water fluoridation does not sound like informed consent to me! Yet, there were no objections from the AMA.”
Facts: There is no reason for the AMA to object to water fluoridation…..which is one reason it publicly recognizes the public health benefits of the initiative.
21. Article: “Those living in fluoridated communities have very little wiggle room in removing fluoride:
Facts: There is no valid scientific reason to consider removing fluoride from water unless it exceeds the level of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. For those with an irrational phobia of fluoride in their water there are certainly alternatives available. Any expense or inconvenience in addressing such a phobia in this manner are the responsibility of the individual, not that of society.
22. Article: “According to the Guardian, the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a study of microplastics in bottled water. “In the new study, analysis of 259 bottles from 19 locations in nine countries across 11 different brands found an average of 325 plastic particles for every liter of water being sold.” Plastics are known endocrine disrupters, and no one knows the impact of years of ingestion.”
Facts: A good reason to consume optimally fluoridated tap water and not bottled water.
23. Article: “It took our government from 1932 to 1972 (40 years!) to finally condemn the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. As late as 1969, the CDC and AMA officially supported continuing the study even though in 1947 penicillin became the drug of choice for syphilis.”
Facts: The “Tuskegee Syphilis study” is obviously of no relevance to water fluoridation. There is no syphilis and no penicillin involved in the initiative.
24. Article: “Now that new fluoride research has come to light, I wonder how long it will take the CDC, AMA, ADA and other organizations to revoke their original recommendations?”
Facts: There is no “new fluoride research” that would, in any manner, warrant any credible organization “to rebuke their original recommendations” in regard to water fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I bet you voted for Hillary and Bath House Barry, twice.
And, I’ll bet you’re an antifluoridationist.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I get plenty of fluoride from the pu-erh tea (sheng) that I drink daily.
I am able to wipe my a$$ without the gubmint’s help as well.
Now google what pu-erh is and learn something today….fool.
Spoken like a true antifluoridationist.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA95aRda9qg
A “YouTube” video……..more of the “quality” evidence from an antifluoridationist. What’s next, a Mickey Mouse comic book?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Qg3jwM0oM
Ahhh…….another “YouTube”. Mickey and Goofy?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Doc, you’ve tried facts and logic to educate people about the benefits of fluoride. People will believe what they choose to believe…you can’t fix that.
No, I can’t fix the mindset of antifluoridationists. Their objections are not grounded in science, facts, or evidence. They are grounded in post WW II paranoia and anti-government personal ideology dating back to the ultra-conservatives at the very beginning of the initiative 74 years ago. Therefore, no amount of scientific evidence will change that mindset. The ultimate fallback when they are rebuked is to claim conspiracy/corruption nonsense, and keep on disseminating their misinformation undeterred .
I simply correct the mounds of misinformation posted online by these folks such that intelligent readers may have available accurate, evidence-based information from which they may draw their own conclusions.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
“A friend says” is right that people are going to believe what they want to believe. My goal in most of my articles is to inform people about a different way of looking at things. If readers don’t like what I say, it’s OK.
I haven’t read the volumes upon volumes produced by Dr Slott, what’s the point? It turns out he’s a founder and communications director for the American Fluoridation Society. His omission in identifying himself puts him into troll status. Here’s the link to the AFS and his photo is on the About page: https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/about-us/.
The Crescent City Times (Crescent City, CA) published an article entitled “Beware of the newly formed “American Fluoridation Society.” at
http://www.crescentcitytimes.com/beware-of-newly-formed-the-american-fluoridation-society/. Here’s a quote from the article: “The American Fluoridation Society is a group is made up, so far (and as far as we know), of the most prolific Rabid Responders on the Internet (Johnson, Slott, Ferre, Haynie (Budd), They may have organized because the mainstream doesn’t want any part of them. Or maybe mainstream loves what they are doing but wants to secretly fund them without being tainted by their foolish, unscientific and insulting words. Or maybe it was set up to avoid their getting individually sued for the false claims they make about fluoridation. ”
In addition, I would advise people not to click on the openparachute blog that Dr. Slott references. I’ve been advised that the owner of this site, another fluoridation zealot, tracks you on the internet.
What you see in Dr. Slott’s vehement replies and refutations is an example of what special interests do to sway our minds in their direction.
One last thing before I go for good. The BMJ slide Dr Slott references as on page 6 of “The Case against Fluoride” is not there. I have the book. The Cheng graph is not copied from any Fluoride Action Network chart.
1. Providing false claims and misinformation as if it is somehow fact is not “informing people of a different way of looking at things”. It is patent dishonesty.
2. Yes, antifluoridationists see no point in reading facts and evidence. They simply rely on blurbs posted on misinformative little activist websites. Thus the reason they remain uninformed on this issue, and probably many others as well.
3. I “identify” myself by posting my full name at the end of each of my comments, thereby encouraging those who so desire to “google” me to their heart’s content…..as did you.
4. “Trolls” are those who intentionally post misinformation on the internet. As I have clearly demonstrated, this applies to you, not me.
5. Antifluoridationists frequently post the years-old Crescent City nonsense as an attempted diversion from the fact that they cannot credibly defend their position against the facts and evidence I present. Quoting such junk concocted by antifluoridationists and posted on their own little websites, is clear demonstration of that which antifluoridationists deem to be “evidence” supporting their position.
Since you chose to bring up the American Fluoridation Society, I do indeed encourage readers to access its website. On it they will find a wealth of peer-reviewed research linked to original sources, research topics, critiques of scientific studies, and fully referenced refutes of all of the standard arguments which antifluoridationists copy/paste from their activist groups and websites…..including all of the ones made in the article here.
http://www.americanfluoridationsociety.org
6. Antifluoridationists frequently encourage people to not “click on” the evidence I present. Such blatant attempts at censorship are part and parcel of their tactics. This is indicative of the lack of confidence they have that their claims will bear up under proper scrutiny. I have no qualms about anyone reading whatever antifluoridationists provide, as I know the facts will remain the same regardless.
Ironically, your paranoia about someone tracking you on the internet, very nicely demonstrates my point about opposition to fluoridation being grounded in anti-government paranoia, not in facts or evidence.
7. Yes, when all else fails, fall back on baseless claims of “special interests” as if that somehow refutes the facts and evidence I provide.
7. The distorted chart in the Cheng study is indeed taken directly from FAN. It may be found on page 6 in the online version of Connett’s little book:
http://www.randomcollection.info/case-against-fluoride.pdf
……..or on page 38 of the hard copy.
Either you haven’t read this book you claim to have, or are dishonestly seeking to mislead people into believing the chart is not there.
8. As is inevitable, once antifluoridationists have had their heads handed to them by facts and evidence, they make a parting personal attack and exit in a huff. Your exit in such manner is entirely on course.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Karen Gay is a chapter leader of the Weston A. Price Foundation. This group actively discourages having children vaccinated in favor of “ good nutrition” to prevent disease. This position alone discredits anything else that they have to say.
Amen to that!
Yep. People such as Karen are a true menace to the health of the public. They rely on support and false information from activist groups, using fear, intimidation tactics, and groundless disparagement of authority in seeking to impose their skewed personal ideologies unto entire populations. Needless, life-threatening outbreaks in preventible disease are a direct result of these activities.
As is typical of such activists, even though Karen has had her fluoridation misinformation clearly refuted all over this page, she will continue spreading it, undaunted. All we can do is continue to educate the public on the menace posed by these folks, while providing accurate information at every opportunity.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Man, what won’t Kale do? That stuff really IS a super food…………;)
Stupidity will be the death of us all.
Well, we’re all gonna die anyhow.
It’s much easier to die stupid.
But thanks to fluoridation, I will have all my teeth.
As far as I know, fluoridation of the water system on the Eastern Shore is one of the lesser of the evils plaguing families both in Northampton and Accomack Counties. Since the beginning of the usage of chemical aided/based fertilizers, insect and weed control, the poisoning of local wells and the widespread tainting of the Aquifer System(s) has been evident in the rising death rates from cancer. Instead of worrying about whether your teeth/your health are affected by fluoride, citizens of the Eastern Shore should be asking about those chemicals that are being leeched, post rainfall, into the drinking water of 90 percent of Eastern Shore households. With the rapid growth and installation of chicken (CAFOs) houses in Accomack County and the persistent spraying of Monsanto and other farm industry related fertilizers and weed control chemicals, one must wonder, what is the danger? Is it evident? Is it real? What are the facts? And if so, what can be done about it, without wreaking an entire economic system? What are the costs benefits versus human lives? How many friends, neighbors, relatives do you personally know, who, have died from cancer related illness? Does that number seem high to you? Yes, I think fluoride in the water is the least of your concerns.