Fluoride Linked to Low IQ, Studies Show

[nyscof]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Fluoride Linked to Low IQ, Studies Show



New York -- August 25, 2003 -- Children?s intelligence declines as their natural drinking water fluoride levels increase, concluded a Chinese study in the May 2003 journal, ?Fluoride.?

Children scored inferior IQ?s even when fluoride levels were similar to that added to U.S. water supplies to prevent tooth decay(1).

?As the fluoride levels in drinking water increased, the IQ fell and the rates of mental ******ation and borderline intelligence increased,? write researchers Xiang, et al.

Tested were 512 children, aged 8-13 years from Wamiao, a high-fluoride village, and Xinhuai, a low-fluoride village. The high-fluoride village was divided into five subgroups by water fluoride levels, from 0.62 mg Fluoride per Liter to 4.38 mg F/L. As water fluoride levels increased within the high fluoride village, IQ decreased.

?When the data from the 512 children in the two villages were considered as a whole, a significant inverse correlation was found between IQ and the level of fluoride in urine,? the researchers report. ?These results are consistent with the findings recorded by Li at al.(3), Zhao et al.(4), and Lu et al.(5) of an inverse correlation between intelligence and dietary fluoride from either contaminated food or drinking water,? they report.

Neither village experiences coal burning pollution nor do residents drink brick tea, two common fluoride sources in China. Children with brain disease or head injury history were excluded. Only water fluoride levels differed between the two rural, low-income villages situated in the same province (Jiangsu) and county. Neither blood lead levels(2) nor urinary iodine differed between the test groups. The authors also controlled for family income and parental education

Fluoride crosses the blood-brain barrier producing biochemical and functional impairment of the nervous system during the developmental periods of infancy and childhood, the authors report.

?...despite growing evidence of serious neurotoxicity for both fluoride and lead, U.S. safety standards for fluoride in water have been moving in the opposite direction to those for lead in blood. From a scientific standpoint, this is very difficult to understand or to justify,? says organic chemist Albert Burgstahler, Ph.D., Editor, Fluoride(5a).

Chemistry Professor Paul Connett, Ph.D., presented (5b http://www.fluoridealert.org/nrc-paper.pdf ) and explained these and other fluoride adverse-effect studies, published since 1993, to the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) panel studying "Toxicologic Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water"(6) on 8/12/03. See power point presentation at http://www.fluoridealert.org/NRC-final.ppt . The NRC will recommend safe levels of fluoride in drinking water

?Two neurological studies are particularly important,? says Connett. ?In 1995 Mullenix and colleagues(7) discovered fluoride gets into the brain, contrary to former beliefs. Then Varner and his team, in 1998,(8) found that even 1 part per million fluoride, the amount purposely added to U.S. water supplies, facilitated uptake of aluminum into rats? brains causing amyloid deposits similar to Alzheimer?s patients,? says Connett.

The American Dental Association (ADA), a union that represents dentists? interests, told the NRC panel ?... the ADA urges the subcommittee to support retaining the current (1993) regulations...Since that time, there has been no published scientific evidence that should change those conclusions," according to the ADA news.(9)

?Contrary to the ADA?s assurances of fluoridation?s safety, the ADA is disregarding new adverse fluoride studies,? says Attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. ?The ADA can?t be relied on by the media, legislators, health officials and the public about fluoride and fluoridation?s safety or bodily effects,? says Beeber.


Contact:
Albert Burgstahler, [email protected], http://www.fluoride-journal.com,
Paul Connett, [email protected], http://www.fluoridealert.org
Paul Beeber, [email protected], http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

SOURCE: NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://tinyurl.com/ad9k



References
1) ?Effect of Fluoride in Drinking Water on Children?s Intelligence,? Fluoride, Xiang et al., May 2003

2) ?Blood Lead of Children in Wamiao-Xinhuai Intelligence Study,? letter Fluoride Xiang et al, August 2003

3) Li et al., ?Effect of excessive fluoride intake on mental work capacity of children and preliminary study of its mechanism,? J West China University of Medical Sciences 1994; 25:188-9

4) Zhao LB, et al., ?Effect of a high fluoride water supply on children?s intelligence, Fluoride 1996;29:190-2

5) Lu Y. et al., Fluoride Vol. 33 No. 2 74-78 2000 ?Effect of High-Fluoride Water on Intelligence in Children?
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-2/332-74.pdf

5a) Editorial, Fluoride Vol. 35 No. 2 79-81 2003, by Albert W. Burgstahler, Editor

5b) Paul Connett?s presentation to the NRC
http://www.fluoridealert.org/nrc-paper.pdf

6) Toxicologic Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water
http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/5c505...22e94ca1755cb92685256d0f005f6839?OpenDocument

7) Mullenix, PJ, et al, ?Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats,? Neurotoxicity and Teratology, 1995;17:169-72
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7760776&dopt=Abstract

8) Varner JA, et al., ?Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity,? Brain Res. 1998 Feb
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9518651&dopt=Abstract

(9) ADA NEWS, ?Association urges NAS review panel to support current EPA fluoride practices, by Craig Palmer, posted August 14, 2003
http://www.ada.org/prof/pubs/daily/0308/0814wash.html


Also See: Fluoride and the Brain
http://www.fluoridation.com/brain.htm
http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html#brain

 

[DrJeff]

I'll bet that the publishers also had all their amalgams removed and suddenly every single ailment they ever had was cured🙄

I just love this type of stuff, we as dentists as trying our best to put PREVENTATIVE measures in peoples daily routine since joe-q-public has essentially ZERO dietary control when it comes to sugar consumption(check out the obesity crisis especially amongst kids nowadays). We're trying to tell folks how to greatly curtail our business, but no-one likes to listen to us. I'd love the day they take away the water fluoridation, I'll be sure to order more burs for all the extra carious lesions I'll be restoring 😀 😱 Folks then complain that we charge too much, but then they want to take away our "economical" long term restorative material, amalgam, in favor of more expensive composites.

Lets find some, good research to back up these "media grabbing" claims. If not, I guess will have a potential low news time piece on 60 minutes, 20/20 or Dateline again.🙄

 

[DrJeff]

[

Neither village experiences coal burning pollution nor do residents drink brick tea, two common fluoride sources in China.

Anyone else find this information as remotely amusing as I did??😀

 

[UBTom]

I hear ya Dr. Jeff...

After reading that stuff I also found myself chuckling...

- They never did explain the validity of how they "tested IQ", not to mention that IQ is not exactly a good clinical indicator of mental ******ation.

- China is one of the more unhealthy places on this planet to live in. Lax/nonexistant environmental control laws that government corruption easily circumvents, low standards of living. Who knows what multitudes of confounding factors they failed to detect or mention.

- The toxicology studies with rats was at 75ppm (!) and up.

- The AlF study basically says Don't Ingest Aluminum! Heh heh..

- The National Academy of Sciences study is ongoing-- Don't know why they linked to it.

These guys I think should look a bit closer to home... New York City has been fluoridated for the past few decades, and the water is used by 8 million people daily. No spike in clinical ******ation rates that anyone can tell, even when compared to neighboring Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island where there wasn't widespread fluoridation.

The frightening thing is that these guys actually get attention from our politicians. 😡

 

[ItsGavinC]

The entire premise that fluoride is related to IQ is idiotic.

The closing lines about the public not being able to rely upon the ADA is absurd as well.

Why would an organization lie about something in order to hinder their business? Fluoride = less caries = less (somewhat) business. Whoever thought that fib up was a braniac.

 

[DrJeff]

I've just been absolutely steaming about this nut job scare tatic lawyer from Long Island's post about fluoride, and believe me, my hygenists were wishing that I never read this with how much I was barking about the quackery at the office today.

The following post by Dr Howard Farran over at dentaltown.com sums things up very well.

Today if you are over 65 years old, 1 in 3 has zero teeth. According to Oral Health in America: a report of the surgeon general; at age 17 more than 7% are missing at least one permanent tooth, by age 50 the average American is missing 12.1 teeth, including 3rd molars, and one third of those over 65 years of age are completely edentulous. According to the National Institute for Dental Research 100 ? 115 million people are missing teeth with 40 to 45 million teeth extracted every year.



So what is the ?Fully Edentulous Paradox?? Read ?Will there be a need for complete dentures in the United States in 2020? by Douglass CW, Shih A, Ostry L, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston MA J Prosth Dent 2002;87:5-8. Even though the percentage of fully edentulous patients is declining by 10% each decade, this is more than offset by the growth in the aging baby-boomer population. In real numbers, people with one or both fully edentulous arches will actually increase from 33.6 million people to 37.9 million people by 2020. That is an increase in over 4 million denture people!






I started practicing dentistry in 1987 in Phoenix Arizona which was the 3rd largest unfluoridated city in the USA. Jack Dillenberg DDS, who is now the Dean of the Arizona School of Dentistry and Oral Health, Kathy Smith RDH who was a hygienist from the Indian Public Health Service, and Karen Christensen RDH who was the Director of Hygiene at Phoenix College, and me started the Arizona Citizens for Better Dental Health. Our efforts resulted in Phoenix getting fluoridated in 1989. In fact the local Arizona State Dental Association gave me the Arizona Award for my contributions to fluoridate Phoenix in 1989. Six years later the Arizona Office of Dental Health gave me the Public Health Dentist of the Year Award in 1995 for my contributions to fluoridate the City of Chandler Arizona.



Fluoride occurs NATURALLY in the ocean at 1 ppm. When we fluoridated Phoenix Arizona in 1989 and Chandler Arizona in 1995 we recommended 0.7-ppm fluoride. We went with .3 ppm less fluoride than what occurs naturally in the ocean. The ocean covers 71% of the planet. All life evolved from the ocean. How could our biological primordial soup be toxic!



Read Consumer Reports - July ? August 1978 - in regards to water fluoridation. The final paragraph says, ?The simple truth is that there is no scientific controversy over the safety of fluoridation. The practice is safe, economical, and beneficial. The survival of this fake controversy represents one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation.?



In the 1950?s toothpaste did not have fluoride. Then Colgate and Crest added 1000-ppm fluoride. Remember, in water fluoridation we are talking 1-ppm fluoride. The Japanese have shown that children under 6 swallow up to 15% of their toothpaste. Furthermore, canned foods from large fluoridated communities send and sell their finished canned goods to unfluoridated communities. Either way you look at it, pre 1950?s there was almost no source of fluoride except for ocean products. If you had a diet high in seafood, you were okay. Back in 1950 water fluoridation had a huge impact in a meat and potato society. Today, with fluoridated toothpaste and diets higher in ocean products, water fluoridation will be less and less effective since there will be alternative sources of dietary fluoride.



Back in 1987 to 1995 when I was heavily involved in the fluoridation of Phoenix and Chandler Arizona, I often wondered why these antifluoridationists were so passionate. I wondered if I had been brainwashed in dental school. I studied, I read, I couldn?t figure out where they were coming from. So I became my enemy. I went to their meetings. I talked like one of them. Then I found out. When ever a big fluoride battle takes place in a city wide referendum, these antifluoridationists, scare the hell out of the poor, uneducated, and the elderly. They pass out pictures of new born Thalidomide babies saying it was caused by water fluoridation. After the battle, win or loose, guess what happens? Guess? Did you figure it out? They sell millions of dollars of reverse osmosis machines. The more I learned, the more it motivated me! We won the Phoenix City Hall vote 8 to 1. We won Chandler unanimously! Now do you know why I became a fluoridation fanatic?? I could debate this subject until the cows came home.



Good luck Michael!



Howard

BTW, in the future, if you get the chance I highly remember seeing Howard's CE lecture, "The One Day Dental MBA", it was one of the most informative and entertaining CE lectures that I've been too(and believe me, with almost 1000 hours of CE credit, I've been to ALOT of them!)

 

[nyscof]

Unfortunately, all your studying was probably based on the safety of sodium fluoride. Actucally silicofluorides are used by over 91% of U.S. fluoridating communities. Silicofluorides are impure waste products of the phosphater fertilizer industry. Silicofluorides have never been safety tested in humans or animals. And it doesn't break apart in water as fully as sodium fluoride does. And only just now, the National Toxicology Program may get around to studying it's safety.

Here's another news release that may boil your blood. My apologies to your hygienists. Sorry but we only deliver truth. Students can balance this with the information they glean from dental school, if they choose.

Fluoridation Chemicals Never Safety-Tested in Humans or Animals

The U.S. Government never studied the health effects of most fluoride chemicals presently consumed by over 140 million Americans, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents.

The EPA was ?unable to find any information on the effects of silicofluorides on health and behavior,? according to a November 16, 2000, letter to Roger D. Masters, Research Professor of Government, Dartmouth College, from the EPA. (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/letter.jpg)

Over 91% of US fluoridated water is treated with silicofluorides - sodium silicofluoride or fluosilicic acid, according the 1992 US Fluoridation Census.

Unlike other chemical additives that make water safer and more palatable to drink, added fluoride treats people, not water, for a disease they may never have - tooth decay. Most Americans presume the government would make sure any unnecessary chemical injected into water supplies would be safe for human consumption, at any age. But that is, apparently, not so with most water fluoridation chemicals.

Maybe due to Dr. Masters prodding, the EPA intends to test the silicofluorides, some 50 years after they were first introduced into U.S water supplies.

According to a March 15, 2001, letter from the EPA, ?Several fluoride chemistry related research needs were identified including: (1) accurate and precise values for the stability constants of mixed fluorohydroxo complexes with aluminum (III), iron (III) and other metal cations likely to be found under drinking water conditions and (2) a kinetic model for the dissociation and hydroloysis of fluosilicates and stepwise equilibrium constants for the partial hydrolysis products.? (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/letter2.jpg)

A layperson may find this unintelligible but it shows the basic level of science that wasn?t undertaken by government officials before introducing silicofluorides into the US environment and population.

Recent research by Masters et al show that children who drink silicofluoridated water have higher blood lead levels than children who live in sodium fluoridated or non-fluoridated communities (1).

According to Masters (2) ?... animal studies in the 1930's showed substantial differences in metabolism between sodium silicofluoride and sodium fluoride ... Other research also suggests differences in fluoride metabolism from these chemicals...Of particular importance is a German study revealing that silicofluorides have biological effects which could increase vulnerability to environmental toxins and modify behavior (Westendorf 1975).

?All of the fluoride chemicals used in the U.S. for water fluoridation, sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid, are byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry.? according to Thomas G. Reeves, P.E., fluoridation engineer, US Centers for Disease Control.

It?s unbelievable that these chemicals, undisclosed to consumers and voluntarily added to water supplies, contain arsenic; but they do. ?Arsenic, according to NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) tests, had an average of 0.43 ug/L [parts per billion] in the drinking water attributable to the fluoride chemical,? writes Reeves.

END



1) ?Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead,? NeuroToxicology, December 2000, Masters, Coplan, Hone, Dykes

2) )
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/AHABS/welcome.html

Source: New York State Coalition Oppposed to Fluoridation
PO Box 263,
Old Bethpage, New York
[email protected]

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://tinyurl.com/ad9k

Fluoride Action Network
http://www.fluoridealert.org

 

[DrJeff]

NYSCOF so now lets see how you're doing your best to contradict yourself here. In the first post you made about the "supposed" link between fluoridation level and I.Q., based on your selective quotes it implies that the Fluoride in that Chinese data samples was naturally occurring, not artificial, and now you're throwing out the artificially fluoridated line of attack. Please, atleast use some consistancy in your scare tatic line of attack.

Plus, just think about it, if the vast majority of dentists practicing are strongly in favor of, and staunch supporters of fluoridation, a process by which we will very likely actually be DECREASING the amount of work we do, and hence our profits, that should stand up and make you take notice. BTW, when was the last time that a lawyer actually lobbied hard for something that would decrease their amount of potential work and hence profits??? Just keep sending out your press releases, and maybe if your lucky one day some second rate TV news magazine will interview you on camera and give you your 15 minutes of fame!😡

 

[ItsGavinC]

nyscof,

Your propaganda is just that and nothing more.

 

[ItsGavinC]

Originally posted by nyscof

The EPA was ?unable to find any information on the effects of silicofluorides on health and behavior,? according to a November 16, 2000, letter.

Glad to see that you agree that there are NO adverse health risks, much less a lower IQ, related to fluoride.

 

[ItsGavinC]

Originally posted by nyscof

Unlike other chemical additives that make water safer and more palatable to drink, added fluoride treats people, not water, for a disease they may never have - tooth decay.

Hmm, a disease they may never have. I'd like to see what percentage of Americans don't currently have tooth decay.

Dr. Dillenburg, mentioned in Dr. Jeff's article and the Dean of my school, recently mentioned that 92% of 7 year-olds in the US have tooth decay. Sounds like nearly everybody to me.

 

[DrJeff]

Now, before NYSCOF jumps in here with some spin on the caries incidence/water fluoridation and that it may not be working, lets take a minute and teach some cariology(thats the dental term NYSCOF for the tooth decay process) for his behalf, since I'm sure that's not in the law school curriculum.

Caries is a disease process caused by the bacteria Streptococcus Mutans(One could even argue that its the most prevalent disease process in the United States population). When sugar is ingested by an individual, those bacteria in your mouth ingest and digest this sugar. Since the bacteria are living, breathing creatures, when they eat something they make a waste product. In this case, the waste product is acid. Acid is then present in your mouth for about 30 minutes after each sugar ingestion. With frequent exposure to sugar over and extended periods of time, the acid can decalcify the enamel and eventually the underlying dentin of a tooth and thus form a carious lesion (a cavity).

Now NYSCOF, here may be your next crusade in your search for 15 minutes of fame. The US population as a whole has a sugar addiction. The food and beverage industry know and caters to this. From your extra light, sweet Starbucks in the morning(and often later in the day too), to your soda at lunch, to your nutrition bar in the afternoon, and your Gatorade after going to the gym, you can't get away from sugar! Now to really give you something to think about, just the soft drink industry in the US alone does 60 BILLION dollars in sales a year!! Also, as was cited in the ADA News a few weeks ago, the average size of a bottle of soda in the US has increased from 16oz to 20 oz in the last decade or so 😱 , and the average sugar content per oz of soda has increased almsot 25% over the same time frame😱 Thats a whole lot of well fed bacteria out there. Now, given the inhibatory effect that fluoride has on Streptococcus Mutans, if we do away with the fluoride in the water as you would laove to see, just imagine how much we could accelerate the rate of tooth decay in the US, hey 92% isn't good enough, lets go for 100%!! Even with advances in preventative dental techniques, our love affair with sugar(and lack of self control when it comes to sugar consumption) as a whole, the US is a mecca for tooth decay!

 

[Brand]

SAT math scores are the highest they have been in 35 years. In the last 35 years floride has invaded the country's water supply. My conclusion- floride makes you smarter. Makes sense, right?

 

[nyscof]

Dr Jeff

Man, I'd hate to be on the other end of the drill after you get off of the computer.

Thank you for taking the time to explain cariology in simple lay language.

So, is it true that if I avoid all sugars, brush three times a day with fluoridated toothpaste and see my dentist regularly, my teeth will be perfect, especially if I was born from a long line of perfect-toothed ancesters and no S. mutans crawled my gum line? (and I didn't meet you face-to-face with a plugged in drill)

The American Dental Association says sound teeth begin in the womb. Teeth need vitamin A, C, D, Calcium phosphates and more.

So if I do all those good things you advocate but avoid vitamin A, C, D, calcium and phosphate, will my teeth still be caries-free.

Since calcium and phosphate are always leaving and entering the tooth surface during acid attacks and then remineralization via saliva, one would think that I have to eat enough foods containing calcium and phosphates to have good teeth.

Poor diet is linked to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay in this country regardless of fluoride use. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you have a study to cite that shows how fluoride is beneficial to people who eat poorly

Fluoridation promises to level cavity rates between poor and non-poor, but fails, according to two studies in the May-June, 2002, "Pediatric Dentistry."

Low-income pre-schoolers, from northern Manhattan, New York City (100% fluoridated), have significantly more cavities than pre-schoolers nationwide (62% fluoridated) and average more tooth decay than the entire U.S. population(1). Researchers report about one third of northern Manhattan's pre-school children studied averaged 6.39 decayed or filled tooth surfaces.

Maryland's poor 3- to 5-year-old's cavity rates are even worse. Despite Maryland's significant fluoridation rate (85.8%), "(t)he percentage of children with (cavities) increased by age, from 43% for three-year-olds to 62% for four-year-olds,"(2) report Maryland researchers.

Even avid fluoride promoters admit fluoridation's failure:

"...children with extreme (dental) disease often overwhelm the expected benefits (of fluoridation) and continue to develop new cavities despite fluoridated water availability," writes Columbia University's Burton L. Edelstein DDS who is also Director, Children's Dental Health Project(3). Edelstein reports that (85.9% fluoridated) Connecticut's poor, pre-school children's cavities increased despite water fluoridation.

Despite this evidence fluoridation proponents continue to spread misinformation. This from Chemical & Engineering News
http://pubs.acs.org/email/cen/html/082603162351.html


"Although the NRC panel's formal charge does not include an examination of the benefits of fluoride, William R. Maas, director of the division of oral health at the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, spoke for nearly an hour, defending water fluoridation...Twelve-year-old children who have lived in areas with fluoridated drinking water all their lives have on average 1.6 fewer cavities than children with no exposure to fluoridation, Maas said. Put another way, 12-year-old children in fluoridated areas have an average of 4.25 decayed, missing, or filled tooth surfaces out of a total of 128 surfaces, while 12-year-old children in fluoridated areas have 2.81 cavities out of a possible 128. This represents a 39% reduction in decay from fluoridation, he said."

(1) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=
PubMed&list_uids=12064497&dopt=Abstract

(2) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=
PubMed&list_uids=12064502&dopt=Abstract

(3) Access to Dental Care for Head Start Enrollees:
www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/about/init_pri/oralpaper/dental.htm

 

[Brand]

nyscof,
You aren't serious? Come on, are you even reading what you are posting?

You compared children in Harlem to the average national child, not flouride vs. no flouride. How are you missing this?

 

[nyscof]

Originally posted by Brand
nyscof,
You aren't serious? Come on, are you even reading what you are posting?

You compared children in Harlem to the average national child, not flouride vs. no flouride. How are you missing this?

Harlem is 100% fluoridated and the U.S. is about 62% fluoridated.
Harlem children should have lower tooth decay rates than nationally, if what your fluoridation claims are to be believed..

 

[ItsGavinC]

This is a little bit off topic, but I think this thread serves as a good example of the mentally of some people.

MANY students/pre-dents post questions here regarding the "caries vaccine" and how it will affect dentistry. This thread is a case in point: people will always fight against actions that promote good oral health, usually through their ignorance and misunderstanding of the subject. And, even moreso, there will always be a portion of the population that won't fight, but just won't care.

Our profession will be seeing plenty of business in the years to come, regardless of flouridation or caries vaccines.

 

[MsPurtell]

What a crock of ****.

 

[Brand]

Cavities persist in northern Manhattan because the children receive zero care. It has nothing to do with flouride. Yes, since they have treated water they should have lower tooth decay. However, they receive absolutely NO care. The question you should be asking is how often does a child in Harlem brush their teeth compared to the national average.

This arguement is pointless. I think I will start a new one. Studies show that 100% of obese people eat food. Conclusion- eating makes you obese. If you want to be healthy avoid eating.

 

[UBTom]

Nyscof/Mr. Beeber,

Sorry, but your comparison between Harlem children and the rest of the country's children is NOT valid. It appears you don't know much about epidemiology, let alone dentistry.

A more valid comparison would be to see if there are differences in DMFT between kids in Harlem and another neighborhood of similar socioeconomic status but without fluoridation. This eliminates socioeconomics as a variable.

You seem to think that dentists are arguing that fluoridation on its own is a cure for caries, but that is not what dentists are saying. What dentists are saying is that fluoridation is an important component of an overall comprehensive strategy to reducing caries, to be administered alongside other measures such as sealants, cleanings, oral health education and dietary education. These measures when implemented TOGETHER, has a synergistic effect-- Far more effective than when each component is implemented only on its own. The whole is far greater than the sum of the parts. THAT is what Dr. Edelstein is saying. But you took his quote and twisted it to sound like dentists advocated fluoridation as a miracle cure but could not deliver. This is a prime example of why people think lawyers like you are scum.

Socioeconomics is a powerful variable-- Kids in a richer middle-class or well-to-do neighborhood like Douglaston in Queens for example will have access to all those caries prevention measures in addition to fluoridation (from the same NYC water supply as Harlem!), all of which work together to dramatically reduce caries for kids there. Meanwhile the only thing Harlem kids have going for them is fluoridation, with limited access to the other components needed to make caries prevention a comprehensive effort. So of course Harlem kids will have higher DMFT than the kids from the rest of the country, but it is due to socioeconomics and not fluoridation as you arrogantly thought.

Then you have the gall to criticize the ADA as a mere "union representing dentist interests" and implying that somehow the ADA and dentists stand to profit from fluoridation or some other imagined self-serving motive. FYI, the ADA is a GOVERNING BODY of the dental profession, just as the American Bar Association is the governing body of the law profession. NO ONE BUT DENTISTS are qualified to govern the dental profession. I'm sure that you as a lawyer wouldn't want dentists, physicians or any other non-lawyer types to govern the ABA.

I suggest you leave dentistry to the professionals who actually did study the problem FOR AT LEAST FOUR YEARS of their lives and at far greater depths than you ever did. If you are that interested, go to dental school and earn a DDS degree. A dentist wouldn't presume to know more about law than you; with just a JD you are wrong to presume you know more about dentistry than a dentist.

 

[DrJeff]

Originally posted by nyscof

So, is it true that if I avoid all sugars, brush three times a day with fluoridated toothpaste and see my dentist regularly, my teeth will be perfect, especially if I was born from a long line of perfect-toothed ancesters and no S. mutans crawled my gum line? (and I didn't meet you face-to-face with a plugged in drill)

Umm, frankly NYSCOF, the answer to this is YES!! The key here is the "food" source for Streptococcus Mutans, sugar. If you don't ingest it, they can't break it down and make acid, and tooth decay is a non issue. Hence the research into a "caries vaccine", where many preliminary forms of this "vaccine" are actually inhibatory agents to block the sugar metabolism by the Strep Mutans.

Your selected NYC study groups again are wonderfull isolated examples of how one can micro mange data to distort the main underlying concepts. I will guarentee that the caries rates in less affluent areas are greater than those in more affluent areas, and this is a very poor statement about how the education/social programs are failing in the US, and how lack of supervision of the dietary intake of children by parents is the major factor in this issue.

Go ahead, fire away, lets see what varied, micro managed paper data you can come up with this time, verses what we in the profession actually see and treat on a daily basis.

 

[ItsGavinC]

Normally I'd urge us all not to feed the trolls, but this one is so cute and fun...

 

[nyscof]

Originally posted by DrJeff
Go ahead, fire away,

Ingested Fluoride Needless; Children Dangerously Overdosed, Studies Show

New York -- May 15, 2003 -- Swallowed fluoride is not essential to prevent cavities and has no nutritional need, according to prominent dental researchers who found that many American children ingest too much fluoride that can decay teeth and damage bones.

"Current evidence strongly suggests that fluorides work primarily by topical means through direct action on the teeth and dental plaque. Thus ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries prevention," report Warren and Levy in Dental Clinics of North America, April 2003.(1)

Fluoride, swallowed from water, foods & supplements or absorbed from toothpaste, can create fluorosed (discolored) and, in severe cases, brittle teeth.

"There has been an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis," reports Steven Levy, DDS, Professor, University of Iowa, in the May 2003 Journal of the Canadian Dental Association(2) while cavities in primary teeth are still a problem(3). "With more severe forms of fluorosis, caries (cavity) risk increases because of pitting and loss of the outer enamel," writes Levy.

Levy, also Principle Investigator of the Iowa Fluoride Study, ongoing for more than a decade, measures children's fluoride intake, food and beverage fluoride levels, and relates it to fluorosis, cavities and bone development.

"At low levels of chronic exposure such as with optimally fluoridated water, fluoride appears to slightly increase trabecular bone mass ...," writes Levy and Warren.

Other researchers report fluoride thickens but weakens bones(4).

90% of 3-month-olds, Levy studied, consumed over their recommended 0.01 mg daily-fluoride-dose from water, supplements and/or dentifrice. Some babies ingest over 6 mg fluoride daily, above what the Environmental Protection Agency says is safe to avoid crippling skeletal fluorosis(4).

"There is no specific nutritional requirement for fluoride...given the increased prevalence of fluorosis, it may be necessary to revise downward the adequate intake levels for fluoride," write Levy and Warren.

"The optimal level of fluoride intake is not known with certainty," writes Levy.

"Total fluoride intake is the true fluorosis risk factor However, this is very difficult to quantify," writes Levy who found:

? 77% of soft drinks had fluoride levels greater than 0.60 ppm (or 0.60 mg in approximately one quart)

? Two ounces daily baby chicken food provides their maximum dose

? Children's specially-flavored toothpaste increases fluoride ingestion

? Soy-based infant formulas deliver more fluoride than milk-based

? Other foods high in fluoride: teas, dry infant cereals, dried chicken, fish and seafood products

? Fluoridated water added to powdered concentrate ups fluorosis risk

? Grape juices, especially white, contain very high fluoride levels

? 42% of all tested juices and juice drinks had fluoride levels greater than 0.6 ppm

? Fluoride supplements are generally not recommended

? Cereals processed in a fluoridated area contained from 3.8 to 6.3 ppm fluoride

"Since systemic fluoride is non-essential and ineffective, fluoridation is scientifically indefensible, harmful and should cease," says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

Oral Health America gives the U.S. a dismal oral health grade of C (6). This, in spite of almost 60 years of water fluoridation and its "halo" effect extending into non-fluoridated communities, fluoridated toothpaste becoming a billion dollar industry, growing numbers of hidden fluoride exposure from foods and dental products such as filling materials, cements, and sealants, and more dental social programs.

Yet, poor oral health is still a significant health problem for young people entering the military like it was in World War II, when fluoride was just a twinkle in the dentist's eye


References:

(1) "Current and future role of fluoride in nutrition," Warren & Levy, Dental Clinics of North America 47(2003)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12699229&dopt=Abstract

(2) "An Update on Fluorides and Fluorosis," Levy, Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, May 2003
http://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-69/issue-5/286.pdf

(3) News Release "Iowa Fluoride Study marks 10 years of studying children's dental health," Dec. 11, 200l
http://www.uiowa.edu/~ournews/2001/december/1211fluoride-study.html

(4) http://www.slweb.org/fluoride-bone.html

(5) http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/referenced_docs/fluor_c.html

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/drinking/standards/dwstandards.pdf

(6) http://www.oralhealthamerica.org/Report Card.htm

 

[UBTom]

Mr. Beeble/nyscof/whatever the hell you call yourself,

Once again, you are doing what lawyer scum does best-- Selectively take parts of quotes to twist the author's meaning and omit facts that you don't find convenient for your ends.

For your information, Dr. Levy's paper says, and I quote, "Skeletal fluorosis is extremely rare in North America."

But you conveniently omit that from your piece and claim "American children ingest too much fluoride that can decay teeth and damage bones," and have the audacity to cite Dr. Levy as your source. You seem to have a real nasty habit of picking only what you want to see out of a research article and ignoring the rest of the paper whenever it suits you. News flash, amigo-- science doesn't work that way.

And again, your lack of knowledge in epidemiology rears its ugly head. Dental fluorosis in kids has an increased prevalence NOT because of fluoridated water, but because many parents don't know that they shouldn't use fluoride toothpaste (which is 1000 times more concentrated than fluoridated drinking water) on their kids until after age 6. Since you are not a dentist, of course you are ignorant of the fact that dentists actually DO recommend the use of non-fluoride toothpaste for kids under six.

Then you have the gall to list foods like juice, cereal, baby chicken food, and SODA (!), WHICH ARE HIGH IN REFINED FERMENTABLE SUGARS and are the real cause of tooth decay, and try to pin the cause of the resulting tooth decay on what little fluoride they contain! You sure are doing wonders for your credibility.

Your "dentistry expert" act is fraudulent when all you have is a law degree and zero professional-level dental education.

 

[nyscof]

Originally posted by DrJeff
Umm, frankly NYSCOF, the answer to this is YES (to the question posed by NYSCOF: "So if I do all those good things you advocate but avoid vitamin A, C, D, calcium and phosphate, will my teeth still be caries-free.

What are the causes of rickets?

The main cause of rickets is the deficiency of vitamin D caused in the body during childhood

What are the symptoms associated with rickets?

Increased incidence of cavities in the teeth (dental caries).

http://www.medindia.net/Patients/PatientInfo/rickets.asp
--
From Science News, Vol. 161, No. 25, June 22, 2002, p. 388

Enough Isn't Enough: An epidemic of vitamin D deficiency
Ben Harder

http://www.sciencenews.org/20020622/fob3.asp

In the early part of this century, it was believed that as many as 90 % of children in some of the crowded cities of northern Europe and the northern U.S. had rickets. Since the addition of vitamin D to milk products, however, this disease had virtually vanished.
Recently, though, the problem has begun to resurface, with cases noted throughout the U.S., even in sunny climates

 

[aphistis]

You REALLY don't know when to give up, do you? This is beginning to move into systemic physiology, so I'll chime in.

Ricketts-derived undercalcification of the bones and teeth is completely separate from caries. An oral cavity with soft teeth but no cariogenic sugars and/or bacteria WILL NOT DEVELOP dental caries. Sure, you'll have monster attrition, and you'll be more likely to fracture the teeth, but you can't have caries if there's A) no bacteria in your mouth, OR B) there's nothing for said bacteria to metabolize into acid. Ain't no way, no how, period. Now, for the hundredth time, go back to your law texts and quit harassing those of us who know two things about human biology.

 

[nyscof]

Originally posted by UBTom
Your "dentistry expert" act is fraudulent when all you have is a law degree and zero professional-level dental education.

Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water

Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
124 Edward St., Toronto, Ontario, M5G-1G6
E-mail:[email protected]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April, 2000

To whom it may concern:

Since April of 1999, I have publicly decried the addition of fluoride, especially hydrofluosilicic acid, to drinking water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay. The following summarize my reasons.

New evidence for lack of effectiveness of fluoridation in modern times.

1. Modern studies (published in the 1980's 1990's) show dental decay rates are so low in North America that the effects of water fluoridation cannot be measured. Because of the low prevalence of dental decay, water fluoridation studies today must be carefully conducted to correct for mobility of subjects between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, access to fluoride from other sources, the lack of blinding and problems with the `halo' effect. Even when very large sample sizes are used to obtain statistically significant results, the benefit of water fluoridation is not a clinically relevant one (the number of tooth surfaces saved from dental decay per person is less than one half). Recent studies show that halting fluoridation will either result in only a marginal increase in dental decay which cannot be detected or no increase in dental decay at all.

2. The major reasons for the general decline of tooth decay worldwide, both in non-fluoridated and fluoridated areas, is the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste, improved diets, and overall improved general and dental health (antibiotics, preservatives, hygiene etc).

3. There is now a better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental decay. What little benefit fluoridated water may still provide is derived primarily through topical means (after the teeth erupt and come in contact with fluorides in the oral cavity). Fluoride does not need to be swallowed to be effective. It is not an essential nutrient. Nor should it be considered a desirable `supplement' for children living in non-fluoridated areas. Fluoride ingestion delays tooth eruption and this may account for some of the differences seen in the past between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas (i.e. dental decay is simply postponed). No fluoridation study has ever separated out the systemic effects of fluoride. Even if there were a systemic benefit from ingestion of fluoride, it would be miniscule and clinically irrelevant. The notion that systemic fluorides are needed in non-fluoridated areas is an outdated one that should be abandoned altogether.

New evidence for potential serious harm from long-term fluoride ingestion.

1. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer and sold to most of the major cities in North America, which use this industrial grade source of fluoride to fluoridate drinking water, rather than the more expensive pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride salt. Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans. Furthermore, these industrial-grade chemicals are contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium that accumulate in humans. Increased lead levels have been found in children living in fluoridated communities. Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has been shown to be associated with radium in the drinking water. Long-term ingestion of these harmful elements should be avoided altogether.

2. Half of all ingested fluoride remains in the skeletal system and accumulates with age. Several recent epidemiological studies suggest that only a few years of fluoride ingestion from fluoridated water increases the risk for bone fracture. The relationship between the milder symptoms of bone fluorosis (joint pain and arthritic symptoms) and fluoride accumulation in humans has never been investigated. People unable to eliminate fluoride under normal conditions (kidney impairment) or people who ingest more than average amounts of water (athletes, diabetics) are more at risk to be affected by the toxic effects of fluoride accumulation.

3. There is a dose-dependent relationship between the prevalence/severity of dental fluorosis and fluoride ingestion. When dental decay rates were high, a certain amount of dental fluorosis was considered an acceptable `trade off' of providing an `optimum' dose of 1.0 ppm fluoride in the water. However, studies published in the 1980's and 1990's have shown that dental fluorosis has increased dramatically in North America. Infants and toddlers are especially at risk for dental fluorosis of the front teeth since it is during the first 3 years of life that the permanent front teeth are the most sensitive to the effects of fluoride. Children fed formula made with fluoridated tap water are at higher risk to develop dental fluorosis. A relatively small percentage of the children affected with dental fluorosis have the more severe kind that requires extensive restorative dental work to correct the damage. The long-term effect of fluoride accumulation on dentin colour and biomechanics is also unknown. Generalized dental fluorosis of all the permanent teeth indicates that the bone is a major source of the excess fluoride. The effect of this excess amount of fluoride in bone is unknown. Whether stress bone fractures occur more often in children with dental fluorosis has not been studied.

4. A lifetime of excessive fluoride ingestion will undoubtedly have detrimental effects on a number of biological systems in the body and it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion. Fluoride activates G-protein and a number of cascade reactions in the cell. At high concentrations it is both mitogenic and genotoxic. Some published studies point to fluoride's interference with the reproductive system, the pineal gland and thyroid function. Fluoride is a proven carcinogen in humans exposed to high industrial levels. No study has yet been conducted to determine the level of fluoride that bone cells are exposed to when fluoride-rich bone is turned over. Thus, the issue of fluoride causing bone cancer cannot be dismissed as being a non-issue since carefully conducted animal and human cancer studies using the exact same chemicals added to our drinking water have not been carried out.

The issue of mass medication of an unapproved drug without the expressed informed consent of each individual must also be addressed. The dose of fluoride cannot be controlled. Fluoride as a drug has contaminated most processed foods and beverages throughout North America. Individuals who are susceptible to fluoride's harmful effects cannot avoid ingesting this drug. This presents a medico-legal and ethical dilemma and sets water fluoridation apart from vaccination as a public health measure where doses and distribution can be controlled. The rights of individuals to enjoy the freedom from involuntary fluoride medication certainly outweigh the right of society to enforce this public health measure, especially when the evidence of benefit is marginal at best.

Based on the points outlined briefly above, the evidence has convinced me that the benefits of water fluoridation no longer outweigh the risks. The money saved from halting water fluoridation programs can be more wisely spent on concentrated public health efforts to reduce dental decay in the populations that are still at risk and this will, at the same time, lower the incidence of the harmful side effects that a large segment of the general population is currently experiencing because of this outdated public health measure.

Sincerely,

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochemistry) DDS

Head, Preventive Dentistry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
http://www.slweb.org/limeback.html

 

[UBTom]

Mr. Beeber,

Your "dentistry expert" act IS fraudulent when all you have is a law degree and zero professional-level dental education.

Don't hide behind Limeback, I'm talking about the drivel YOU have been posting.

Here's a reminder of your transgression, amigo:

For your information, Dr. Levy's paper says, and I quote, "Skeletal fluorosis is extremely rare in North America."

But you conveniently omit that from your piece and claim "American children ingest too much fluoride that can decay teeth and damage bones," and have the audacity to cite Dr. Levy as your source.

Let's set that aside for a minute. I encourage those who are unbiased to look at the World Health Organization's OBJECTIVE findings after a survey of data spanning from 1940 to 1992 that presents the facts without the irrational alarmist interjections. I think we all can agree 1992 is quite recent and NOT "outdated 40-year-old data.":

http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ/draftchemicals/fluoride2003.pdf (Complete with journal citations.)

Unlike you, I won't insult the reader's intelligence by cutting only select parts and pasting them here to distort the issue-- One needs to read the WHOLE thing and evaluate the ENTIRE DATA SET for themselves, rather than read just injections of SUBJECTIVE opinion like you have been posting that had previously undergone your lawyer-scum quote-twisting treatment.

 

[aphistis]

Best way to get rid of a troll is to stop feeding it, folks.

 

[ItsGavinC]

But like I said before, it's so fun!

BUT IN ALL HONESTY: why is this guy posting here anyways?!

We all have a higher education than he does regarding this, and none of our opinions are going to be changed.

Weird waste of time, if you ask me.

 

[groundhog]

I remember the kid who did a "fluoridation is a communist plot" oratory as his "move to action" assignment in our freshman speech class. The professor was not ammused. However, the remainder of the class sure enjoyed the prof's not so private evaluation of that performance.

 

[grimace]

NYSCOF-

With so much "scientific evidence" that you have been able to come up with, why hasn't there been any successful lawsuits attributed to fluoride or it's effects? They have been attempted many times over and failed from the start. Surely someone with a one-dimensional lawyer thought process can surely appreciate the lack of evidence that has been prevalent in a court of law. If it is so obvious to you, why has it never been shown legally?😕

 

[aphistis]

Because he's the only attorney in Christendom with the vision to see the atrocities dentists are committing against helpless children across America! To arms! To arms!

🙄

 

[nyscof]

Originally posted by grimace
NYSCOF-
With so much "scientific evidence" that you have been able to come up with, why hasn't there been any successful lawsuits attributed to fluoride or it's effects? They have been attempted many times over and failed from the start. Surely someone with a one-dimensional lawyer thought process can surely appreciate the lack of evidence that has been prevalent in a court of law. If it is so obvious to you, why has it never been shown legally?😕

Fluoridation was condemned on the evidence by Judge Flaherty (who also holds a science degree) in a Pennsylvania case which was overturned, not on the merits, but because it was up to the lawyers errr legislators to decide whether or not to fluoridate constituents.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice John P. Flaherty, after holding a lengthy series of judicial hearings, issued an injunction against the use of fluoride: "The evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply...is extremely deleterious to the human body. A review of evidence will disclose that there was no evidence to the contrary... Prior to my hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any thought... I seriously believe that few responsible people have objectively reviewed the evidence." (5)

Justice Flaherty Reaffirms His Decision

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1978, Judge John P. Flaherty made a landmark decision in a major court trial with lengthy hearings and almost 3,000 pages of testimony that he was "compellingly convinced" of the serious health hazards of fluoridation. His scientific background makes his decision even more significant.


More recently, some people have pointed out that Judge Flaherty's decision was overturned on appeal and they assumed that therefore fluoridation wasn't really proved to be harmful. Now a member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Justice Flaherty clarified that his decision to end fluoridation was overturned only on the grounds that his court did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue. In a letter dated January 5, 1996, Judge Flaherty states,


Thank you for your letter. My decision regarding the fluoridation of the public water supply, made during my tenure as a trial judge almost twenty years ago, was on appeal, purely a jurisdictional issue, thus you are totally correct in your understanding.
Over the years the scientific establishment has taken a more serious interest in the subject of fluoridation than it did at the time I made my ruling. Responsible concerns have been expressed in respected scientific publications, and statistics, then seriously sascrosanct, now questioned. That the practice is deleterious is more and more accepted -- its utility doubted, yet there remain those who promote the practice!

In 1988, Justice Flaherty re-affirmed his convictions that fluoridation is a very dangerous practice. In a letter dated January 26, 1988 he stated,


It has been years now since the case involving fluoridation was before me as a trial judge, but since that time nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that indepth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.
Whether government has the right to force what it perceives as a benefit to the public was not directly before me in the case, but that also is to be pondered

 

[nyscof]

Originally posted by UBTom


For your information, Dr. Levy's paper says, and I quote, "Skeletal fluorosis is extremely rare in North America."


[

Research from India shows that fluoride can make people sick; but improved diet and complete fluoride withdrawal can relieve symptoms, according to the May-June, 2002, ?Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry.?(a)

Fluoride?s harmful health effects, except to teeth, are rarely studied in the U.S. and, in fact, are often discouraged(b). Also never studied, incredibly, are the most widely-used artificial fluoride chemicals Americans drink daily(c) - silicofluorides, derived from fertilizers, purposely added to water supplies, at about 1 milligram fluoride per quart of water, in an attempt to reduce tooth decay.

In areas of India, where food and water are naturally fluoride-abundant, severe fluoride toxicity is common and manifests as debilitating and disfiguring diseases(d). Well-known is that fluoride excess irreversibly cripples bones and crumbles teeth (fluorosis).

Lesser-known are early fluorosis warning signs, or soft tissue toxicity, whose manifestations and resulting clinical complaints are reversible with a diet adequate in calcium, vitamins C, E, other antioxidants and withdrawal of all fluoride sources (the intervention), report researchers Madhu Bhatnager and Professor (Dr.) A.K. Susheela, the CEO and Director of India?s Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation.

In only one of their many fluoride studies showing fluoride?s adverse effects even at low levels, Susheela and Bhatnager examined ten patients (6 males, 4 females; ages ranging from 8-60 years) having clinical symptoms suggestive of fluoride poisoning. Blood, urine and drinking water samples were collected. Water samples contained 0.l4, 0.38, 0.90, l.06, 2.00, 1.74, 3.00, 5.80, 26.07 and 29.00 milligrams fluoride per liter (approximately a quart). Some patients with fluorosis consumed safe water but ingested fluoride through food and/or other fluoride sources.

After a year on the intervention, serum and urine fluoride levels dropped significantly with patients? complete relief from joint pain and rigidity, polyuria (frequent urination), polydipsia (constant thirst), muscle weakness, and gastrointestinal complaints, some alleviated after only 10-15 days.

Dr. Susheela researches fluoride extensively (http://education.vsnl.com/fluorosis/publication.html). In this study, Susheela and Bhatnager write: ?It is now an established fact that fluoride ingestion over a period of time can affect the structure and function of cells, tissues, organs and systems resulting in a variety of clinical manifestations. (For example🙂

1) aches and pain in the joints, i.e. neck, back, hip, shoulder and knee without visible signs of fluid accumulation

2) non-ulcer dyspepsia such as nausea, vomiting, pain in the stomach, bloated feeling or gas formation in the stomach, constipation followed by diarrhea

3) polyuria (frequent urination) and polydipsia (excessive thirst)

4) muscle weakness, fatigue, anemia with low hemoglobin level

5) complaints of repeated abortions/still birth

6) complaints of male infertility with abnormality in sperm morphology, oligospermia (spermatozoa deficiency in the semen), azoospermia (spermatozoa absence in the semen) and low testosterone levels.?

Susheela and Bhatnager recommend physicians consider fluoride toxicity for the above-listed patient complaints and/or any loss of shine or discoloration in the patient?s front row of teeth, which may be due to dental fluorosis.

?Americans are unaware that their arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome or other symptoms may be fluoride-related,? says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. ?This information should be heeded by physicians and members of the medical and scientific communities. Dr. Susheela is a world authority on the health effects of fluoride to the human body,? says Beeber.

?Pediatricians need to be educated about fluorosis. Perhaps water fluoridation and indiscriminate promotion of fluoridated dental products in the name of prevention of dental caries (cavities) need to be reviewed,? writes Susheela and Bhatnager To arrive at a definitive fluorosis diagnosis, Susheela and Bhatnager:

(1) measure fluoride levels in drinking water, blood (serum), and urine. Twenty-four hour urine is ideal. Samples are collected in plastic, not glass, containers because fluoride reacts with silica in glass resulting in unreliable data.

(2) take radiographs of the region or joint where the patient had complaints such as pain and stiffness

(3) take forearm X-rays to look for interosseous membrane calcification. The forearm X-ray is essential for diagnosis of fluorosis at early stages and to distinguish fluorosis from other orthopedic conditions. ?This is an important message as forearm X-ray is only requested for diagnosing fluorosis. In patients with fluorosis and osteomalacia, increases in bone mass and bone density may not appear, but ligaments would reveal calcification.? they write.

?U.S. studies show American children are fluoride saturated, ruining their teeth with dental fluorosis; yet cavity rates are rising,? says Beeber. ?These children should be studied for fluoride?s other adverse health effects and correlated to essential nutrient consumption and cavities.?





References.

(a) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12162452&dopt=Abstract

(b) http://www.fluoridealert.org/mullenix.htm

(c )http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf

(d) http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluorosis-india.htm

(e) September, 2001, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, ?Fluoride Content of Foods Made with Mechanically Separated Chicken,? by Fein and Cerklewski http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11559124&dopt=Abstract

(f) http://bruha.com/fluoride/html/f-_in_food.html

(g) ASCD J Dent Child 2001 Jan-Feb, ?Fluoride content of infant formulas prepared with deionized, bottled mineral and fluoridated drinking water http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11324405&dopt=Abstract

(h)Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2002 Aug, "Primary tooth fluorosis and fluoride intake during the first year of life," Levy SM, et al http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12147170&dopt=Abstract

(i) March 1999 Journal of the American Dental Association ?Fluorosis of the primary dentition: what does it mean for permanent teeth?? by Warren JJ, Kanellis MJ, Levy SM http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10085657&dopt=Abstract

 

[nyscof]

Originally posted by aphistis
You REALLY don't know when to give up, do you? This is beginning to move into systemic physiology, so I'll chime in.

Ricketts-derived undercalcification of the bones and teeth is completely separate from caries. An oral cavity with soft teeth but no cariogenic sugars and/or bacteria WILL NOT DEVELOP dental caries. Sure, you'll have monster attrition, and you'll be more likely to fracture the teeth, but you can't have caries if there's A) no bacteria in your mouth, OR B) there's nothing for said bacteria to metabolize into acid. Ain't no way, no how, period. Now, for the hundredth time, go back to your law texts and quit harassing those of us who know two things about human biology.

Did you miss me?

Ted Spence, a doctor of naturopathy, certified herbalist, and certified nutritionist who has been a family dentist for 25 years on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, disagrees with the NIDCR's recommendation that fluoride be used to re-mineralize children's teeth at the white lesion stage. Instead, he recommends a nutritional approach.21


"The health of a baby's teeth begins with conception," Spence emphasizes. "A mother's diet is critical, as is the child's diet after birth." Over the years, Spence has treated tooth decay in young patients with vitamin D therapy. "I have seen soft teeth harden after cod liver oil and lots of butter are added to the diet." Sunshine, cod-liver oil, fortified dairy products, butter, eggs, liver, and oily fish like salmon and tuna are sources of vitamin D. (Since vitamin D is toxic at high levels and is stored in body fat, the RDA of 400 IUs should not be exceeded.)

"Our teeth naturally re-mineralize themselves with the calcium in our own saliva," Spence says. "We can assist this process by eating vitamin D-rich foods, which increase the absorption of calcium." Because fluoride is a neurotoxin and inhibits the absorption of calcium, Spence recommends against fluoride treatments. He also advises his patients to avoid sugar, on which the ECC bacteria thrive



Spence's nutritional suggestions are supported by a 1996 study that found that a combination of vitamin D, vitamin C, and calcium reversed early decay in children at the white lesion stage.22 And according to the NIDCR website, "Supplementing with vitamins during the first several years of life reduces the prevalence of linear enamel hypoplasia, a caries-associated condition common in lower-income populations that can increase the risk of caries as much as tenfold."23 According to an article in the Journal of Pediatrics, nutritional rickets, a result of a dietary deficiency of vitamin D, is making a comeback in the US, especially among dark-skinned infants--the same infants who are most at-risk for epidemic levels of ECC, according to the CDC, and the least likely to be breastfed, according to LLLI.24


http://www.mothering.com/10-0-0/html/10-7-0/cavities.shtml

 

[ItsGavinC]

Originally posted by nyscof
Did you miss me?

Nope. Just like I don't miss the caries I've prevented partly via flouride.

For the final time: WHY ARE YOU HERE? you aren't changing ANY of our opinions! YOUR opinion is of no value to us!

Spend your time elsewhere, ie, a place where you MIGHT have an inkling of a chance of convicing people of your viewpoint. WE DON'T CARE!

😀

 

[aphistis]

I've said my piece more than once. It's pretty apparent this guy is hopelessly ignorant and conjuring up logically invalid arguments.

Start with an abject failure of knowledge, stir in a handful of opinions from the lunatic fringe of health science, sprinkle liberally with the inability to recognize one's own ignorance. What do you have? nyscof. 😀

 

[DrQuinn]

Originally posted by aphistis
I've said my piece more than once. It's pretty apparent this guy is hopelessly ignorant and conjuring up logically invalid arguments.

Start with an abject failure of knowledge, stir in a handful of opinions from the lunatic fringe of health science, sprinkle liberally with the inability to recognize one's own ignorance. What do you have? nyscof. 😀

"hopelessly ignorant" "abject failure of knowledge" "lunatic fringe" "ignorance"...

Now now, be nice. Seriously, no need for personal attacks here, its an open public forum and I find this conversation interesting (although I"m not a dentist, I see conversations like this all the time in medicine).

Q, DO

 

[ItsGavinC]

Quinn, the trouble is that he isn't a dentist either!

I KNOW you sometimes face barriers communicating with lay people in the EM.

This is NOT two professionals throwing bits of data and research at each other in hopes of bettering the profession. This guy is a lawyer.