How We Got Fluoridated

Stop Fluoridation USA ^ | Unknown | Philip Heggen

[aruanan]

A anti-fluoridationist convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

[discostu]

Did they even believe in germ theory back then?

[TomB]

While you are flailing about wildly, could you please tell us specifically what diseases or other illnesses people suffer from when consuming normally fluoridated (0.8-1ppm) water?

[FormerLurker]

So posting the comments of a "past president" of the AMA WITHOUT mentioning it was SIXTY FIVE YEARS PAST

Now you are being DISHONEST Tom. First off, are you implying that Dr. Heyd WAS NOT a president of the AMA? You appear to be doing so with the use of your quotation marks. Secondly, WHEN EXACTLY do you think Dr. Heyd made those comments? Do you think he made them BEFORE OR AFTER fluoridation was taking place?

or personally awarding someone a Nobel Prize because you "think he deserved it" are only "minor inaccuracies". Geez, it hate to see what the major ones are.

If Dr. Mercola has an inaccuracy on his website, send him an email and ask him to correct it. I didn't quote from his site, you did. Dr. Mercola may have simply transposed the info incorrectly, who knows.. And as I said, compared to your DELIBERATE deception, the mistake is trivial.

You are building up quite an impressive list of goofs.

Not as impressive as yours pal. And it wasn't MY mistake, it was Dr. Mercola's...

Now tell me, why should anybody believe you?

Because I'm honest, unlike you.

[FormerLurker]

Ok aruanan and Tom, answer this question.

What is the solubility of calcium fluoride at 20 degrees Celcius?

[FormerLurker]

Those MD's simply believe the propaganda you and your ilk spew. The DENTISTS are REQUIRED to support fluoride, they have no choice..

According to Section 20 of the American Dental Association Code of Ethics, "Dentists' non-participation [ in fluoridation promotion] is overt neglect of professional responsibility." In recent years, several dentists who have testified on the anti-fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state dental officers. If a dentist speaks out against fluoridation, he could lose his license. This is professional and scientific censorship.

[TomB]

Now you are being DISHONEST Tom. First off, are you implying that Dr. Heyd WAS NOT a president of the AMA?

I was right, you are flailing. Here is what I said about the good doctor:

What they DON'T tell you is that Dr. Heyd was president of the AMA in 1937!

Now, unless you are speaking another language, or are brain damaged, it is plainly clear that I said SPECIFICALLY that Dr. Heyd was a president of the AMA. My problem is that you conviently forget to inform people he was president back before fluoridation began.

It is intentionally misleading that you leave that fact out when you refer to him as a "past president" of the AMA.

[FormerLurker]

Times ticking. Oh, are you filling caries between posts on FR Tom? How about you aruanan?

[FormerLurker]

Now, unless you are speaking another language, or are brain damaged, it is plainly clear that I said SPECIFICALLY that Dr. Heyd was a president of the AMA.

Well I suppose that we can all say that you are a "dentist" Tom. Although in YOUR case, I think the "quotes" are justified...

My problem is that you conviently forget to inform people he was president back before fluoridation began.

And how exactly does that effect his stature and reputation? Is he any less qualified to make that observation because he may not STILL HAVE BEEN president of the AMA when he made the statement? And if they KNEW fluoride to be toxic back THEN, why do you think it's any LESS toxic now?

It is intentionally misleading that you leave that fact out when you refer to him as a "past president" of the AMA.

I don't think so Tom. It's not like referring to fluoride workers as cavity free while neglecting to mention that fluoride caused all their teeth to fall out..

BTW, what is the solubility of calcium fluoride at 20 degrees Celsius?

[FormerLurker]

Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendations of the Natick Fluoridation Study Committee

[TomB]

Those MD's simply believe the propaganda you and your ilk spew. The DENTISTS are REQUIRED to support fluoride, they have no choice..

How convenient! Your list - good. My list - bad.

Anybody reading this now has lesson nember one why argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy.

Seeing as how half of your "esteemed voices" are made up of Dentists and Physicians, I guess we can invalidate your list too.

[FormerLurker]

Here's a little something on the "study" that you referenced..

York Report

[TomB]

Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendations of the Natick Fluoridation Study Committee

So we've gone from old doctors to committees.

You are desperate.

So tell me, what SPECIFIC diesases or other illness result from drinking properly fluoridated water?

[FormerLurker]

What is the solubility of calcium fluoride at 20 degrees Celsius?

[TomB]

Here's a little something on the "study" that you referenced..

Reviewed 3,231 studies - rejected 93% or 3,017 studies - used 214 studies.

They give specific reasons for rejecting those studies. Most of them were pro-fluoridation studies.

Excludes ALL animal and toxicological studies.

Yes, as I have been saying, since people have been consuming fluoride for decades (or centuries), in vitro studies (where you purposely poison a lab animal) are of no use when you can actually study effects first hand.

Ignored the question of Total Fluoride Intake from all sources.

Where do you find these websites? They are worthless:

12.7.2 Total fluoride exposure
There is some suggestion that total fluoride exposure has increased over recent years, particularly in industrialised nations. Exposure to fluoride from sources other than water may alter the amount required in water for optimum caries reduction and is thus a potential confounding factor in studies of the association between water fluoridation and negative effects. Because sources of fluoride exposure vary, this may be a difficult issue to examine, in that exposure would need to be measured at the person level, rather than at the population level. However, if two study areas are comparable, in all respects, the fluoride exposure from non-water sources (e.g. tea) should also be similar. There are studies that have measured total fluoride exposure in people exposed to fluoridated and nonfluoridated water, but these did not meet inclusion criteria for this review (Guha-Chowdhury, 1996, Mansfield, 1999). Because of potential toxicity of very high doses of fluoride, it would seem sensible that any future studies should attempt to measure total fluoride exposure in areas being researched.

Whoops.

At a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm, the prevalence of fluorosis was estimated to be 48%

"Fluorosis"? More blatant dishonesty. Of course the study was referring to dental fluorosis, which is common and not even noticable on most people. Other than light white spots on some teeth, there is NO OTHER EFFECT.

The possible negative effects of water fluoridation were examined as broadly as possible. The effects on dental fluorosis are the clearest. There is a dose-response relationship between water fluoride level and the prevalence of fluorosis. Fluorosis appears to occur frequently (predicted 48%, 95% CI 40 to 57) at fluoride levels typically used in artificial fluoridation schemes (1 ppm). The proportion of fluorosis that is aesthetically concerning is lower (predicted 12.5%, 95% CI 7.0 to 21.5)."

You really need to start reading these things before you post them.

[FormerLurker]

Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendations of the Natick Fluoridation Study Committee
So we've gone from old doctors to committees.

Er, not just ANY committee there TomB..

The Natick Fluoridation Committee consisted of the following team;

• Benedict J. Gallo, Ph.D. - Research Microbiologist, U.S. Army
• Jason Kuppershmidt, B. - Environmental Chemist
• Norman R. Mancuso, Ph.D. - Apollo Program Project Scientist
• Alfred J. Murray, M.S.T. - Researcher, U.S. Army Natick Research Labs
• Harlee S. Strauss, Ph.D. - Microbiologist

You are desperate.

You are pathetic.

So tell me, what SPECIFIC diesases or other illness result from drinking properly fluoridated water?

Read the Natick report, maybe you'll learn something..

And I'm STILL waiting for the answer from you and aruanan in relation to the solubility of calcium fluoride at 20 degrees Celsius...

[TomB]

Read the Natick report, maybe you'll learn something..

You don't really know, do you?

You run around screaming about how dangerous fluoridated water is, but when asked, can't even tell us what exactly it is doing to us.

Yep, real convincing.

[FormerLurker]

Where do you find these websites? They are worthless:

You've got to be kidding me. You post what looks like a page out of the phone book and call that "evidence", yet you play semantic games and attempt to ridicule valid comments?

First of all, your pal aruanan was caught red handed posting false info FROM A CDC webpage, where of course they disclaim any and all data there, as it is obviously DANGEROUSLY false. Yet, HE used it in an attempt to prove me wrong. You ridiculously cling to YOUR false claim that ALL calcium fluoride dissolves in water, where HE said NONE of it did. Yet neither YOU NOR HIM have come forward with a correction. Now THAT'S what I call dishonesty...

You try to twist the observation that the York study DID NOT take total fluoride into consideration, where they ADMIT RIGHT IN THE PARAGRAPH THAT YOU QUOTE THAT THEY DIDN'T...

Mentioning it is not the same as USING data from those studies that DID consider TOTAL fluoride intake. They even recommend that future studies SHOULD "attempt to measure total fluoride exposure in areas being researched.".

"Fluorosis"? More blatant dishonesty. Of course the study was referring to dental fluorosis, which is common and not even noticable on most people.

In one breath your saying they're dishonest for making the observation, and in the other you admit that they were right. Are you sipping to much "optimal" water Tom?

Other than light white spots on some teeth, there is NO OTHER EFFECT.

You mean like this?

Journal of the Canadian Dental Association

And actually, it is said that the teeth are a window as to what is going on with our bones.

You asked for studies, here's some you might like..

Bone structure assessment on radiographs of distal radial metaphysis in children with dental fluorosis

What are the long-term effects of ingesting fluoride on our bones? Fluoride is a bioaccumulator and is toxic to bones

Fluorosis appears to occur frequently (predicted 48%, 95% CI 40 to 57) at fluoride levels typically used in artificial fluoridation schemes (1 ppm).

What don't you understand concerning the above paragraph?

[FormerLurker]

You don't really know, do you?

Lowers IQ, causes cancer, skeletal fluorosis, hip fractures, and various neurological disorders. Fluoride treatments have enough fluoride to kill a small child.

You run around screaming about how dangerous fluoridated water is, but when asked, can't even tell us what exactly it is doing to us.

I've already told you MANY times, and have posted material related to those issues MANY times as well, so don't play stupid Tom..

[FormerLurker]

Care to answer the question yet, or retract some statements?

What is the solubility of calcium fluoride at 20 degrees Celsius?