Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows

Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows

 If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought. Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years,…


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Great topic that so few have delved into much or even know or consider the ramifications of Fluoridation.

    Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity

    FLUORIDE FACT # 1

    Consumption of Fluoridated Water Has Been Linked to Reduced IQ in Children
    A recently published Harvard University study found that children living in communities with high concentrations of fluoride in their water had IQ scores that were on average 7 points lower than those living in communities with low fluoride concentrations (Choi, Sun, Zhang & Grandjean, 2012)

    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ehp.1104912.pdf

    This study was reinforced by the even more recent 2015 pilot study published in the Journal of Neurotoxicology and Teratology which showed that “fluoride in drinking water may produce developmental neurotoxicity” (Anna L. Choi, Guifan Sun, Ying Zhang & Philippe Grandjean, 2012).

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036214001809

    • Steve Slott

      1. “Great topic that so few have delved into much or even know or consider the ramifications of fluoridation.”

      Only one who has no knowledge or understanding of the issue of water fluoridation would make such a ridiculous statement. Fluoridation is the most tested, poked, prodded, and discussed public health initiative in history. The amount of scientific literature on fluoridation would fill volumes upon volumes.

      2. See my above comment in regard to the long-since discredited 27 Chinese studies reviewed by Grandjean and Choi. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the ridiculous claims of “IQ reductions” putported to be associated with optimally fluoridated water.

      3. The “Pilot study” of Choi was in regard to high levels of fluoride in well-water of Chinese villages. It has no relevance to water fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.

      From the abstract:

      “A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on developmental fluoride neurotoxicity support the hypothesis that exposure to elevated concentrations of fluoride in water is neurotoxic during development.”

      —–http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036214001809

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Jan 29, 2008 Fluoride Poisoning – WSMV TV 4 Nashville

    Fluoride in the water supply is poison.

    https://youtu.be/4BvOHACfalI

    • Steve Slott

      Well, readers could access yet another little antifluoridationist website, “endfluoridetoronto”, full of nonsense and misinformation, or they could obtain accurate information from respected, authoritative sources. The websites of the US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Assoiation, the World Halth Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of such information readily available to anyone.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • nick quinlan

        Antiflouridationist? That’s a new one. You obviously have accepted the industry propaganda that says fluoride prevents cavities, which has been shown to be false. It is also dangerous. If you really are a dentist, you are not serving your patients interests, rather you are repeating the false government narrative.

        • Steve Slott

          Gee, more unsubstantiated nonsense from an uninformed antifluoridationist. Instead of wasting time posting erroneous junk, spoon-fed to you from antifluoridationist websites, you might want to consider at least attempting to properly educate yourself on this issue.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • nick quinlan

            You are just an industry shill, your posting history is entirely composed of promoting fluoride and disputing any information showing harmful effects of this toxin. You are a fraud and have no credibility, you operate exactly as do the Monsanto cheerleaders that claim to be farmers, as you claim to be a dentist.
            You embarrass yourself using a term like “antiflouridationist”, what a joke.

          • Steve Slott

            Oh gee, “industry shill”…….how original. That’s probably not copy/posted off of antifluoridationist websites more than a hundred times per day by spoon-fed antifluoridationists who haven’t the ability to think for themselves.

            Do yourself a favor….at least make an effort to learn something about this issue from proper sources, and quit making a fool of yourself posting ridiculous nonsense.

            Sreven D. Slott, DDS

          • Do you know of any “proper sources” that don’t subscribe to the same selective scientific publication regime that pro-fluoride professionals prefer?

          • Steve Slott

            I know of proper sources which rely upon valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence instead of filtered and edited nonsense posted on antifluoridationist websites.

            The webites of the US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation readily available to anyone. You should avail yourself of it.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • None of those organizations have an enviable record for veracity when providing information to the part of the earth’s population they regard as useless eaters.

          • johndmac

            Slott loves the CDC.

            Slott loves the CDC not:

          • You appear to be more adept at ad hominem than at dentistry. Perhaps DDS really stands for Doctor of Deceptive Science.

      • Or, we could be more selective in which lies we choose to perpetuate through medical journals.

        • Steve Slott

          I see you have provided no valid evidence, whatsoever, to support your paranoid claim of people lying. Given this, it is not hard to discern who actually is the one lying, here.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • It is also easy to discern which of us relies on ad hominem when ignoring the copious evidence against their position fails to convince anyone who has read the other than spoon-fed information.

  • MARCH 9, 2014 Harvard Says Fluoridated Water Is Causing Cognitive Disorders

    A newly published study in Harvard’s The Lancet weighs in on the toxins causing autism and ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) say that along with these numerous environmental toxins, fluoridated water is adding to the higher incident of both cognitive and behavioral disorders.

    http://naturalsociety.com/harvard-says-adhd-autism-caused-fluoridated-water/

    By 2006, 69.2% of the U.S. population on public water systems were receiving fluoridated water, amounting to 61.5% of the total U.S. population; 3.0% of the population on public water systems were receiving naturally occurring fluoride. In April 2015, fluoride levels in the United States were lowered for the first time in 50 years, to the minimum recommended levels of 0.7ppm, because too much fluoride exposure has become a common issue for children teeth, visible in the form of white splotches. The basis were the results of two national surveys (1999–2004 NHANES) which assessed the prevalence of dental fluorosis, and found that two out of five adolescents had tooth streaking or spottiness on their teeth – an increase of mostly very mild or mild forms.

    Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/?report=classic

    • Steve Slott

      The “Natural Society” article to which you provide a link is so full of garbled misinformation that it’s not even worth trying to sort out. I will, instead, provide the correct information in regard to the Harvard Study, and the Lancet article.

      1. The Harvard study was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:

      “–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

      –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

      As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study. 

      2. The Lancet article only mentions fluoride briefly, as being a neurotoxin, with no differentiation between concentration levels. This is nothing new. Fluoride has been on the EPA list of neurotoxins for years, along with 150, or so, other substances. On that same list of neurotoxins are such commonly ingsted substances as aspartame (artificial sweetener), caffeine, nicotine, ethanol (beer and other alcoholic drinks), salicylate (aspirin), and tetracycline (common antibiotic). Fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated is no more neurotoxic than are any of these other substances at their proper use levels.

      The reference to IQ in this article is nothing but a rehash of Grandjean’s Harvard Review, the fatal flaws of which I have already discussed.

      A complete rebuttal of this Lancet article may be viewed in a subsequent articke in Lancet:

      http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(14)70119-X/fulltext

      2. Fluoride levels were not lowered in April of 2015, as you erroneously claim. At this time, the recommended optimal level of fluoride in drinking water was simply consolidated into one fixed level within the previous optimal level range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm due to the fact that a range is no longer necessary.

      The optimal level of fluoride in drinking water is that level at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur, with no adverse effects. This optimal level was originally set by the US Public Health Service in 1962, as a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was set as a range in order to allow for different amounts of water consumption between different climates. Recent scientific evidence has demonstrated that, due to air-conditioning and other modern amenities, there no longer exist any significant difference in water consumption due to climate differences. Thus, there is no longer a need for a range. In recognition of this fact and of the greater availability of fluoride now, than when the optimal was originally established, the CDC, in 2011, recommended that the optimal range be consolidated into simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. After several years of careful study and consideration as to whether this consolidation would significantly reduce the dental decay prevention of fluoridation, the US DHHS determined that it would not. Thus, in keeping with the original goal of providing maximum dental decay protection while minimizing any risk of adverse effects, the US DHHS recently announced that the optimal recommendation had been officially consolidated into the low end of the previous optimum range. The current optimal level is 0.7 ppm, the level at which most water systems have been fluoridating for years, anyway.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • tom

    ‘The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Oral Health, the main government body responsible for the process, says it’s “safe and effective.”’

    Yeah. Right. Like thalidomide was safe and effective. And DDT. And Roundup. And triclosan.

    Seems to me it’s time we had a few changes in the law. So in future, instead of a bland anonymous statement like that from a bland faceless organization, one or more specific named individuals should give such public assurances. And they should have something to lose if the assurances turn out to be untrue. If Ancel Keys had had some skin in the game, he might not have been so hasty to persuade everyone that cholesterol kills, that meat should be avoided, and that therefore everyone should eat more carbohydrates. Those statements of Keys’ which had absolutely no scientific foundation – his own experiments, when he got around to them, proved them false – harmed hundreds of millions, if not billions of people. They probably shortened people’s lives, in aggregate, by billions of years. Yet the guy got off scot free.

    • nick quinlan

      As safe as GMO’s, and glyphosate, etc. on and on. This is what you get when a “government” is captured by corporate interests

    • kimyo

      ancel keys had a partner in genocide: norman borlaug (the inventor of hybridized dwarf wheat).

      nobody can match the damage these two did, not hitler, not genghis khan. dubya, a piker with only a million dead iraqis to his name, barely worth mentioning.

      • tom

        See the book I’m currently reading: “Too Smart for our Own Good” by Craig Dilworth. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/052175769X?

        Human intelligence helps the individual to survive and (often) thrive. But unfortunately there is no “herd” intelligence, no one responsible for keeping the species alive.

        As for Dubya, I agree wholeheartedly. But according to “Genocide in Iraq” by Abdul-Haq Ala-Ani and Tarik Al-Ani, the body count has now reached 2.8 million. Throw in the 3-5 million (or more) from SE Asia, and you have more dead people than the 6 million originally claimed for the Holocaust (since revised sharply downwards, I believe).

        “Don’t believe half of what you see and none of what you hear”.

    • Steve Slott

      Tom

      You have it reversed. The entities which oversee and make recommendations on fluoridation, do indeed answer to the general public, to the legal system, and to the government for their decisions and recommendations. These decisions must be made properly, and based on sound, scientific evidence. If they are not, these entities are held accountable.

      On the other hand, the individuals and activist groups who constantly disseminate false statements, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation about fluoridation answer to no one but themselves, and have no fear of consequences for the danger they present to the health of the public by their irresponsible activities.

      So, you can listen to the proper sources who have the knowledge and expertise to fully understand healthcare issues as fluoridation, and who are held accountable for their actions……or to irresponsible individuals and activist factions with little or no healthcare knowledge, who depend on scare-mongering tactics and dissemination of misinformation, and who answer to no one but themselves in their decades-old quest to impose their ideology unto entire populations.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • tom

        But that was the point of my comment, Steve. “So, you can listen to the proper sources who have the knowledge and
        expertise to fully understand healthcare issues as fluoridation, and who
        are held accountable for their actions…”

        They are NOT held accountable for their actions. (Unless getting paid a lot of money and given prestigious posts counts as being held accountable). Please give me any concrete, specific examples of “proper sources” who have been punished for giving false health advice to the public.

        • tom

          Since the authorities have not yet admitted that fluoridation harms health, maybe we could take as an example Ancel Keys. He advised the US government to tell people to stop eating eggs, meat and other foods that contained cholesterol, and to fill up with carbs instead. As I pointed out, that advice did immense harm to the health of people worldwide. Yet Keys died rich, famous, honoured, and respected.

          • Steve Slott

            There is nothing to “admit”. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects of optimally fluoridated water. Fluoridation is simply the addition to water of a minuscule few parts per million more fluoride ions, identical to those fluoride ions which have always existed in water.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • tom

            Your last clause is slightly deceptive, IMHO. Yes, fluoride ions have always existed in water. And, like other chemicals which have always existed in natural water sources ***in varying concentrations***, it can be harmful or even lethal if there is too much of it. There is no such person as “Mother Nature”, and the fact that a chemical is found in natural water sources by no means implies that it is not dangerous to human health. Indeed, the very first public awareness of fluoride in connection with health was, as far as I know, through the harm to many people’s thyroid glands caused by excessive fluoride in natural drinking water.

          • Amy G

            I’ve read the history about this. Dental fluorosis was first presumed to be caused by thyroid disease.

          • Steve Slott

            Sure, Tom, there is no substanc known to man which is not toxic in improper concentrations, including plain water. The point is that there is nothing in fluoridated water at the tap which wasn’t already in it before fluoridating, and there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects of fluoride at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm. There are a lot of unsubstaniated claims of this disorder and that, but none which have any foundation in valid, peer-reviewed science.

            Stven D. Slott, DDS

          • tom

            “The point is that there is nothing in fluoridated water at the tap which wasn’t already in it before fluoridating…”

            You cannot have meant to put those words on record.

          • Steve Slott

            Yes, of course I meant it. Let me state it again…….thete is nothing in fluoridated water at the tap which wasn’t already in it prior to fluoridating.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Amy G

            so the binding chemicals added with the hfsa are also naturally present? so what are your favourite binding chemicals?

          • Steve Slott

            There are no “binding chemicals” in fluoridated water at the tap. The only substances existing at the tap as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectible amounts far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety. A complete listing of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants, and the EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety for each, may be found:

            http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals

            Steven D.Slott, DDS

          • John

            All of this kooks patients should be informed of his extra curricular side jobs for the chemical companies.

          • tom

            Er… what about the fluoride that is added when they, um, fluoridate the water? That’s added, isn’t it?

          • Steve Slott

            The fluoride added during fluoridation is identical to that fluoride which already exists in the water. There is nothing new in fluoridated water at the tap.

            Before any system is fluoridated, the existing level of fluoride is determined. If that level is below the optimal level of 0.7 ppm, only that amount of identical fluoride is added which will raise that level up to the optimal. If the existing level is at, or above the optimal, as it often is in various parts of the world, fluoridation is not necessary and is not done. If the existing fluoride level is significantly high, then, not only is fluoridation not done, the recommendation, or mandate, is issued to lower the existing level.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • tom

            Thanks for explaining that to me, Steve. It sounds sensible. Now the only question in my mind is whether that 0.7 ppm really is optimal. You must admit that there have been occasions when the authorities have made similar determinations, only to find later on that they did not have the whole picture.

            By the way, my failure to understand your statement arose from a simple confusion. When you said “nothing is added” I took that literally as meaning “nothing at all”. I now see that you meant “no substance that is not naturally present in water”.

          • jackedup

            Give it up Tom,Slott is a raving lunatic when it comes to this subject, he listens to groups of people that are known to lie and if you read his patient reviews he is a horrible dentist. My advice to you is move on and continue using common sense, people like Slott are lost forever.

          • Steve Slott

            It’s always interesting that uninformed antifluoridationists who make the unsubstantiated claims that people are lying…are somehow never able to produce even one, single scrap of evidence to support such nonsense.

            As it seems that the commenter who cowers behind the pseudonym “jackedup” is among those people, I challenge him to provide proof that anything I have stated is a lie. His inevitable failure to do so will be taken as clear demonstration as to whom is the real liar here.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • jackedup

            The people you claim to rely on Slott, name the agency, LIE ALL THE TIME. Typical Slott, either you can’t read or you twist things around. Get a life dude, no one is buying your BS.

          • Steve Slott

            As expected, the commenter who cowers behind the pseudonym “jackedup” obviously cannot provide any valid evidence to support his ridiculous claims of people lying. Clearly, the only one lying here is the commenter who cowers behind the pseudonym “jackedup”….. as is always the case with such uninformed commenters who display their ignorance in these sections.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • jackedup

            I need to provide proof the government lies and is unaccountable? In 2015? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

            Thanks for the laughs Slott, can always count on you for that at least!

          • Steve Slott

            Still no valid evidence from the commenter who cowers behind the pseudonym, “jackedup”, I see.

            Seems we’ve clearly demonstrated whom is the real liar here.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • freedom74

            Easy, Google this term, ‘Edward Bernays fluoridation’ and begin your actual education. The same man that pushed the junk science behind fluoridation (which is runoff from the aluminum and fertilizer industry) is the same guy that sold that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. You are still falling for 70 year old propaganda by non-medical PR flacks. You’re a genius! What an education!

          • Steve Slott

            Yawn…..”Bernays”…..same old conspiracy nonsense spoon-fed to all antifluoridationists who lack the intelligence to do anything but click on antifluoridationist websites and blogs.

            You should probably at least make an attempt to properly educate yourself on this issue before getting into such a healthcare discussion way above your head.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Steve Slott

            Tom, the optimal level was first determined by the US Public Health Service in 1962, based on observations by researchers at that time, as to what level of fluoride would obtain the resistance to dental caries noted in citizens in a high fluoride area of Colorado, while not causing the brown stains and pitting of the teeth as also noted in those citizens, or any other adverse effects. This level was established to be a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm fluoride. It was established as a range to allow for different amounts of water consumed between differing climates. Recent studies have shown that, due to air-conditioning and other modern amenities, there no long longer exists a significant difference in water consumption due to climate variations. Thus, the recommendation was made to consolidate the optimal level into one single concentration within the original range. Given the greater availability of fluoride from sources other than water now, than when the optimal was originally set, the US DHHS determined that the optimal could be conservatively set at the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm, without any significant loss in decay prevention. In April of 2015, the US DHHS officially consolidated the optimal range to simply its low end, 0.7 ppm.

            In 2009, Warren and Levy performed a study to determine if the optimal level could be further refined to a point within the narrow range of 0.5 ppm to 0.8 ppm, to provide even greater decay prevention with no adverse effects, the ideal goal being a caries-free dentition. In the end they concluded that too many variables existed in order to provide the proper controls necessary to make such a determination.

            —–J Public Health Dent. 2009 Spring;69(2):111-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2008.00108.x.
            Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study.
            Warren JJ, Levy SM, Broffitt B, Cavanaugh JE, Kanellis MJ, Weber-Gasparoni K.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Amy G

            there goes ‘dr’ slott with his air conditioning theory again.. that never gets old.

            while on the subject of room cooling, ‘dr’ slott, would you say that the fluoride seems to be hitting the fan?

          • Steve Slott

            “Air conditioning theory”? Fluoride “hitting the fan”?

            You get more and more bizarre with each post, Amy.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • freedom74

            More or less the same clip form Wikipedia. But, of course, if you read fully, the study found that a constant .8ppm level of fluoride IN THE MOUTH was the way to go, NOT in the STOMACH. I can’t understand a “dentist” that doesn’t get the difference between things in your MOUTH and in your STOMACH. You are an embarrassment.

          • Steve Slott

            A “clip from Wikipedia”?

            It appears that along with your other intellectual deficiencies, you fail to understand citations.

            I am aware of no study which has stated that “.8 ppm level IN THE MOUTH was the way to go, NOT in the STOMACH”. Perhaps you are confusing scientific studies with the comic books from which you apparently obtain your “information”.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • John

            Oh lord this “Doctor” frequently cites Wikipedia. What a paid shill. Sad that people like Slott have received medical degrees.

          • Kim

            Now we know you’re lying. Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is added to the water under the auspices of fluoridation. This is not naturally occurring fluoride. It’s a toxic chemical from industrial waste. Why am I not surprised? I Googled you and you are a known pro-fluoridation industry hack. No one should believe anything you say.

          • Kim

            If it was already there BEFORE fluoridating, then why ADD it? See, this is the problem with industry trolls and astro-turfers like you, Slott. You’re contradicting yourself.

          • The reviews would be in journals devoted to crowd management in the Third Reich’s concentration camps, where fluoride was added to the water to make the inmates docile enough to handle like cattle. The form of fluoride added to drinking water is quite dissimilar to that which occurs naturally in ground water, unless the ground water came from aluminum or uranium processing.

          • Steve Slott

            1. The paranoid claims about Nazis and fluoride are false. Even the chief antifluoridationist, Connett, agrees with that.

            2. The fluoride ions added to water during fluoridation are identical to those “naturallly occurring” fluoride ions. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the source compound. Elementary chemistry.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Fluoride being the most chemically reactive element on the periodic table, fluoride ions have extremely short life spans, and ions don’t exist in compounds.

          • freedom74

            Dentists don’t need to pass chemistry.

          • But they do have to pass organic chemistry to get a medical degree, and it doesn’t care much about ions, so that would ‘splain his ignorance about them.

          • Steve Slott

            The pre-med and pre-dental curriculums at most colleges and universities, are the same. The first two years of dental school and medical school consists of basic sciences which are the same, many being taught by the same instructors, and often being taken together. Organic chemistry is part of the pre-med and pre-dental curriculum which must be satisfactoriky completed before even applying to medical or dental school.

            “Ions”, otherwise known as “atoms” are an elementary aspect of chemistry which is learned in entry level high school chemistry. Anyone who believes that atoms are not a fundamental basis for all of chemistry…..is obviously a science illiterate fool.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Considering ions and atoms the same thing is an indication that one shouldn’t have passed chemistry. I suppose you also believe that an amalgam is a compound.

          • Steve Slott

            1. Ion – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion
            An ion (/ˈaɪən, -ɒn/) is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving the atom or molecule a net positive or negative electrical charge.

            Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom.

            2. Dental amalgam is an alloy of various metals.

            3. Are you an anti-vaxxer as well as an antifluoridationist and anti-amalgamist? The three misconceptions generally occur together in uninformed activists.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • John

            This is a phony paid shill. Guaranteed. Or he is a dentist who would spread false information that harms children in exchange for a big home on the beach paid for by the chemical companies that sold us toxic waste as a health benefit instead of paying to dispose of it properly.

          • Steve Slott

            Students need to pass a minimum of 6-8 undergraduate college chemistry courses before they can even apply to dental school.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • johndmac

            Slott wants to feed fluoride to every man, woman, child, and fetus, yet believes even the Nazis couldn’t have been that horrible.

          • freedom74

            BS. You can look up the MSDS on the fluoride put in water, and it is not just some fluoride ions. It’s sad someone that puts themselves forward as an educated individual can’t spend a few minutes reading up on what the substance that goes in the water actually is. Also, how do you know how much fluoride someone ingests drinking water? Do you have a fluoride analyzer on the tap and cup of all water drinkers? You don’t understand science in the least, making your wild assertions with no proof, you are an embarrassment to educated people.

          • Steve Slott

            The fact that you have no idea as to what a fool you are making of yourself makes your comments even that much more comical.

            1. Sigh…..the MSDS for raw, undiluted fluoridation substances is of no relevance to anyone except the water treatment specialists who handle these substances. Water from the tap is that which we consume and otherwise utilize. All water from the tap must meet stringent, EPA mandated quality certification requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation. It makes not one bit of difference what is in the water before it reaches the tap. If the water from the tap does not meet the EPA mandated certification requirements, it is not allowed. It’s that simple. Fluoridated water at the tap easily meets all of the EPA mandated quality certification requirements.

            The substance most often utilized to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid. Once HFA is added to drinking water, due to the pH of that water (~7), the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated). The products of that hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectible amounts far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After that point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is of no concern, whatsoever. Fluoride ions and trace contaminants. That’s it.

            A complete list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants, and the maximum EPA mandated maximum allowable level for each, may be found:

            http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals

            2. Assuming you mean fluoridated water, yes, I do know how much fluoride “someone ingests drinking water”. Water is fluoridated at a concentration of 0.7 mg/liter. Thus, for every one liter of fluoridated water consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested. The CDC estimates that of the total fluoride ingested from all sources, 75% comes from water and beverages. The US Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit of fluoride intake from all sources, before adverse effects may occur, is 10 mg. a simple math equation demonstrates that before this upper limit could be attained, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

            3. State specifically for what “wild assertions” of mine you desire “proof” and I will gladly accommodate you.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Ella

            It is poison Slotty! Read the Harvard reviews. You are parroting old narratives. And anyway who gave any bunch of pollies the right to put ‘medication’ in my water? None of them know anything other than what the lobbyists tell them. They are paid off as well. Wake up.

        • Steve Slott

          Employees within these organizations are held accountable to their superiors for their actions. The cedibility and integrity of researchers within these organizations, and of those on whom these organizations rely for valid evidence, is paramount in seeking publication, and funding for their research. The credibility and reputations of these highly visible organizations are paramount in their constant efforts to be of sufficient relevance and importance to remain viable and funded by Congress, and/or their constituencies. The validity of the information and recommendations disseminated by these organizations is paramount in terms of legal liability.

          Now, constrast this with the “Fluoride Action Network” and other such activist groups. To whom do they answer? No one but themselves. They can and do disseminate whatever information they please with no fear of repurcussions for misleading and misinforming with false information and unsubstantiated claims. No one is perfect, but whom do you think is more apt to perform due diligence and make every effort to be accurate, not to mention being far more knowledgeable and qualified to render appropriate recommendations?

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Libertybelle

            We would not have to turn to alternative groups if it was not for the bad advice the so-called experts give us. These groups pop up because of the incompetence of government. They leave us no choice. Beside, the FDA, USDA, and the like are usurpatious and unconstitutional. They have no business controlling anything we consume.

          • Steve Slott

            As I said, no one is perfect. Yes, mistakes receive much publicity, whereas the sound information, recommendations, prevention and control of disease, and saving of lives by these groups, while receiving little or no publicity, far overshadows any “bad advice” of which you speak.

            The question is whom do you believe is far more likely to provide you with proper information on a healthcare issue…..the “Fluoride Action Network” which puts out so much misinformation that it’s impossible to correct all of it, or the United States Centers For Disease Control? Whom do you believe is going to be there when needed……..the “Fluoride Action Network” which packs up and moves on to another site once a decision is made on fluoridation, or the United States Centers For Disease Control? If handed a glass of water from an unknown source, whom would you trust to assure you of the safety of consuming that water…….the “Fluoride Action Network”, which has no one qualified to render an appropriate recommendation, and which has nothing to lose by providing misinformation, or the United States Environmental Protection Agency? When deciding how much of a substance you can safely consume within a short period of time, knowing that an excess could make you severely ill, on whose opinion would you want to rely……the “Fluoride Action Network”, or the United States Institute of Medicine?

            In mistrusting government and authority, it must always be kept fully in mind as to what are the alternatives.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Why do we need a pseudo-government agency like CDC “controlling” disease when our goal is eradication of disease? We should trust the untrustworthy because there are no trustworthy alternatives? Since SSRIs have proven more dangerous than not, perhaps it is time to go back to icepicks and frontal lobotomies?

          • Steve Slott

            So instead of trusting highly respected healthcare organizations such as the US CDC, the organization employing an army of highly respected scientists, healthcare professionals, and health experts to whom the US first turns when threatened with any national healthcare crisis, you trust whom? The New York antifluoridationist faction “Fluoride Action Network”, with its team of nobody with healthcare education, training, experience, or adequate knowledge? Yourself, who obviously has no understanding of healthcare?

            Hmmm, your “judgment seens a bit skewed…..

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Dutch

            Hahahahahhahahahahahahaha! In 2004, despite years of baseless claims the CDC ran a study to show that there was no correlation between vaccines and autism. When their own study showed an increased risk of autism in vaccinated children, up to 323% in some demographics, this “highly respected healthcare organization” abanoded their protocol, cherry picked data, reported a total lie and covered it up for 10 years, until a brave whistleblower spoke up. During this same 10 years they paid out billions of dollars in vaccine damages behind binding NDAs, while publicly claiming that vaccines are totally safe. And we won’t enev get into the bird flu, H1N1, SARS etc scares that they (as in their revolving leadership of former and future big pharma execs) promoted which led to many additional cases of vaccine injury, while driving huge revenues to big pharma. And these were all fantastic lies. But not as bad as the first swine flu scare in the 70’s in which 47 million people were vaccinated by an untested vaccine in esponse to 3 unsubstantiated cases half a world away. Thousands were left injured and even paralyzed from this total fraud and not a single person lost a job, nor were the vaccine makers held liable for any damages.

            And you’re going to present yourself as a harbinger of truth and sanity by touting the CDC as the primary source of your info, and the gold standard of truth. Priceless. Not only are you a liar, you are a willful liar. With the unmitigated gall to call out others for misinformation without a single shred of evidence supporting your claims. Note that the point of this article is to tell us that new study has invalidated all the lies that you still insist to be truth. So reallythe whole of your claims here rest solely on your credibility which you are actively destroying with every new word you type. What are you hoping to get out of this? Obviously you’ve traded dentistry for activism, which your reviews indicate was a good move. But spreading lies while calling other people liars is hardly activism. It’s just racketeering that you attempt to legitimize by hiding behind a semi-reputable profession and their less-reputable professional organizations. What a shame of a person you are.

          • Steve Slott

            Well, let’s see, we start out here with the standard antivaxxer conspiracy nonsense…..from there to “billions of dollars” paid out in claims known only to “Dutch” here….from there to the good old “Big Pharma” claims……then to all these “fantastic lies” ……..”thousands injured”………with all of this astounding “information” having no substantiatiation, whatsoever. Surprise, surprise. I guess anyone wishing further “information” on these matters will just have to plumb the depths of “Dutch’s” delusions.

            So, that out of the way, “Dutch” then goes into the standard “you are a liar” claim constantly employed by the uninformed when they have no valid evidence to provide. Odd how they can never provide any evidence to support this claim of everyone being a liar but them. Perhaps there exists some delusionary evidence of this “lying” within the depths of “Dutch’s” delusionary mind.

            Finally to have one more blast of fun, “Dutch” finishes with what has become the standard antifluoridationist misrepresentation of the Cochrane Review obviously, as with most antifluoridationists, his not having read a word of it.

            WHEW!!! I’m tired! All this spooky conspiracy stuff is exhausting!

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • I don’t even know what the Fluoride Action Network has to say, because I rely on the records of the doctors of the Third Reich and the medical historians that have confirmed why they put fluoride in the water in their concentration camps. Dr. Mengele had more experience with the effects of fluoride than any living doctor, because he used humans as research subjects and did very comprehensive autopsies on them after they died of the research. Unless a DDS includes an doctorate in multiple disciplines that I have read copiously from, your understanding of healthcare is relatively stuck in the oral cavity.

          • Steve Slott

            Your ignorance of history seems to be on the same level as your ignorance of science and healthcare.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • freedom74

            You’re right, cigarettes don’t cause cancer and 4 out of 5 Doctors recommend Lucky Strikes over Kools. Your wisdom is drowning me.

          • Steve Slott

            It is unclear as to what you deem to be the relevance of cigarettes to water fluoridation. However, given the illiterate nature of your other comments, I guess this is not surprising.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Libertybelle

            The mass murderers last century were governments who snuffed out the lives of over 100,000,000 million unarmed civilians murdered. R.J. Rummel.

            Not to meant ion the torture and rape.

            This happens when governments exercise powers they ought not to have. And the feds have no authority in the matter of diseases except if they prevent the criminals we elect in DC from doing their jobs. Unfortunately they continue their sedition unabated. Therefore there is no justification for the CDC. Also, it would be justified only for a specific time of danger and not for ever and eternity.

            Only the states have authority the CDC pretends it has. KNOW YOUR Us CONSTITUTION.

          • Ella

            We are more intelligent than you are Slott because we think for ourselves. You are sprouting official lines. You still believe in weapons of mass destruction! Fluoride is one of them. Have you been drinking it? Mmmm. Obviously, because it would seem that you gave up critical thinking and learning outside the square a long time ago. Keep up your ‘good’ work for the industry that makes the money. I know it is hard for people like you to give up your beliefs because giving up one would shatter them all, almost. It takes courage to question ‘science’ from your authorities but that is what science is supposed to be: always questioning. But you are not real in the end anyhow, because Quantum Physics has revealed it all. pop you out now Slott.

          • Don Hayes

            What is never told is that once fluoride enters the body, it never leaves. It builds up and up. Notice the chrome on old faucets, how the fluoride has eaten into it. Think what this would do to a human body.

      • tom

        By the way, Steven, who or what is a “DDS”? Wikipedia is decidedly unhelpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDS

        • Steve Slott

          Doctor of Dental Surgery

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • tom

            Thanks. Obvious once you know – sorry to have troubled you. (Although, now I come to think of it, dental surgeons here in the UK probably have a different title).

      • jackedup

        Government agencies in today’s United States are held accountable for their actions? Ha! It is clear folks that the Kool-Aid Slott is drinking is loaded with fluoride. Get back to work Slott, with the p*ss poor reviews you have from your former patients you need to focus on keeping them happy instead of going off online about your religious beliefs.

        • Steve Slott

          Still nothing to support your uninformed claims, I see, “jackedup”. So utterly predictable.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

        • Kim

          Seems the FORMER dentist sold his practice. I’m sure his patients were thrilled!

          • jackedup

            Really? I guess when you spend years online arguing with people about how great neuro-toxins are for us you tend let your business slide a bit 🙂

      • freedom74

        Fluoride is rat poison. There is no evidence ingested fluoride helps teeth. Topical fluoride, yes, but we aren’t talking about topical fluoride, we are talking about ingested fluoride. No amount of school, certifications or degrees after your name will make ingested fluoride good for teeth. If you believe it does, it just shows that any old idiot can get a degree with some effort.

        • Steve Slott

          The current active ingredient in many rat poisons, is warfarin. Warfarin, under the brand name, “Coumadin”, is prescribed to tens of millions of people who have cardiovascular disease. Why do you suppose rat poison would be prescribed to save the lives of so many people? Think maybe the proper concentration level has something to do with it?

          You do understand that there is no substance known to man which is not poison at improper levels, including plain water….correct?

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Kim

        Would you care to name any instance when these nameless “entities” have been “held accountable”? Just who are “proper sources”? Clearly this article and the many studies done which do NOT support water fluoridation are not approved by you. I guess you think the Cochrane Collaborations are just “irresponsible individuals and activist factions”. It’s obvious you are not the least bit objective here.

      • Ella

        Steven you live in la la landfill you think people who advocate fluoridation are accountable. No on has ever been accountable for its use. Decisions made here in Australia were around money; and a politicians brother who could see his interests in Alcoa could mean they could get rid of total sludge by putting it in out water as “health’ benefit for teeth. Total misguided ruination of the best water supply in the world.

  • nick quinlan

    Yet another hoax imposed on the citizens of the USA by big business, assisted by the corrupt, criminal US government. Just a means of getting rid of a waste byproduct of producing aluminum, and fertilizers.

    Let’s just sell it to municipalities at a profit, and have the government tell the people it prevents cavities!

    It is also in all toothpaste, where it says on the back of the tube, if ingested, seek medical attention, but its ok in drinking water?

    Probably the earliest means of artificial water fluoridation was the uncontrolled release of industrial fluoride waste into rivers and streams from where many communities get their drinking water. Furthermore, late in the 19th century patents were filed on processes to purify and soften water by addition of fluorides which were claimed to precipitate the minerals responsible for water hardness. No one of the applicants apparently considered any toxic effects of their proposed additions.

    In 1931, “natural” fluoride was found to be the cause of “mottled teeth” in humans. Whether indeed natural -taken up by the water from certain rock formations- or merely pollution, – analyses, carried out by Harry V. Churchill, chief chemist of ALCOA´s New Kensington plant, proved its presence in the water of afflicted districts. When in June of that same year the Superintendent of the Filtration Division, Bureau of Water, City of Pittsburgh, wrote to Churchill (1):

    “Several months ago, the Sanitary Water Board found that an industrial plant not far from New Kensington had been discharging fluorine into the Allegheny River. The officials of that plant discontinued such discharge when requested”,

    he received the following reply (2) [remember, this was written in 1931 !]:

    “Tap water from both New Kensington and Pittsburgh shows that the fluorine content is variable in both waters. In no case have we found the amount to be greater than 1 part per million. Fluorine in this amount is probably not harmful and on the other hand may be positively beneficial. … The presence of fluorine in water is apparently not necessarily proof of industrial contamination since it occurs in small amounts in so many water supplies.”

    The war production program of the 1940´s increased the problem, as reported in a book edited by William Gafafer, senior statistician of the U.S. Public Health Service (3):

    “The sanitation problems resulting from stream pollution by industrial wastes have been greatly increased by the war production program. Industry should and does expect the community to provide a pure water supply. The dumping of industrial wastes into our rivers and streams is an unjustifiable although time-honored practice which should be discontinued. But, we must face the fact that the practice will not and probably cannot be eliminated at this time”.

    Meanwhile, more inventive spirits realized that instead of dumping fluoride waste directly into rivers, additional income could be earned by other more subtle means of disposal:

    “Some of the waste products of industrial processes -fluorine among them- are not only recoverable but valuable. It seems that a major cause of delay in handling problems of this kind may be the lack of machinery for coördination between industry, the public health services, a number of government departments, and those research-workers who by their individual or collective initiative disclose evils we must all desire to abolish” (4).

    Yet this type of “machinery” was no longer lacking. Government funds -provided as an outcome of the Social Security Act of 1935- at their hands which they formerly didn´t know how to spend properly (5), Walter J. Pelton and H. Trendley Dean, both of the U.S.P.H.S., had conferred late in October 1942 with H. W. Streeter of the U.S.P.H.S. Stream Pollution Investigation Station, Cincinnati, Ohio, to get assured that the artificial fluoridation of a water supply would not pose any major technical difficulties and to estimate the costs for introducing fluorine into a water supply for a city of about 30,000 (6, 7, 8).

    While Dean´s and Pelton´s source of the fluoride is not mentioned in any of the history books or articles, Wisconsin dentists apparently knew well of the Aluminum Company of America´s interest in selling sodium fluoride, as a letter from dentist John G. Frisch to ALCOA reveals (9):

    “Dear Sirs:

    It is our understanding that the Aluminum Company of America is one of the largest producers of sodium fluoride. The demand for this material will soon reach astronomical proportions … P.S.: The attached list of cities is only a starter and it will catch fire in other states very soon.”

    ALCOA, for its part, ran several advertisements in the Journal of the American Water Works Association (10) offering sodium fluoride for fluoridation:

    “ALCOA sodium fluoride is particularly suitable for the fluoridation of water supplies. … If your community is fluoridating its water supply -or is considering doing so- let us show you how ALCOA sodium fluoride can do the job for you”

    When the argument was raised that ALCOA´s sodium fluoride is a waste product of their aluminum production, the Journal of the American Dental Association was quick to publish a denial presented by ALCOA´s Chemical Sales Manager H. P. Bonebrake in 1955 (11):

    “DENIES SODIUM FLUORIDE IS INDUSTRY´S WASTE PRODUCT

    The Aluminum Company of America last month denied that sodium fluoride is a waste product of aluminum manufacture. … ´We make no direct sales of sodium fluoride, all of our production being handled through chemical distributors´. … The letter pointed out also that a high percentage of sodium fluoride is obtained from phosphate rock. ´We have no operations involving phosphate rock,´ the letter stated.”

    Whatever ALCOA´s policy may have been when this denial was published, it sure changed from time to time (12):

    “Your reference to an advertisement of January 1950 indicates that you are delving considerably into past history on a subject that is moving rather rapidly. ALCOA´s policy may change from time to time; for a number of years we have sold sodium fluoride exclusively through distributors. We are now selling direct and we may sell to municipalities or anyone who wants to buy sodium fluoride. We manufacture sodium fluoride for sale. Anyone who wants to use it can buy it from us (or from a number of other sources), providing our production facilities enable us to supply it and our prices enable us to secure the business.”

    In the meantime, chemical companies like Blockson, of Joliet, Il., had sponsored year-long surveys “to develop new uses for sodium fluosilicate” (13), the waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry:

    “Almost all of the sodium fluosilicate produced today is a by-product of the phosphate industry and is derived from the calcium fluoride and fluorapatite in phosphate rock. … The data reveal that the demand for this salt is only a fraction of the potential production abilities.

  • Take action to stop fluoridation here: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/take-action

    • Steve Slott

      Yes, one could access yet another little antifluoridationist website, “fluorideaction.net” full of misinformation and nonsense, or one could instead obtain accurate information on fluoridation from reliable, respected sources.

      The websites of the US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of such information readily available to anyone.

      Steven. Slott, DDS

      • If it is “readily available to anyone”, why do we have to get it from specialized professional propagandists?

        • Steve Slott

          You have to be spoon-fed information because you are too lazy and uninformed to seek it out yourself.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Spoon-fed information is usually tailored to prove the specious premises of the feeder.

          • Steve Slott

            If you don’t like the facts and evidence I present, then provide valid evidence to refute it. So far you’ve provided nothing but empty rhetoric.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • If you actually read the professional journals like a proficient medical practitioner would, you would already know what I know, and I am not in the business of providing continuing education to medical professionals. If I were, I’d lose money on the deal, because very few bother to continue their education after they get out of medical school. Maybe they know that none of the advances in state of the art are applied by the AMA or FDA, anyway, because they are unpatentable. It is always humorous when a professional healthcare worker refers to an alternative practitioner as peddling snake oil, since that is all the pharmacist has to offer.

          • Steve Slott

            So, in other words, your lame attempt at diversion notwithstanding, you cannot provide any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claims. Why? Because there is none. Exactly the point.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • The forced-fluoridation fanatics often claim that western European countries with lower rates of dental caries than countries with high rates of forced-fluoridation use another form of artificial fluoride ingestion such as salt fluoridation, or have naturally high fluoride levels in their water supplies. They are lying.

    http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/scotland-and-the-netherlands-inconvenient-examples/

    • eeriesponsiple

      You’re a one-topic waste.

    • Steve Slott

      Yes, one could access yet another little antifluoridationist website, “forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters”, full of misinformation and nonsense, or one could instead obtain accurate information on fluoridation from reliable, respected sources.

      The websites of the US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of such information readily available to anyone.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Libertybelle

        Are there good independent studies that prove fluoride prevents cavities?

        • Steve Slott

          You will be hard pressed to find anything in science which is “proven”. The best that can be done is to demonstrate valid, clear evidence of support for any premise. There is ample such evidence in regard to the effectiveness of fluoridation. Here are a few of the countless peer-reviewed studies of effectiveness of fluoridation:

          1)  Results 
          Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm). Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. The odds ratios for higher caries prevalence in areas with negligible fluoride compared with optimal fluoride were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.39) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, respectively. 

          ——Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease
          Jason Mathew Armfield, PhD

          2) CONCLUSIONS: 
          Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care. 

          ——Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
          Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
          Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
          Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

          3).  CONCLUSIONS: 
          The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method. 

          —–Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
          Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
          Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
          Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland. 

          4) Abstract 
          The effectiveness of fluoridation has been documented by observational and interventional studies for over 50 years. Data are available from 113 studies in 23 countries. The modal reduction in DMFT values for primary teeth was 40-49% and 50-59% for permanent teeth. The pattern of caries now occurring in fluoride and low-fluoride areas in 15- to 16-year-old children illustrates the impact of water fluoridation on first and second molars. 

          —-Caries Res. 1993;27 Suppl 1:2-8.
          Efficacy of preventive agents for dental caries. Systemic fluorides: water fluoridation.
          Murray JJ.
          Department of Child Dental Health, Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

          5). CONCLUSIONS: 
          Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years. General trends indicated that a reduction in DMFT index values occurred over time, that a further reduction in DMFT index values occurred when a municipality fluoridated its water supply, and mean DMFT index values were lower in larger than in smaller municipalities. 

          —-Int Dent J. 2012 Dec;62(6):308-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2012.00124.x.
          Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005.
          Lauris JR, da Silva Bastos R, de Magalhaes Bastos JR.q
          Department of Paediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 

          Steven D.Slott, DDS

          • Libertybelle

            If these studies do not control for income (I.e. the inherent access to nutritious diets) it is not reliable. Wealthier children by and large eat better and naturally have better teeth with or without fluoride.

            To get a clearer picture an exclusive sampling of poor children would have to be studied. If an area being surveyed has a large population of poor children, that would probably account for high rates of cavities. When you jumble rich and poor together and make the survey based on fluoride only (which doesn’t affect the rich as much as the poor) it skews the analysis and conclusion.

            One would have to only survey poor children in fluoride systems and poor children in nonfluoride water systems to find a better representation of what is going on. If that has not been done, the studies are flawed.

          • Steve Slott

            Control for socio-economic status (SES) is a basic standard for such studies.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • So why don’t you cite good quality studies? Oh, that’s right, there aren’t any good quality studies you can use so you have to resort to pseudoscience.

          • Amy G

            pretty soon he’ll have to resort to Dr Strangelove quotes, lol.

          • Steve Slott

            That you have no understanding of scientific literature is clearly obvious. Given that you consider Declan Waugh, the “Fluoride Action Network”, and non peer-reviewed books by antifluoridationists, to be “good sources of information”, your judgment of “quality” could not be any more meaningless or irrelevant.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

        • Amy G

          well said! the iodine deficiency rate among pregnant women in the U.S. is around 30%.

          Canada has also banned bromide in baked goods, not sure about beverages though.

          • Libertybelle

            It is so sad how close we have to watch the “experts”. OMG. I hope you are wrong about the iodine deficiency is US moms to be.

          • Amy G

            more concerning: iodine isn’t mandated in prenatal supplements in the U.S.. Thankfully it is here in Canada.

            “the experts” are too busy with peddling and protecting fluoride.

        • Steve Slott

          Fine, put your trust in the “Fluoride Action Network”, “forcedfluoridefreedomfighters”, and “fluoridefreewhatevertown”……..

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Unlike you, I have a science degree, and integrity. My article is referenced. The fact that you have to resort to an appeal to authority is typical.

        • Steve Slott

          A dentist does not have a science degree? Hmmmm….

          If you had any integrity, or any real understanding of science, you would not constantly attempt to steer readers to your ridiculous little website, “forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters”, in lieu of advising them to obtain accurate information from respected, reliable sources. That you fear such sources speaks volumes about the lack of confidence you have that your nonsense will stand up under proper scrutiny.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Amy G

        crumbling faster than a tooth with severe fluorosis, is the credibility of the organizations you just listed.

        • Steve Slott

          Hmmm, no, there is no “crumbling” of credibility of the organizations I cite. The information they provide is simply above your level of comprehension.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Amy G

            while on the subject of fluorosis, how’s the fluorosis cash-crop looking this yr?

  • Steve Slott

    The Newsweek article reprinted in this blog, was written by Douglas Main, a freelance who has written several fluoridation articles heavily biased toward antifluoridationist arguments. This latest article is rife with misinformation, his unsubstantiated personal opinions, and misrepresentation of information contained in the Cochrane Review. Why Newsweek chose to attach its once proud name to such a biased, shoddily researched and poorly written article is a mystery, however to specifically address Main’s points:

    1. Main states: “Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk of impaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.”

    A. Under the guise of “reporting” arguments of fluoridation opponents, Main makes claims for which he provides no substantiation. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the claim that optimally fluoridated water interferes with the endocrine system, or increases the risk of impairment of brain function. The 27 Chinese studies of the Harvard Review which he and other fluoridation opponents constantly attempt to put forth as “evidence” of impaired brain function, were so fatally flawed as to lead the Harvard lead researchers, themselves, Grandjean and Choi, to issue a 2012 statement distancing these studies from any assessment of fluoridation in the US.

    “–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

    –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

    B. The hyperthyroid study referenced by Main was performed by long-time fluoridation opponent, Stephen Peckham, the former chair of the British antifluoridationist faction, “Northhampton Against Fluoridation.

    This study has already received widespread criticism in the scientific literature:

    “A major weakness of this study is the fact that other potential confounding factors have not been taken into account; this makes the conclusions regarding the community health utility of water fluoridation problematic. The strong conclusion of the paper by Peckham et al is not supported by the published literature.”

    —Commentary on “Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water”
    Grimes DR. J Epidemiol Community Health
    Published Online First: doi:10.1136/jech-2015-205708

    “The quality of the evidence is moderate with important methodological limitations, and should be interpreted with caution.

    • There is a high risk of conflict of interest as the principal investigator is a long-­‐time anti-­‐fluoridation activist.

    . The authors’ assessment of the evidence-­‐base is unbalanced and misinterpreted, contains
    inaccuracies and lacks citation of key studies.

    • The results of this study do not support the consistent findings of three scientific reviews, which report insufficient evidence of an association between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and adverse thyroid effects.”

    —-Prepared by Peel Public Health (Marco Ghassemi, Research and Policy Analyst) Feb. 26, 2015

    The Malin ADHD study was published in an open access journal which has Phillippe Grandjean as its co-Editor in Chief, and Anna Choi as one of the reviewers of Malin’s study. As with Peckham’s study, Malin, et al has already received widespread criticism for its inadequate control of confounders, poor methodology, and conclusions not consistent with the peer-reviewed literature. Evidence of the poor control is clearly demonstrated by the fact the Huber, et, in 2015, utilizing the exact data as did Malin, concluded that the ADHD correlation was with the elevation at which the children resided, not with fluoridated water.

    ——J Atten Disord. 2015 Mar 25. pii: 1087054715577137. [Epub ahead of print]
    Association Between Altitude and Regional Variation of ADHD in Youth.
    Huber RS1, Kim TS2, Kim N3, Kuykendall MD4, Sherwood SN5, Renshaw PF6, Kondo DG6.

    2. Main states: “Despite concerns about safety and ethics, many are content to continue fluoridation because of its purported benefit: that it reduces tooth decay.”

    “Concerns” by whom? Antifluoridationists are the only ones expressing any “concerns about safety and ethics”, with these “concerns” being entirely without foundation.

    Main’s use of the term “purported benefit” is clear evidence of his own lack of objectivity and personal bias against fluoridation.

    3. Main states: “They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month.”

    Cochrane employed a narrow set of parameters for studies to be included in its review. In doing, they eliminated 97% of the peer-reviewed studies on fluoridation.

    4. Main states: “The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975. ”

    The papers reviewed by Cochrane did not determine “that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree…” as Main claims.

    From Cochrane:

    “Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. Although these results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in children’s baby and permanent teeth, the applicability of the results to current lifestyles is unclear because the majority of the studies were conducted before fluoride toothpastes and the other preventative measures were widely used in many communities around the world.”

    —–Water Fluoridation to Prevent Tooth Decay
    Cochrane Report- Oral Health Group
    18 June 2015
    Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV, Walsh T, O’Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, Alam R, Tugwell P, Welch V, Glenny A

    5. Main states: “The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either. ”

    From Colchrane:

    “The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles.”

    —–Water Fluoridation to Prevent Tooth Decay
    Cochrane Report- Oral Health Group
    18 June 2015
    Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV, Walsh T, O’Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, Alam R, Tugwell P, Welch V, Glenny A

    6. Main states: “The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded). “From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” Glenny says. (“Tooth decay,” “cavities” and “caries” all mean the same thing: breakdown of enamel by mouth-dwelling microbes.)”

    Main’s first sentence erroneously implies that Cochrane concluded there to be no benefit to adults. As evidenced by the quote he provides, Cochrane deemed there to be insufficient evidence within its inclusion parameters, for it to determine whether or not fluoridation benefits adults……not that it does not.

    7. The extensive amount of quotes Main provides from Zoeller, Sheldon, Thiessen, and Grandjean are clear evidence of his own confirmation bias. He makes no effort to balance them with any statements from the overwhelming consensus of respected science and healthcare, which clearly contradict those from the fluoridation opponents. The opinions of those who disagree with Sheldon, et al. include the past 5 US Surgeons General…..the Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Public Health….the Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, and over 150 of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world.

    8. Main states: “It has also become clear in the last 15 years that fluoride primarily acts topically, according to the CDC. It reacts with the surface of the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to acids excreted by bacteria. Thus, there’s no good reason to swallow fluoride and subject every tissue of your body to it, Thiessen says.”

    Main provides Thiessen’s erroneous assessment of the mechanism of action of fluoride, while providing no balancing information, whatsoever, in regard to systemic and topical action of fluoride. The reality is that the effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic.  The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which is the only dental fluorosis in any manner associated with optimally fluoridated water.  Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth.  As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.  Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically. 

    —-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
    http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long

    9. Main states: “Another 2009 review by the Cochrane group clearly shows that fluoride toothpaste prevents cavities, serving as a useful counterpoint to fluoridation’s uncertain benefits.”

    Main exhibits his bias yet again in making the unsubstantiated statement, “uncertain benefits”.

    10. Main states: “Across all nine studies included in the review looking at caries reductions in children’s permanent choppers, there was evidence linking fluoridation to 26 percent decline in the prevalence of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. But the researchers say they have serious doubts about the validity of this number. They write: “We have limited confidence in the size of this effect due to the high risk of bias within the studies and the lack of contemporary evidence.” Six of the nine studies were from before 1975, before fluoride toothpaste was widely available.”

    There is nothing in this quote which states that the researchers “have serious doubts about the validity of this number”. This is Main’s editorializing.

    11. Main states: “One thing the review definitively concluded: Fluoridation causes fluorosis.”

    No. Here is what Colchrane concluded:

    “There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation.”

    This does not state that fluoridation “causes fluorosis”, and it differentiates between levels of dental fluorosis as opposed to Main’s attempt to lump all dental fluorosis into one category.

    12. Main states: “On average, about 12 percent of people in fluoridated areas have fluorosis bad enough that it qualifies as an “aesthetic concern,” according to the review”

    No. The review stated: “The researchers calculated that, in areas with a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm in the water, approximately 12% of the people evaluated had fluorosis that could cause concern about their appearance.”

    13. Main states: “In a smaller percentage of cases, fluorosis can be severe enough to cause structural damage, brown stains and mottling to the tooth”.

    Main fails to note that optimally fluoridated water does not result in the moderate/severe dental fluorosis which is characterized by “brown stains and mottling to the tooth”. This level of dental fluorosis is caused by exposure to high levels of environmental and/or well-water fluoride, or improper ingestion of toothpaste, during the teeth developing years of 0-8…., not from optimally fluoridated water.

    14. Main states: “There is also a definite issue of inequality when it comes to fluorosis. Blacks and Mexican-Americans have higher rates of both moderate and severe forms of the condition. Blacks also have higher levels. As of 2004, 58 percent of African-Americans had fluorosis, compared to 36 percent of whites, and the condition is becoming more common.”

    Main attempts, yet once again, to dishonestly associate optimally fluoridated water with moderate/severe dental fluorosis.

    15. Main states: “Many of the Cochrane study’s conclusions conflict with statements by the CDC, the American Dental Association and others that maintain fluoridation is safe and effective. The ADA, for example, maintains on its website that “thousands of studies” support fluoridation’s effectiveness—which is directly contradicted by the Cochrane findings. The ADA didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.”

    Yet another misrepresentation of Cochrane. There is nothing in that review which “directly contradicted” the statement by the ADA. Cochrane did not question the existence of such studies. It simply expressed its opinions on the quality of those studies.

    16. Main states: “But most scientists interviewed for this article don’t necessarily think fluoridation’s uncertain benefits justify its continuation without more stringent evidence, and argue for more research into the matter.”

    Yes, because, obviously, the overwhelming majority of the scientists interviewed by Main, were long time, public opponents of fluoridation…….the same little handful he “interviews” for all his fluoridation articles. He provides no balance to these opinions from the overwhelming consensus of respected science and healthcare.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Jason Cromer
    • Dutch

      Well you certainly demonstrated that you can milk the “appeal to authority” manner of argumentation to its absolute limit. But a fallacious argument is a fallacious argument. You appeal to your sources and assert them (CDC etc) to be the holy standard of proof despite decades of documented misconduct. Then at the same time you bash all-volunteer organizations of concerned citizens as the agenda driven fraudsters. Leaving the entire standard of proof up to little more than your personal opinions. You are the type of scum that has so distorted scientific debate that it cannot be rescued.
      I own a company whose entire existence is based on providing solutions to clinical laboratories who cannot reproduce their own peer reviewed studies, or those of others. Your big lie, that you KNOW is a lie, but hope others don’t, is that the peer review process in the clinical sciences has completely collapsed. There is a literal epidemic of irreproducible studies that nonetheless passed peer review. This is beyond the ever increasing number of FDA reviewed drugs that have been recalled, proven to be effectively useless, or subject to class action lawsuits. And lets not even get started on how corrupt the peer review at the major scientific journals was shown to be in those Climategate emails. If you are half the scientist you claim to be you already know all this. Which makes you the worst kind of liar. But since you DO claim to be Mr. Scientific truth then here’s an easy out for you. Despite how corrupt the cpeer review process is, I’ll let you off the hook if you can live up to your own standard and present ONE single peer reviewed study proving that Fluoride DOESN’T dissolve bone, or burn flesh or tissue. Or that it doesn’t concentrate itself in boiled foods like pasta. Or that the so called safe levels are never exceeded in municipal water supplies (I’m holding the evidence in my hands that they are). Or that it doesn’t conjugate with soaps, shampoos etc and elevate exposure.

      You seem to be really good at pounding your carefully crafted talking points and keeping the discussion in your wheelhouse. But the fact is the burden of proof for all these things is on those who seek to push Fluoride on us. Yet even as you present yourself as the gold standard of science, you tell endless lies of omission by avoiding the full scope of the dangers it presents. You ask and answer the questions you have scripted responses to, while ducking the others or shifting the burden of proof to the other side. Long story short you’re a joke. Your trolling skills barely get a passing grade. Your dentistry skills barely get a passing grade, and your activist papers (I’ve read them) are amateurish shilling at best. Whats even the point? Do you owe somebody money? Is your wife tied to some train tracks somewhere? At least that would be admirable. But alas I get the impression this whole sad rap is about little more than your own loneliness and a crippling delusions of grandeur. Will some links to some studies on these topics help? They’re peer reviewed of course…

  • Amy G

    From a leading thyroid specialist in the UK:
    “To condemn the entire population, already having marginal levels of iodine, to inevitable progressive failure of their thyroid system by fluoridating the water, borders on criminal lunacy.” – Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield MBBS LRCP MRC

    • Amy G

      while on the subject of lunacy: from wikipedia: “”Mad as a hatter” is a colloquial phrase used in conversation to refer to a crazy person. In 18th and 19th century England, mercury was used in the production of felt, which was used in the manufacturing of hats common of the time. People who patronised these hat factories were exposed daily to trace amounts of the metal, which accumulated within their bodies over time, causing some workers to develop dementia caused by mercury poisoning (called mad hatter syndrome). Thus, the phrase became popular as a way to refer to someone who was perceived as insane.”

      one can only ponder the long-term effects of mercury fumes that our mediocre dentists/ fluoride peddlers have been exposed to over the years.

    • Steve Slott

      “The available medical and scientific evidence suggests an absence of an association between water fluoridation and thyroid disorders.

      Many major reviews of the relevant scientific literature around the world support this conclusion. Of particular importance are:

      * an exhaustive review conducted in 1976 by an expert scientific committee of the Royal College of Physicians of England;

      * a systematic review in 2000 by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York; and,

      *  a 2002 review by an international group of experts for the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), under the joint sponsorship of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

      None has found any credible evidence of an association between water fluoridation and any disorder of the thyroid.”

      =========================

      —–BRITISH FLUORIDATION SOCIETY STATEMENT (January 2006) on the absence of an association between water fluoridation and thyroid disorders.
      This statement has been reviewed and endorsed by the British Thyroid Association (BTA); however, the BTA would recommend that appropriate monitoring of thyroid status should be considered in areas where fluoridation is introduced to enable an ongoing epidemiological evidence base for thyroid status with fluoridation to be created.

      http://www.bfsweb.org/facts/sof_effects/statementofflo.htm

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Amy G

        ‘dr’ slott, as a mediocre dentist/ fluoride peddler, would you agree with the scientific fact that fluoride is more electronegative than iodine, thus displacing it? and are you concerned about the high rates (30%) of iodine deficiency in pregnant women in the U.S.?

        • Steve Slott

          Amy G, please provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects from displacement of iodine by optimal level fluoride…….or of any other adverse effects of optimal level fluoride, for that matter.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Amy G

            again: ‘dr’ slott, as a mediocre dentist/ fluoride peddler, would you agree with the scientific fact that fluoride is more electronegative than iodine, thus displacing it?

          • Steve Slott

            Unless you can provide any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effect of displacement of iodine by optimal level fluoride, it is irrelevant, Amy. Obviously you cannot, as there is none.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Amy G

            are you in agreeance with: “Fluoride and iodine are both halogens. The fluoride, the negative ion of the element fluorine easily displaces iodine in the body because it is much lighter and therefore more reactive. In fact the activity of any one of the halogens is inversely proportion to its atomic weight. In other words, one halogen can displace another one of a higher atomic weight but cannot displace one of lower weight thereby, results fluoride- thyroid-iodine antagonism which in turn lead to interference with iodine uptake. The fluoride is a universal G-protein activator/inhibitor. The stimulation of certain G-proteins occurs due to the toxic effects of fluoride, which has the effects of switching off the uptake into the cell of the active thyroid hormone. The thyroid control mechanism is compromised. The TSH output from pituitary gland is inhibited by fluoride, thus reducing thyroid output from thyroid glands. Fluoride competes for the receptor sites on the thyroid gland which respond to TSH; so that this hormone reaches the thyroid gland and so fewer hormone is manufactured (Wilson and DeEds 1940; Susheela et al. 2005).”?

          • Steve Slott

            Congratulations, Amy, you can copy/paste. Now, if you only had any idea as to what any of it means. There is nothing in this blurb which provides evidence of adverse effect of optimal level fluoride on the thyroid or anything else.

            Once again, if you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effect from iodine displacement by optimal level fluoride, then present it, properly cited.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • You should be quoting the journals, if you have actually read them, instead of telling laymen to do so.

          • Steve Slott

            I can and do provide valid facts and evidence to support my claims. If you have any clam for which you wish me to provide such evidence, feel free to specify it.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Clams probably don’t care.

          • Steve Slott

            I don’t need to quote journals in order to expose the total lack of valid evidence that you and the other antifluoridationists posting here, have presented. It is not my responsibility to prove that your unsubstantiated claims have no merit. If you wish for credibility for these claims, it is your responsibility to provide facts and valid evidence to support them. It is of no consequence to me what you do, as I know you have no such evidence. I’m simply making this fact clear for anyone who may be reading these comments.

            If you have any specific claims I have made, for which you wish my evidence of support, simply specify it, and I will glady provide it.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Are you also an endocrinologist?

        • Steve Slott

          I am not an endocrinologist. An endocrinologist does not sign his/her name with a “DDS” behind it. However, I know where to obtain proper information when necessary.

          From a highly respected endocrinologist at the University of Florida:

          August 27, 2013

          To Whom It May Concern:

          As a practicing endocrinologist, I was appalled at the claims that fluoridated drinking water causes clinically significant harm to the endocrine system.

          Clinically, in more than 30 years of seeing patients, I have never seen any fractures or thyroid problems associated with fluoridated water. Early puberty is more associated with obesity than anything else, though there are many endocrine disrupters that have estrogenic effect. Fluoride has not been implicated, though lavender, tea tree oil and HCG, substances found commonly in hair products, have been.

          I looked at the papers cited about the effects of fluoride on thyroid function and could find none that suggested any effect on thyroid at doses used in fluoridated water. A Review of the literature published in 1986 came to the same conclusion:

          “The increasing use of fluoride for prevention of dental caries poses the problem as to whether this halogen has antagonistic properties towards iodine, whereby it could hamper the success of iodine prophylaxis of endemic goitre. Review of the literature shows that some authors have found an inhibition by fluoride of various steps of thyroid hormone biosynthesis in animal experiments. By and large, the inhibition was only slight and it was elicited only with fluoride doses greatly in excess of those recommended for caries prevention. The inhibition was not consistently present and other authors could not confirm it in comparable experiments. There is no convincing evidence that fluoride produces true goitres with epithelial hyperplasia in experimental animals. There are some reports based on casual observations that fluoride is goitrogenic in man. On the other hand, several good studies with adequate exposed and control populations failed to detect any goitrogenic effect of fluoride in man. It is noteworthy in particular that fluoride does not potentiate the consequences of iodine deficiency in populations with a borderline or low iodine intake.Published data failed to support the view that fluoride, in doses recommended for caries prevention, adversely affects the thyroid.”

          I hope this clarifies the issues a bit more.

          Sincerely,

          Janet Silverstein, MD, FAAP

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Apparently the thyroid is the only endocrine organ she is aware of. The professional literature covers all of the endocrine system, and the other organs are very much disrupted by fluorine, it being a well-known endocrine interrupter, and thereby, a regular causation of cancer and other diseases related to endocrine interruption.

          • Steve Slott

            So, now you are claiming to know more about the endocrine system than an endocrinologist? My, what an oversized ego you must have. Do you next plan to explain space exploration to NASA scientists?

            If you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any interuption of the endocrine system by optimal level fluoride, of any association of optimal level fluoride with cancer, or any “other diseases related to endocrine interruption”, please free to produce it, properly cited. As none exists, I will not hold my breath in anticipation.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • I did no such thing, doctor. You need to stop raiding your office drug cabinet.

          • Steve Slott

            Perhaps if you provided valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your position, instead of meaningless rhetoric, your comments would be more amenable to interpretation as you wish.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • If you were as up on the literature as you claim, it would be you who would be citing it to us. I don’t really care how my comments are interpreted, since that doesn’t affect what I know and how I personally use it. I would never go into the journal search business for the same reason why I would never go into the continuing education business, with big pharma providing a version of both that supports their propagendas, there’d be very few professionals who would need me to do what they could do themselves, if they wanted to do their due diligence, which most could care less about.

          • Steve Slott

            In other words, you cannot provide any valid evidence, whatsoever, to support your unsubstantiated rhetoric. Exactly what I seek to make clear to any readers who may be tempted to accord credence to your nonsense.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • If you were as good at medical journal research as you are at ad hominem, you wouldn’t be making specious claims about the absence of evidence, because you would have read what I have. If you wish to have the reputation of a deceptive industry shill, congratulations. You have succeeded. I’ll not be responding to your ad hominem any further. If you decide to write like a professional researcher and include proper citations, I’ll read them, but other than that, conversation with you is a waste of time, and only lends credibility to your lack thereof.

          • Steve Slott

            “If you were as good at medical journal research as you are at ad hominem, you wouldn’t be making specious claims about the absence of evidence, because you would have read what I have….”

            Once again, your lame attempt at diversion notwithstanding, you fail to provide one single scrap of valid evidence to support your claims, as I have repeatedly challenged you to do. Why? Because none exists. Your unsubstantiated claims are entirely meritless….obviously.

            In your place, I would probably hide behind a pseudonym, and make up an excuse to run away, as well. Having your nonsense fully exposed for what it is, really presents you with no other options unless you wish to continue publicly demonstrating your ignorance of this issue. Don’t feel alone, however. You are typical of most antifluoridationists……full of nothing but empty rhetoric and misinformation.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • disqus_3BrONUAJno is not a pseudonym. It is the user name given to me by Disqus when I signed on the first time.

          • Steve Slott

            Fine. If you have confidence in the validity of your comments, then post your real name at the end of each one, as I do with mine.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • LinnieMae

            Join us over at the Science Based Medicine site for a rousing debate about fluoride.

          • According to http://www.healthgrades.com, you rate below the national average in every category, so it is no surprise that you’d need to earn additional money by acting as a fluoridation industry shill.

          • Steve Slott

            Oh, now that’s truly comical! Failing to provide any valid evidence, whatsoever, to support your irresponsible claims, you fall back into a ridiculous personal attack, citing some website on which antifluoridationists have posted nonsense which they seem to think is of any consequence to me whatsoever.

            Obviously you have nothing of any intelligence to contribute to the discussion.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Dutch

            Correlation does not equal causation. What metrics were used? What were the established standards? Was HIS data peer reviewed? Shame on you. More doubletalk and lies of omission.

          • Steve Slott

            “Correlation does not equal causation. What metrics were used? What were the established standards? Was HIS data peer reviewed? Shame on you. More doubletalk and lies of omission.”

            If you care to state exactly to what it is you reference here, I will be glad to explain it to you on a level which you may be able to comprehend.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Dale

    There is no maybe about it. Fluoridation of our drinking water is a gigantic fraud. The aluminum and phosphate industries found a grand way to dispose of their extremely toxic waste product fluoride, and make a profit on it to boot. Dump it into our water supply, tell the people that it will protect their teeth from cavities, and charge the people for it. What a con job on the people this has been. And as a bonus, it makes the population dumb and sick! Such a deal!! The people, especially the American people have been used like toilet paper by these industries along with their government accomplices.

    • Steve Slott

      Please any valid, documented evidence, whatsoever, to support your ridiculous claims. Your inevitable failure to do so will taken as clear evidence as to whom actually is the real fraud here.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Paul X

    Although this quote is usually meant figuratively, it applies literally here:

    “What they want is an artificial society, which has come forth full-grown from the brain of its inventor… They quarrel over who will mould the human clay, but they agree that there is human clay to mould. Mankind is not in their eyes a living and harmonious being endowed by God Himself with the power to progress and to survive, but an inert mass that has been waiting for them to give it feeling and life; human nature is not a subject to be studied, but matter on which to perform experiments.”
    — Frederic Bastiat

    It is not a question of access to fluoride; anyone who wants it can get it. It is a question of coercion.

    • Steve Slott

      Water flows from your faucet, therefore you are somehow coerced into consuming it? Hmmm, seems you need to work a bit on exerting your own free will…..

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Man on the street

    We live in a democracy? Money abd bribes to elect politicians. Money to reelect them if they do good, or defeat them if they do bad. So, what is defined as good and bad? Good work if they do what the money givers tell them; bad work, if they refused to listen to the money givers. What if the money givers said go kill your kids? Good politicians will do as ordered! What a democracy, I rather live in benevolent dictatorship. At least the dude on top will do the right thing to verve his citizens once in a while.

  • Will Wiegman

    Lack of Thiocyanate and it’s precursor Amygdalin in modern foods is what causes cavities!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactoperoxidase

  • johndmac

    Fluoride “science”:

  • TYactive

    The American Academy of Pediatrics puts this into perspective:

    http://ilikemyteeth.org/the-cochrane-review-of-community-water-fluoridation/

  • It’s not surprising that Cochrane could find no valid studies proving that fluoridation reduces tooth decay because, after 70 years of fluoridation, tooth decay is an epidemic

    Opposite to predictions, since fluoridation began in 1945:

    1) Tooth decay crises occur in all fluoridated cities. See http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com

    2) New dental professionals were created, e.g. dental therapists.

    3) New dental schools opened.

    4) Dental expenditures went up substantially, higher than the inflation rate, according to the GAO..

    5) Poor children’s cavities are more prevalent, severe, occur earlier and more likely to be untreated.

    6) Despite dental spending growth, 42% percent of adults and 4 million children with dental problems could not afford dental care, according to the GAO

    7) More states had the need to hire Dental Directors

    8) Since the Surgeon General announced a silent epidemic of tooth decay in 2000, scores of government, dental and oral health groups formed having countless meetings, symposiums, webinars and conventions including one focused on the growing tooth decay rates in toddlers because1/3 of 3-year-olds now have cavities.

    9) Because the CDC’s oral health group can’t prove fluoridation is safe for everyone, the CDC hired public relations firms to spin data to make fluoridation more attractive than science and government reports show it is 10) 52% of new recruits have oral health problems needing urgent attention that would delay overseas deployment

    11) dental socioeconomic disparities have increased.

    12) The National Center for Health Workforce Analysisprojects the national demand for dentists is projected to grow by 20,400 – a10% increase.

    13) One hundred and one patients died in hospitals from the consequences of untreated tooth decay, according to the Journal of the American Dental Association. Four million dental hospital emergency department visits were made in the US from 2008 through 2010 costing $2.7 billion. 14) The United States spends more than $111,000,000,000 on dental care every year, according legislation created by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, et al. Sanders says that “504,000 children age 5 to 17 missed at least one day of school due to a toothache or other oral health problem in California alone.

    Sanders said, “United States is in the midst of a major dental crisis.”

    References: http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2015/04/fluoridation-is-biggest-public-health.html

  • Harvard Study: Fluoride Lowers Children’s Intelligence By 7 IQ Points Posted on February 10, 2014

    Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pfVo3bZLY#t=1180

    THE ABSURDITIES OF WATER FLUORIDATION Red Flags Weekly November 28, 2002 by Paul Connett, PhD

    http://fluoridealert.org/articles/absurdity/

    The Fluoride Deception exposes the truth about water fluoridation and the phosphate mining industry

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZ15m-D_n8

  • RAIN SORIANO

    Getting people on the right track makes it possible for them to have positive emotional experiences that will pave the way for lifetime dental health maintenance routines. There are dental professionals who are experts and This breakthrough in dental care gives a lot of convenience.