Is Fluoride an Evil Conspiracy?

Next month on Tuesday, May 5, 2015, the Town of Rockport is going to vote on whether to retain fluoride in their water system. Because I sound like I know what I am talking about when it comes to science I have been asked by several groups to voice my opinion, debate in public, discuss the finer points of a paper or papers pointing out something good or bad about fluoride.

But I won’t. I am not a biochemist or public health scientist. I can tell you the myriad ways you can analyze the expression level of thousands of genes from one human cell, (my current interest is single-cell genomics), but fluoridation is not something I study in detail.

So what do I do and how am I going to vote? I do what I always do when I have a scientific question that I am fuzzy on. I ask the scientific experts in the relevant field. I look at the consensus of the National Academy of Sciences which is charged with the responsibility of advising the President on scientific matters. (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has some NAS members on faculty so sometimes this is as easy as walking down the hall.) In this case I also check the consensus science from the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, the American Dental Association, and other experts who have studied the question and written reviews. Since we have been adding fluoride to water for 65 years these reviews are extensive. They study the hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed papers on the subject; there are old reviews and new reviews, they all say the same thing.

The one thing I will not do is google for the answer. That would lead to the Fluoride Action Network, or Dr Mercola, or Dr Oz, or the Food Babe, or Mike Adams of Natural News, or god forbid Alex Jones of Infowars. All of those sites are anti-science full of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that cherry picks when it cites papers, some of them even from Harvard and MIT. The problem is that all those sites have an axe to grind. They want you to fear something so they can sell you the filter or the cure or a book. The worst thing to do is to google for the information you want that supports your preconceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. This is something even the best scientists have to watch out for because it is an easy trap to fall into. That is why scientists double blind their experiments so that their own bias does not invalidate the results.

So if you go with consensus science;  fluoride is in the top five for awesome public health achievements in the past century. It saves your teeth, young and old, and there is no downside to one part per million fluoride added to your town water system.

If you go with the websites I mentioned, fluoride is a poisonous toxic waste that is being dumped into the water because Big Chemical does not know where else to put it. Big Government lets them because everyone is making money and why not medicate our citizens to make them more compliant? On most of those websites it is a big conspiracy along with vaccines and chemtrails.

To me it is simple. On the one side is anti-science. Global warming denialists, anti-vaxxers, anti-evolutionists, and anti-fluoride groups. On the other side there is real science.

You can vote to keep the fluoride in the water, or you can vote against all consensus scientific opinion and vote to take it out.

– Paul T Morrison
Principal Scientist, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Principal Associate in Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School

Megan Fox loves the taste of Rockport water.

Megan Fox loves the taste of Rockport water.

64 comments

  • The author has not done his homework: FACT: The fluoridation of drinking water began during the Cold War era when a group of companies including Alcoa, Reynolds and U.S. Steel found a way to dump their industrial waste and banded together to sell their refuse to a gullible public, backed by stupid politicians and greedy manufacturers. Today, our fluoride comes from China—a country, like so many others, that refuses to pollute their drinking water with fluoride. Most of Europe and Asia DO NOT put fluoride in their drinking water. I have not seen one credible, independent study that can prove the alleged benefits of fluoridation. I have found no scientific evidence that fluoride has ever strengthened a tooth or prevented a cavity. Not one whit, not one scintilla of trustworthy, independent, documented proof.
    Slowly, America is waking up to the terrible truth. Fluoride is being quietly removed from mouthwashes and toothpastes. I myself suffered for years from severe gum pocketing. Over a year ago, I stopped using fluoride topically altogether by using non-fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash, and my condition has improved dramatically. Americans remain willfully naïve, gullibility that led us into Vietnam and Iraq, and an enduring belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

    Like

    • Paul T Morrison

      I think NS Johnson didn’t get a chocolate bunny for Easter because he was too busy reading Alex Johnson and Infowars to bother with Easter.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Craig Kimberley

      I don’t think the author of this feedback read the author above first…Lol…. Now we go to war on the tooth fairy??? NOOOO!!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • A common complaint of pro-fluoridationists is that opponents are not qualified to speak. They claim scientific consensus is in their favor. However, more and more medical doctors, dentists and scientists are now opposing fluoridation as scientifically insupportable – neither safe nor effective.

      I’ve compiled 12 pages of quotes from highly credentialed individuals opposed to fluoridation, including Nobel Laureates. Some were at one time staunch proponents, but changed their minds after careful study. I’ll share just a few, as 12 pages would be too much for this forum.

      William Douglass, MD: “Fluoride makes your body absorb extra aluminum. And where does the aluminum go? Your brain. And what metal shows up alarmingly in Alzheimer’s victims? You guessed it.”

      Charles Gordon Heyd, MD, former President of the AMA: “I am apalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.”

      Robert Atkins, MD: “Fluoride not only hinders normal formation of healthy new bone, but by creating crystals of calcium fluoride, produces new bone of inferior quality.”

      J. J. Rae, PhD in Biochemistry: “It is a known scientific fact that fluoride is a deadly poison to enzymes, upon which all life depends.”

      Douglas Styne, MD: “Long-continued ingestion of minute quantitites of fluorine causes disease of the thyroid gland.”

      Robert Mick, DDS, dentist and former fluoridation promoter: “As a result of experiments with animals, we learned that bones, teeth, kidneys, livers, and spleens had accumulated up to 500 percent more fluoride than controlled animals. Cripples were born to the third generation.”

      Albert Schatz, PhD, Biochemist, microbiologist and discoverer of streptomycin: “Artificial fluoridation of drinking water may well dwarf the thalidomide tragedy.”

      Dean Burk, PhD, former Chief of Cytochemistry, National Cancer Institute: “In point of fact, fluoride causes more cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.”

      Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, former Head Toxicologist at Forsyth Dental Center: “The evidence against the safety of this public health policy will keep mounting and never disappear again. My ignorance of fluoride in the beginning was a matter of chance. If you ignore this evidence today, it will be a matter of choice.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Paul T Morrison

        Barbara, awesome that you did not post all twelve pages. With 7 billion souls on this planet I am sure, with proper diligence, you could create a mile long list in 12 point font of accredited doctors and dentists who think fluoride is awful. The numbers are in your favor. You have only found 0.0000025% of the world population. It is still an awful way to do science. Go around collecting people who have one idea.

        I could easily collect a list of doctors and lawyers and even quite a few noble laureates who believe space aliens have communicated with them. Or believe in homeopathy (a really large list of doctors) or that Vitamin C cures the common cold (tons of doctors and noble laureates.)

        It does not make it true. The closest thing we can come to truth, is the consensus of expert scientific opinion. The theory of gravity is only a theory and many doctors dispute it but the theory holds water and we do not float from the earth. Immunology is a much disputed field with many many doctors refuting vaccines and yet we have wiped small pox from the earth and we should also wipe polio and measles from our civilization except for a small cult of insane people who now threaten that progress.

        Consensus science protects us from crazy people. When we make big decisions about policy pertaining to towns or even a country we should not listen to singular people but a true consensus made up of experts in the field in question.

        To do otherwise and we end up with no vaccines, no fluoride, no adjustment to our national energy needs to slow global warming. We would end up with the Secretary of Homeopathy. The Defense Secretary of Chemtrails. (There is a longer list than yours of people who believe in Chemtrails.)

        Like

      • So, okay, let’s look at this list of “up-to-date scientists”, plucked from “FAN” by Barbara:

        1. “William Campbell Douglass II is a doctor, alternative medicine promoter, and conspiracy theorist. As a conspiracy theorist, he believes that the World Health Organization developed AIDS as part of the New World Order’s nefarious plan to take over the world by depopulating the Earth. As a CAM supporter, he believes, among other things:”

        “A little tobacco smoking is both good and bad (apparently he hasn’t made up his mind)
        Exercise is overrated
        Vegetarianism is bad
        Raw milk is good
        Pasteurized milk is bad
        Fluoride is bad
        Vaccines are bad
        Sunlight doesn’t cause melanoma, but prevents it
        Aspartame is bad
        Homebirths are good”

        —–http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Campbell_Douglass

        2. Charles Gordon Heyd was President of the AMA in 1936.

        3. Robert Atkins, MD

        Alternative Medicine, Nutritionist, promoter of diet books, and nutrition supplements

        Goss’ out-of-context quote she attributed to Atkins:

        “Fluoride not only hinders normal formation of healthy new bone, but by creating crystals of calcium fluoride, produces new bone of inferior quality.”

        The complete quote including the complete first sentence:

        “Bone specialists I’ve talked to assure me that fluoride not only hinders normal formation of healthy new bone, but by creating crystals of calcium fluoride, actually produces new bone of inferior quality. My advice to you is that if your water isn’t fluoridated and your government comes along and wants to fluoridate it, you should yell like hell.”

        —–http://www.cafan.net/flashdrive/Articles/Proffesional%20Quotations.doc

        4,. JJ Rae- a biochemist in the 1940s

        5. Robert Mick – a general dentist in the 1930s

        6. Albert Schatz – a microbiologist in the 1940s

        7. Dean Burk

        “Anti-fluoridation activists love to cite Dr. Burk, who has gone so far as to say that “fluoridation is a form of public mass murder.” As the past head of the National Cancer Institute’s Cytochemistry Sector² from 1938 to 1974, Burk is often cited as an unquestionable expert. However, Dr. Burk is an outlier on this issue in the scientific community. While Dr. Burk had a long scientific career and was notable as a co-discoverer of both biotin and a MRI prototype, a closer look at his career raises serious questions about his credibility. Burk’s approach to fluoridation was one of an activist more than a scientist. The self-correcting model of science advances on the basis of new evidence, yet Burk was never able to accept the mounting evidence against his favored hypothesis”.

        “Burk’s quackery did not end at his anti-fluoridation activities however, he was also known for his support of the now disproven and potentially dangerous cancer “cure” laetrile. While in initial in vitro experiments Burk claimed to see “cancer cells dying off like flies“, these results are now understood to be very misleading and subsequent in vivo experimentation did not support the claims made for laetrile. A 2011 Cochrane Review of over 63 papers found “no reliable evidence for the alleged effects of laetrile or amygdalin for curative effects in cancer patients.” A common theme of Burk’s career was an over-confidence in preliminary data, while having a lack of respect for peer review and scientific criticism³.”

        —-Fluoride & Cancer Quackery
        http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/11/fluoride-cancer-quackery/

        8. Phyllis Mullinex

        Close “FAN” and Connett affiliate, long-time antifluoridationist Mullinex’ paper on fluoridation was completely refuted by Ross, Daston, and Whitford in 1995

        “A seven-year study compared the health and behavior of children from birth through six years of age in communities with optimally fluoridated water with those of children the same age without exposure to optimally fluoridated water. Medical records were reviewed yearly during the study. At age six and seven, child behavior was measured using both maternal and teacher ratings. The results suggested that there was no evidence to indicate that exposure to optimally fluoridated water had any detectable effect on children’s health or behavior. These results did not differ even when data was controlled for family social background.”

        “The research conducted by Mullenix et al discussed in this question has not been replicated by other researchers.”

        —-Ross JF, Daston GP. Neurotoxicology and Teratology   1995;17(6):685-6

        —-Whitford GM. The metabolism and toxicity of fluoride, 2nd rev. ed. Monographs in oral science, Vol. 16.  Basel, Switzerland: Karger;1996.

        “We do not believe the study by Mullinex, et al. can be interpreted in any way as indicating the potential for NaF to be a neurotoxicant”

        Dr. Joseph F. Ross, DVM, PhD

        Dr. George P. Daston, PhD

        Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No. 6, pp 685-686 1995

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

        Like

        • Paul T Morrison

          Good grief, with a population of 7 billion on earth I would think she could have come up with at least a few that were not dead or crazy.

          Like

        • Dead or crazy are the only two pools they have from which to draw.

          A frequent commenter, “Nyscof” aka Carol Kopf, the “Media Relations Director” for FAN, often boasts of a list of professionals, worldwide, who oppose fluoridation, “including 368 dentists and 550 MDs”, obviously oblivious to the fact that there are 175,000 dentists and 850,000 MDs in the US alone, in spite of my having reminded her of this fact on a hundred or so occasions……

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          Liked by 1 person

      • These cherry-picked quotes are actually pretty intriguing. To take at random the last quoted, Phyllis Mullenix; why the Forsythe Dental Center; why does it not yet have a single Google review; why did it have a Head of Toxicology anyway; and why is she only the former head?

        Thanks to the miracle of Google we can find the answer to the last question in about 0.2 seconds. According to her former boss, “Mullenix was dismissed because of problems with the quality of her work.”

        If I wanted to quote people who supported my point of view, I think I’d be a bit more diligent in screening ’em. But perhaps I’m picky.

        Like

    • I from England ad I live in Rockport. I have no idea when the UK started fluoridation, but it was a long time ago and it changed the landscape of childhood dental care for ever. I have several fillings as everyone of my generation does. And despite the conventional (and btw tedious) American jokes in this regard, my 55-year old teeth are healthy and straight. But kids of my kids’ generation have very few cavities or fillings by comparison. 1ppm fluoride in drinking water almost wiped them out with no measurable negative impact. As a geologist and crystal scientist, I am familiar with the ion substitution (of Fl- for OH- in a solid solution called apatite) that makes fluoridation effective, so I have no reason to fear it. But as understanding as I might be that not everyone is a scientist, I do not intend to be dragged backward by ignorance proudly proclaimed.

      Like

      • Tim, as a geologist you should fully appreciate the irony of the fact that a large amount of “naturally occurring fluoride” which antis proclaim to be different from the “toxic waste fluoride” from “artificial” fluorosilicates, comes from fluorosilicates in igneous rock…..

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

        Like

  • Sounds good, nothing against science, but does it seem right to have a town, state or country decide what goes into a “source of life” essential intake for our bodies? We can get flouride, if we wish to from other sources. The question here is freedom to choose (or lack of it). Water is something we can’t just decide not to use/drink, unless we want to pay for it, which many people do because of fluoride or other reasons. Also, how many times have we heard many years/decades later that something scientists/we once thought was good for us is bad, or vice versa?

    Like

    • Paul T Morrison

      If there was evidence that harm was caused by one part per million fluoride in the water system to even a small segment of the populace then yes, a choice would be the way to go. It’s not like we are talking vaccines here where a choice of not being vaccinated can cause great harm to many more people than the person not being vaccinated.

      But there is no valid evidence of harm by one part per million fluoride. All consensus science shows overwhelming evidence that adding fluoride up to one part per million so that it would match communities that benefit from naturally occurring fluoride is beneficial with no downside.

      Those pseudoscience websites I mentioned will rant about studies in China and India where the fluoride levels are much higher and extrapolate harm. But it doesn’t work that way.

      Liked by 1 person

  • Excellent, Paul. In general, there is a common format of a web page you quickly run into when searching medical related items. Some of them are filled with lots of information and is very easy to read. They show up at the top of the list, and it catches your eye. But it often leads to selling you something. On Flouride, I haven’t done the research. But I think its healthy to question everything. Good post!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Paul T Morrison

      Rich B, you bring up an interesting point. If you google for health related advice you are swamped with web pages trying to sell you something, mostly bullshit. These snake oil salesmen are good at their trade. They know and retain experts in SEO, Search Engine Optimization.

      That is why, when you google fluoride the first hundred hits are scary fear mongering websites trying to sell you a water filter. Unfortunately the real science websites, the CDC, AAAS, NAS, ADA are not allowed to commit trickery and use SEO to load their sites to get the highest hits. So people searching think fluoride must be awful if that is all that is pulled up in a google search.

      Liked by 2 people

  • Simply stated this is a toxic waste product scraped from Chinese smokestacks, shipped to us in bags marked poison…and poured into our public water. How does that make any sense? The water you drink, cook with , bathe -in is toxic. And you have no choice in the matter, you have no choice as to whether or not you want to be medicated.

    You want your fluoride? Feel free to enjoy your fluoridated toothpaste which is labeled with serious health warnings and take your fluoride pills. The list of illnesses attributed to fluoridated water is lengthy and totally unnecessary. It’s addition to our drinking water in this day and age is irresponsible.

    The people should have a choice as to whether or not they want poison added to their water supply.

    “Beneficial with no downside”? You obviously have not done your homework.

    Like

    • Paul T Morrison

      If by doing my homework I am supposed to be memorizing and believing talking points from Fluoride Action Network then you are correct. I did not memorize it. I did read it, but mostly just to keep myself up at night reading fictional horror stories.

      You have to ask yourself, why would the consensus of scientific experts agree that fluoride is beneficial but instead the Chinese are sending us poisons scraped from their smokestacks and shipped in bags marked poison? Why would we allow this and what is the reason?

      It must be a vast conspiracy since so many would have to be involved. Or it might be that Paul Connnett is selling fear. He has made a very good living for decades now selling this fear. Flies first class, nice house, all paid for by the fear he is selling.

      You have to ask yourself why these government employees are poisoning you? What is their reason? Are the members of the National Academy of Sciences making money selling this poison? It makes no sense. It is the same nonsensical attack on vaccines. You may as well believe in chemtrails.

      Liked by 2 people

  • Thanks, Paul. I think you have established your bona fides. So has Rockport’s Dr. Sydney Wedmore. And Dr. Jonas Gavelis. These are educated, trustworthy men, and they all support the continued use of fluoride in our public water supply.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Paul T Morrison

      You point out the fact that dentists support fluoride. It is the simple truth that Joey pointed out when he brought this topic up a few months ago. He had a question, he asked his dentist, and his dentist said fluoride was awesome.

      The evil conspiracy kind of breaks down right there because a) you would need to pay off a pant load of dentists to keep them all in line in the conspiracy, and b) wouldn’t a dentist be against fluoride if he or she was some kind of nincompoop? Dentists make a ton of money filling cavities and pulling rotten teeth. Shouldn’t they be on Paul Connett’s website denouncing fluoride?

      But as you point out, dentists are educated, honorable professionals who have their patient’s health and well being as the most important job they have. It isn’t to sell them a book or a filter.

      Liked by 1 person

  • Thank you, Paul, for your calm, rational and informed voice. I’m a part-time Rockporter so I can’t vote on this, but I’m glad there is fluoride in the water here as in the majority of communities in this country.

    Liked by 2 people

  • My daughter has been drinking fluoridated water all of her 38 years and has no cavities, nor, inexplicably, does she suffer symptoms of industrial poisoning or any other vast conspiracy. Just to see if Paul is talking straight, I googled fluoride and found some wacko sites. The first hit, though, is Wikipedia, from which I learned (since in general I trust Wikipedia) several things, among them that yes, it’s good for your teeth, but also that too much of the stuff can be dangerous. However, you are far more likely to ingest too much of it from processed food than from your drinking water. The impression I got was that if you drink un-fluoridated water, you will still get plenty from other sources, for instance, breakfast tea.

    Does someone really think we import bags of Chinese coal-plant ash marked “Poison” and then put it into our reservoirs? Whatever they’re smoking, include me out.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Paul T Morrison

      Wikipedia, although people can abuse it, is an excellent source of information. One can easily see in “history” if there has been any vandalism. I have been a wikipedia editor since 2006 with several thousand edits. I watch 155 pages and none of them have had vandalism that lasts more than an hour.

      Another excellent source in the same vein is Rational Wiki at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/
      It identifies pseudo science pages and rips them apart. It does a nice thorough job of pretty much every anti-fluoride web page out there.

      If a loved one starts believing that a vaccination is deadly or that the government is dousing us with chemtrails that would be my first stop for info.

      Like

  • My son is 44 years old and i believe he has had maybe one cavity in his life thanks to fluoride,brushing and flossing.

    Like

  • “Because I sound like I know what I am talking about when it comes to science… ”

    Actually, my friend, you don’t. You sound more like a coward who hides behind a delete button when the website boss is trying to sleep.

    Like

    • Paul T Morrison

      Sorry Michael, I did delete your post, I was watching the Bruins and the Red Sox lose at the same time in one screen and I had written a lovely reply to your six page screed but deleted it instead of the damn Sox. Please repost.

      Basically my response to your rehash of FAN talking points was, “It comes down to believing the respected scientists of our nation and in fact the world, the consensus opinion of the efficacy of fluoride, or believing a small minority with an axe to grind trying to create fear.”

      Fear sucks, I prefer science.

      ps. Could you shorten the copy paste diatribe down to maybe two pages? A simple link to the FAN website will cover pretty much everything you wrote.

      Here, let me help you out: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

      Liked by 2 people

  • Paul, I like your style! Just before I read your last post, I was getting ready to comment that anytime a fluoridation comment begins with “You haven’t done your homework” ….duck quickly! The “FAN” BS is about to be unleashed!!

    Fluoridation provides nothing in the water but a few more fluoride ions, identical those which humans, and antifluoridationists as well, have been ingesting their entire lifetimes, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts that fall so far short of EPA mandated maximum levels of safety that it is not even a certainty that they aren’t those which exist in water naturally. Optimal level fluoride is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and causes no adverse effects. Countless peer-reviewed studies through the decades have clearly demonstrated its effectiveness in preventing dental decay in entire populations. The dental and medical costs to taxpayer-borne public assistance programs, such as Medicaid and HealthChoice, incurred as a direct result of untreated dental decay, completely dwarf the less than $1 per person, per year cost of fluoridation.

    There is no good reason not to have it in the water. Thanks for your article!

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Liked by 2 people

    • Paul T Morrison

      Excellent points.

      I tried to keep the science to a minimum but you point out a major FAN issue. A fluoride ion in solution from China or from the pristine hills of Nova Scotia are absolutely identical. There are no Chinese characters written on the side of the asian fluoride ion. That fluoride ion will incorporate into the enamel in our teeth just like any other fluoride ion.

      I’m starting to think the FAN opinion is elitist. “Our fluoride ions are better then these fluoride ions from a foreign country.” Or does it all stem from Dr Strangelove and the purity of our bodily fluids?

      Liked by 1 person

      • As you well know, the “imported from China” is just more of Connett’s fear-mongering nonsense. It doesn’t matter if the fluoridating compounds come from the moon. Water at the tap meets EPA mandated safety certification requirements under Standard 60 of the NSF, or it isn’t allowed, period. The fluorosilicates are gone as soon as they hit the neutral pH of drinking water, and don’t exist at the tap. Arsenic is the most prevelent contaminant in fluoridated water at the tap, due to its high prevalence in nature in general. It takes 10X the manufacturer recommended single dose amount of HFA for the NSF to detect any arsenic, and that’s only in less than 50% of the random samples. The maximum arsenic detected is 0.6 ppb, only 60% of the maximum allowed under standard 60, which is only 10% of the EPA MCL for arsenic, 10 ppb. The average detected is only 0.12 ppb. Any other contaminants detected are even less than arsenic and farther below allowable maximums. If anything, HFA is remarkably pure.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

        Liked by 2 people

  • Thanks Paul…. I began looking at the drinking water fluoridation about a year ago, after a person I respect greatly suggested to me that it was neither “safe nor effective”. It seemed ridiculous that something which I’d been part of for 62 years might not be true. So, like the good little retired engineer, I went looking for data and analyses. The organizations which support fluoridation, I found, alluded to “numerous studies”, but never referenced any on their websites. So I looked elsewhere and found a great deal of study had been done. The initial studies in the US and Canada, upon which the practice was based, were deeply flawed with omissions, statistical errors and data selection bias to the point that valid conclusions can be drawn from none of them. ( http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Sutton-Fluoridation-Errors-And-Omissions-In-Experimental-Trials-Melbourne-University-Press-1959-1960.pdf ) Since that time, numerous studies HAVE been done, the overwhelming majority of which do not support the adage that fluoridation is “safe and effective”.

    But I tend to agree with Ms. Williams on this one, that the primary question here is freedom of choice, something which the practice of drinking water fluoridation disallows. And yes, I do realize that those who cannot tolerate fluoridated water can purchase their own fluoride-free water in addition to the fluoridated water for which they have already paid. At the same time, those who live in non-fluoridated communities are also free to get a prescription for fluoride supplements if they so desire. One of these things is considerably more expensive than the other….can you guess which?

    I also tend to agree with N.S. Johnson that the author hasn’t done his homework (although he has a lot of company) It is easy, even comforting, to believe the things our consumer protective groups tell us, but sad that intelligent and educated people would do this without doing their own fact checking.

    I also tend to agree with you, Paul, about asking the scientific experts in the relevant field. So, rather than simply believing organizations dedicated to fluoridation endorsement, your homework assignment is to follow these links and to do some reading which goes well beyond the pronouncements of the American Dental Association:

    2005 in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf
    2014 in Scientific World Journal: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
    2014 in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Public Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2013 in Journal of Environmental Public Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/
    1996 Confronting the Experts: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/96ce/3_Diesendorf.pdf

    And for extra credit, you may consider going to the following link which, will provide you with numerous scientific studies which raise a great deal of doubt about the organizations who claim fluoridation is “safe and effective” or “one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century.”

    http://www.cafan.net/links/

    And yes, I do realize that would be a lot of reading, but then homework isn’t always easy.

    Please know that if you can provide links to recent studies demonstrating safety and/or effectiveness, I would be glad to read them. But if you post Brunelle and Carlos, I’ll be forced to reference Yiamouyianous, and I might not buy that coffee I owe you.

    (BTW…It appears that the ADA website has recently taken down their list of fluoridation endorsing organizations. This had been a source of pride for them, even after several withdrew their names in recent years. Makes you wonder.)

    Like

    • Paul T Morrison

      Much better Michael you got your comment under two pages. Some comments.

      1) “I started looking at fluoride a year ago.”
      And now you are an expert much more qualified to dissect why a fluoride ion added to water is horrible because you have memorized Paul Connett’s FAN website? More qualified than the National Academy of Sciences? Really? In your retirement as an engineer I suggest cracking a chemistry textbook.

      I started thinking of fluoride as a teenager in September of 1970 when I first moved from Indianapolis to Woods Hole and I was in the dentist’s chair of Dr Wolf, the Woods Hole dentist. One look in my mouth and he said, “You’re not from around here are you?” Using a mirror Dr Wolf showed me how my teeth were very white were they ground together. He then gave me the news that the white would disappear since Woods Hole (actually it was the John Birch Society in Falmouth) did not allow fluoride in the water because it was a commie plot. Since then as I became a scientist I always kept up on the “fluoride controversy” because I thought it so strange that a minority of luddites could keep a safe and effective way to keep your teeth into old age out of the water system.

      2) “I also tend to agree with N.S. Johnson that the author hasn’t done his homework”

      Really? You had to do the “Do your homework” schtick? I should make this a drinking game but I would be shit faced in no time. No, I will not read your cherry picked reasoning from the Fluoride Action Network because I have read it all before. In reviewing scientific papers I get to read a lot of sciencey sounding bullshit. Is sciencey a word? It should be. Definition: Bullshit pretending to be science which can fool nonscientists into thinking it actually might be true. Sort of like Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness”. But truthiness fits your comment even better. Dozens of links saying the same thing. Repeat the same bullshit over and over again and some people actually think it might be true.

      3) You ignore scientific findings because “your extensive searching” find nothing.

      You ignore scientific findings because your searching cannot find studies showing fluoride efficacy. You even bet your favorite granite sculpture that no one could find a five year blinded study of fluoride efficacy. But it took James Dowd about fifteen minutes to google find one. Even though it was pointed out to you that James had won your sculpture because he had found a paper which actually cited five other papers with even longer blinded studies you somehow changed the rules and reneged on your bet. You call me a coward. I would not describe you as a coward just misinformed but weaseling out of a bet like that comes close.

      In the 65 years of water fluoridation there have been something like one hundred reasons that luddites have come up with to decry fluoridation. I ran into the John Birch “commie plot” when I was a kid. The reasons change over time because actual scientists shoot down each reason and the luddite says, “Oh yeah, but what about …” and they think of the new reason. Cosmetic dental fluorosis (only if fluoride is at high concentrations like in China where breathing coal smoke is loaded with fluoride is a problem) is the new one.

      Your oft stated position opposing vaccines makes you a confirmed luddite who should get off his soapbox or at least move it to the Park Street Subway Station. 🙂

      Like

      • Still waiting for my sculpture.

        Like

        • Paul T Morrison

          And I am still busting Mr. Foley’s balls about your lack of sculpture. Writing has consequences. To advocate absurd conspiracy theories about fluoride is a bad joke. To advocate anti-vaccination conspiracies; that is actually killing people today. Small babies dying of whooping cough. Completely preventable if not for a small sect of the population who are ignorant, elitist, or they just really don’t give two shits about the common health of all of us.

          But to make a bet and then make up sorry excuses and move the goal posts, that’s just plain old lame.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Paul, allow me to address Foley’s list of study titles copy/pasted from “FAN” just as I have numerous times before when he and his cohort Karen Spencer have pasted them, with obviously, neither one of them having read, much less understood, any of the studies attached to these titles.

      1. 2005 in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf

      The “Journal of American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons” is a fringe group with 3,000 or so, out of 850,000 MDs in the US. The journal of this group is yet another “open access” which is not even recognized by respected scientific databases. The article you reference relies heavily on an another fringe activist group. The “International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology”.

      In regard to the American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons:

      “The AAPS motto, “omnia pro aegroto” is Latin for “all for the patient.” AAPS also publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (formerly known as the Medical Sentinel). The Journal is not indexed by mainstream scientific databases such as the Web of Science or MEDLINE. The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the Journal has been widely criticized, and many of the political and scientific viewpoints advocated by AAPS are considered extreme or dubious by mainstream scientists and medical groups.”

      —–http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

      2. 2014 in Scientific World Journal: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

      This is nothing more than an opinion piece by longtime antifluoridationists Hiyi Awofeso, and Stephen Peckham, Peckham being the former chair of the British antifluoridationist faction “Hampshire Against Fluoridation”. This article was published in an “open access” journal which charges a hefty fee to those which wish to have their work published. A & P’s opinions are in complete contradiction to the overwhelming consensus opinion of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare.

      3. 2014 in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Public Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851

      This paper by long time antifluoridationist, Phyllis Mullinex, is an obvious stretch to attempt to discredit fluoridation by providing entirely irrelevant information on the contents of raw, undiluted fluoridation substances. It makes no difference, whatsoever, as to what are the contents of water additives prior to their reaching the tap. Drinking water quality standards begin with water at the tap. This is the water that we ingest and/or otherwise utilize. All water at the tap must meet stringent EPA mandated certification requirements under Standard 60 of the NSF. There must not be any contaminants present in this water that are in excess of these EPA mandated maximums. If there are, the water is not allowed. It’s that simple.

      4. 2013 in Journal of Environmental Public Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/

      This article is by Richard Sauerheber, the “Scientific Consultant” for attorney James Deal. Deal maintains a website for the apparent sole purpose of attempting to scare up lawsuits against fluoridation, with which he has, obviously, had no success. Sauerheber’s article is published in yet another “open access journal” which charged him  $800 to publish it. Sauerheber’s “argument” is in regard to neutralization of fluoride by calcium, and reformation of HF in the human gut. Neither argument has any merit for fluoride at the minuscule optimal at which water is fluoridated. There is no valid, peer-reviewed proof, whatsoever, of any adverse effects of HF reformation in the human gut, from optimal level fluoride.

      5. 1996 Confronting the Experts: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/96ce/3_Diesendorf.pdf

      This is nothing but yet another piece by a long-time antifluoridationist, this one being Mark Diesendorf. This biased, rambling junk is just more of the same conspiracy nonsense, false statements, and misinformation characteristic of the overwhelming majority of the “science” which antifluoridationists put forth as evidence.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      Like

      • Paul T Morrison

        Thanks Steven, I think Michael Foley will be sending you a token of appreciation in the form of a granite sculpture for pointing out how wrong he is in stoking irrational fears about fluoride.

        Not.

        Like

        • In the spooky, murky, conspiracy laden world of antifluoridationists, Foley, Spencer, and Goss are lightweights who have posted enough garbled nonsense all over the internet to fill a warehouse.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          Liked by 1 person

  • Thanks for your refreshing voice of reason.

    Liked by 1 person

  • A YES vote on May 5th gives every Rockport Resident the freedom of choice.

    Like

  • Craig Kimberley

    I vote Megan Fox for President of Everything.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Paul T Morrison

      Thank you Craig for restoring my faith in humanity and the American Way. But twelve hours before there is a comment on Megan Fox? We really are slipping as a nation of red blooded Americans.

      I was expecting at least a few, “Hey Megan you need any help with applying your fluoride ions because I could help you out there.”

      Like

  • Oh…And I would be remiss in not introducing Dr. Steven Slott to those on this forum. Dr. Slott is a sometimes dentist (check out his patient ratings!) from Burlington, NC, and a leading member of the ADA fluoridation “Rapid Response” team. In any place in the English speaking online world where fluoridation is threatened, you will find “Doc” Slott’s “personal” perspectives, which are accessed skillfully from the ADA response database. “Doc” refuses to reveal his rate of pay per post, but there are those who believe it runs as high as $25. Since fluoridation is being questioned in many communities now, there are many opportunities for a man like him to do much better than he could as a dentist. but clearly, it isn’t about money, but a true love for internet trolling.

    Like

    • Paul T Morrison

      Thanks Michael, Steven Slott is obviously an expert since every word he has posted is backed by 65 years of scientific research. His calling out the Fluoride Action Network for the complete BS about the foreign fluoride being a poison was clearly explained. With simple high school chemistry one can easily follow along with his explanation that the fluoride ion, once it is in solution, is identical to all other fluoride ions in solution.

      To think that the fluoride ion is different would mean that the rules of chemistry do not apply. That homeopathy actually works. That the Food Babe is correct when she states that microwaving or yelling at water will reconfigure the water molecules into an unhealthful arrangement. (Food Babe is antifluoride big time). Voo-doo like that is clearly used when one is fear mongering to scare the crap out of someone. Like what the FAN is doing with an element that has been added to our water system for decades.

      ps. You haven’t delivered Dowd’s reward yet?

      https://goodmorninggloucester.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/reward-offered-by-m-s-foley-stoneworks-of-gloucester-ma/

      Like

    • Ahhhh, Michael! You messed me up! I had estimated that it would be farther into this discussion before you would throw in the towel, and resort to your fallback of ridiculous and patently false claims. To your credit, I did find find one true statement in your comment. I am a dentist from Burlington, NC. So, congratulations! That’s one more than you usually post.

      Paul, thank you for the compliment, but I am not an expert on fluoridation other than would be considered of any dentist. I am simply a general dentist who has spent the overwhelming majority of his 33 career providing dental treatment for low-income and indigent populations. I have spent decades seeing and dealing with, first hand, the devastating effects of lifetimes of untreated dental disease…..while feeling the frustrating futility of trying to make a dent in it by putting out one raging fire at a time. My knowledge of fluoridation comes from performing simple research from respected, reliable sources, as can anyone with a modicum of intelligence, along with knowing where to turn to find accurate answers to any questions I might have, or for information I might need. Given that I have hardly charged for the majority of my dental services through the years, it is always comical when antis claim that I am being paid by this group or that for my part in this “vast conspiracy”.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      Like

      • Paul T Morrison

        Well Michael has played the last of his cards. Let me see,

        1) Need to do your homework, done and done.

        2) Dentists don’t have time to study this but I have been researching it for a year. (This must be the most galling for a dentist to hear.)

        3) And the ace card for dealing with an expert whether for fluoride, vaccines, or GMOs, you are a paid shill. $25 bucks a post! That is so much more than filling a cavity so obviously you would roll over and become a paid shill for the ADA!

        “There are those that believe”!! Yes, there are those that believe in ancient aliens walked the earth thousands of years ago and are still leaving crop circles and Chemtrails. Hopefully, “those that believe” do not influence public policy outside of their fear mongering circle.

        Like

  • I’ve learned two things about conspiracy fabulusts: 1. I’m unaware of any conspiracy that any of them has actually shown to be fact, and 2. You can’t possibly change their minds. Empirical evidence means little or nothing. The definition of delusion is: the persistent belief in something that is against what is accepted as reality or generally accepted as truth. Just as with people we call paranoid, they tend to think those who don’t agree with them are really the delusional ones. I think there are people who are not in this category, but who sometimes think where there is smoke there must be fire. In the case of fluoride, I think it ain’t smoke; it is just hot air. Science has this one right. If you really think fluoride is a gigantic Chinese/industrial/dental/medical conspiracy, eschew chlorine, too, as well as those godawful filters, and go back to drinking creek water and let your teeth and body do what they may.

    Occasionally, there is wisdom in the crowd.

    Like

  • This is an interesting thread. I’m a preschool teacher and as the years go by and kids drink more bottled water and more “fruit snacks”, the difficulty with their teeth problems has appeared to increase from a very early age. Who wouldn’t appreciate a smart public health initiative?
    As for vaccines…I’m sure any father out there who googles an image of “adult male with mumps” and sees the very unfortunate swelling everywhere that occurs would never refuse a vaccine offered to his child!

    Like

  • I really wish toxic waste pushing ignoramuses would stop associating climate science with fluoridationist nonsense. Climate change is extremely serious, and the science credible, unlike fluoridationist “science”. Thinking that everything which has had the label “science” slapped onto it is all the same is about as dumb as it gets. Fluoridation and the reckless burning of fossil fuels are both examples of grossly irresponsible pollution carried out to further corporate interests at the expense of the public, and in defiance of the best scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle. It is unlikely to just be a coincidence that America and Australia are especially guilty in relation to both. When a dentist supports industrial silicofluoride toxic waste pollution, it is similar to a geologist supporting carbon pollution, because they are both speaking outside their area of expertise. Whenever anyone speaks in favour of forced-fluoridation they are just blowing hot air, because there is no good quality evidence they can cite, and because the whole idea of using public water supplies to medicate populations is ridiculous to everyone with at least a little common sense.

    Like

    • Paul T Morrison

      This is an interesting post. It promotes the premise that there is good science behind global warming but that there is not good science behind fluoridation.

      It simply is not true any way you look at it. The very same organizations that back global warming also back fluoridation with consensus science. The National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, The World Health Organization, the Royal Academy, all the heavy hitters.

      You simply cannot pick and choose when you listen to scientists and when you believe they are paid shills. It is about as cut and dried as you get.

      Science is not a religion, good science is not political, it is not left wing or right wing. It is the systematic analysis of data to try to find out how stuff actually works. It has no other agenda because it is not really a “thing”, but a process. You cannot yell at it when you think it is wrong and agree with it only when it agrees with your “common sense”.

      [edit] Dan Germouse has flooded this thread with many more posts like his first finally crossing over into ad hominem attacks pointing out my obvious dementia because I do not know what confirmation bias is and I think that only Harvard scientists like myself could possibly know the correct answer.

      I am not posting them. Not because I have a thin skin, they are amusing, but because they muddy the water and someone reading this thread from start to finish might get turned off and not read the whole thing because the train has left the tracks. I can post them somewhere else if someone cares to read all the details.

      Like

  • Paul T Morrison

    On May 5, 2015, in a lopsided vote, Rockport voters decided to keep fluoride in their water. Gloucester has a chance to vote this fall.

    Like

  • Whew! It’s a good thing, Paul. It would have been a shame to alter the content of water which Megan so obviously enjoys.

    Hopefully Gloucester citizens will vote as responsibly as did Rockport.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  • Hi Paul, never met you and likely won’t, but I have been reading GMG a long time. I enjoy your posts. You bring a unique perspective to the blog, staff scientist etc. if you will. Keep it up. I like this occasional Fenway lunch time shots to! Good luck in this summer’s Challenge from an old Gloucester “coastie” and paddler—pete

    Liked by 1 person

  • I stated earlier that I had deleted multiple posts by Dan Germouse because they were mostly copy paste of what others had posted from the Fluoride Action Network. But he has posted all of his posts and much more on something called the Fluoridation Freedom Fighters website. I would post a link but that might drive a lot of clicks to a website that really is not worth it.

    But if you do want to read his posts just google: “PAUL T MORRISON OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY IS AN INCOMPETENT, DISHONEST HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSER”

    or

    “if Paul T Morrison bothered to have a look at it, and his brain hasn’t been completely lost to dementia, he might discover that for himself. In the meantime, he should do the honourable thing and resign.”

    If you cannot find it because the website took it down I have a copy. Just email me if it vanishes or the descriptions of me change.

    I read it all so you don’t have to. You’re welcome. In lay language, his posts are a sciencey (sic) sounding word salad. Or maybe hummus, left in the Cuisinart too long.

    He also included a recent photo of me:

    Like

    • Wear it like a badge of honor, Paul. When the antifluoridationist clowns begin posting nonsense about you on other websites, it means you’ve struck a nerve. Some antifluoridationist lawyer has a whole page of nonsense about me posted on his website. I can’t remember the link or I’d post it. It is truly hysterical. Even moreso is when the antis post the link in lame attempts to discredit me. The hyenas have also posted nonsense about me on some website that supposedly rates healthcare providers. They then post links to that site, as if anyone but they take any of that junk seriously. The infantile mindset of these people is remarkable.

      Germouse is a real piece of work. He trashes the respected sources of information on fluoridation because they debunk his claims……then he expects intelligent people to accept “information” posted on his website “forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters”, as if anyone with more than a quarter of a brain would care what is on such a ridiculous little site.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      Liked by 1 person

      • I am sure you have received much worse than this. I am only an amateur when it comes to pointing out pseudo-science. But this mixture of almost sounding logical for a second and just plain loopy is just weird. It does lay bare most of the arguments that anti-fluoride uses. Because crazy.

        Like

        • Germouse is an odd one to figure. His abusiveness and rage are are a constant, but there are times when he can make a halfway intelligent argument. Not necessarily a valid one, but at least showing some thought process beyond the normal “fluoridealert” copy/pastes that 99% of them mindlessly post. But then he’ll follow that with inane junk such as his list of “good sources”…i.e. fluoridealert, Declan Waugh, Connett’s and Bryson’s books, and other antifluoridationist websites, and insane nonsense like what he’s posted on his site about you. He seems to read original literature instead of just the filtered and edited versions located on the anti websites. In view of this, I’ve questioned him more than a few times as to why he ruins what credibility he might have by listing those “good sources”, but no answer.

          Strange character.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          Like

  • Last night, November 4, 2015, Gloucester voted 2 to 1 against removing fluoride. Cape Ann believes in science!

    Like

  • Paul T Morrison & RD

    File this next comment under, “I’m not as bright as I think I am.” :-O

    I commented at lab meeting yesterday about SEO, getting our lab website listed and mentioned this post about fluoride. I said out loud, “This guy Dan Germouse is a real nutball …” and several of my staff pointed out that the name “Dan Germouse” had to be a fictitious name equivalent to Phil McCracken or Ben Dover.

    No, I insisted Dan Germouse is …, and as soon as I said it I realized how stupid I sounded. Doh.

    Where is that “You are an Idiot” website? I need to go click it.

    Like

  • Don’t feel alone, Paul. In spite of the hundreds of times I’ve gone back and forth with that Australian moron, until I read your post here and thought about it, “danger mouse” had not occurred to me, either. I guess I’ve just become inured to the pseudonyms of antifluoridationists.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Liked by 1 person

Leaving a comment rewards the author of this post- add to the discussion here-

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s