Examples of Anti-Science Arguments Employing the tactics of Gish Gallop and Argumentum Ad Nauseam

GanG 

You can do it.

To see why fluoride is dangerous to health, Google "Fluoride dangers" and read a few of the many
articles, many by M.D.'s, dentists and medical scientists.

Randy Johnson – GanG

Anyone can Google "fluoride dangers" and find opinions of anti-science activists that can appear to "confirm" a specific opinion.  How does one determine whether those opinions are legitimate?  For example:

Google, "The Flat Earth Society - tFES" and read "evidence" that the earth is flat.

Google, "The Ark Encounter" or "Answers in Genesis" to find "evidence" that the earth is younger than 10,000 years and all living land animals are descendants of Ark survivors around 4,000 years ago.

Google, "vaccine dangers" to find "evidence" that vaccines are more harmful than beneficial.

Even if you search on those specific anti-science opinions, you will also find references to scientific evidence that fluoridated water is not dangerous, but is beneficial; scientific evidence the earth is not flat but spheroid; evidence the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and land animals have been around for over 400 million years; and evidence that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any risks.  Obviously, if you search on "fluoride benefits", "flat earth debunked", "how old is the earth" and "benefits of vaccination", the results will be quite different from the anti-science searches.

The problem is not what "conclusions" and "opinions" can be found on a Google search, but how to refine a Google search to present more legitimate scientific evidence - and even more important, how to interpret the often thousands of results that are presented in a Google search and determine which are legitimate scientific conclusions and which are not.

An example:
1) Search on: Science and Health Organizations that <b>Support</b> Fluoridation - and you will find lists of specific, well-respected organizations worldwide that continue to support fluoridation.
2) Search on: Science and Health Organizations that <b>Reject</b> Fluoridation - and you won't find lists of any major science or health organizations.  You will find an anti-fluoridation site (FAN) that offers  1) a list of countries that don't fluoridate because of political and other reasons that are not based on any scientific evidence of harm from fluoridation, 2) a list of 13 Nobel Prize scientists (all but 1 from before 1963), 3) "scientists from the EPA" - which references a vote by a very small group of EPA employees several decades ago (the EPA is not anti-F), 4) a list of "<i>Thousands of Medical and Scientific Professionals</i>" out of many millions of medical and scientific professionals in the world (in fact the FAN evidence suggests fewer than 0.02% of relevant professionals in the world signed the anti-F petition)., 5-10) more non-science and non-health groups.

Bottom line - After a search on science and health organizations that support or reject fluoridation, if you don't have significant science &/or health care training and experience, would it make sense to listen to (and trust) the majority of science and health experts?  Or would you take your chances with the opinions of outlier fluoridation opponents whose opinions are not supported by well-recognized science and health organizations.  Anti-F support is only from a handful of alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like FAN, nyscof,  the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News]. Extremely strong opinions and vocal arguments can't hide the lack of legitimate scientific support for the anti-F opinions. 

If you had relevant science &/or health care training, you would not have to place as much trust in the conclusions of others, and you could personally evaluate some of the actual scientific evidence presented by proponents and opponents of fluoridation and see which studies/reviews were designed, conducted and evaluated fairly.  The fact that the available scientific evidence from over 75 years has not convinced the overwhelming majority of science and health experts in the world that the opinions of fluoridation opponents are valid should be sufficient evidence for rational non-scientists to accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems.

 
GanG
Fluoride toothpaste is widely available to apply to the tooth SURFACE.
Don't swallow the toxic fluoride in drinking water or toothpaste which will adversely affect your thyroid, brain, bones and kidneys.

Randy Johnson – GanG

Provide evidence of your opinions. Start with a single, relevant legitimate scientific study that proves optimally fluoridated water is toxic and adversely affects health. Then there will be something to discuss.

Before you bother to reference a study, however, check it carefully so it actually concerned optimally fluoridated water (OFW), and make certain the authors actually concluded there was a verifiable cause and effect relationship between drinking OFW and whatever they were studying.

The only studies provided by fluoridation opponents as alleged evidence all have one, usually more, of the following characteristics:
1) The study referenced had nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW);
2) The study examined exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW;
3) Actual study conclusions were deliberately distorted, misused &/or misstated to fit anti-F propaganda;
4) The study conclusions only suggested a possible weak correlation (or association), not a causal relationship;
5) The study didn’t consider or adjust for numerous other factors potentially associated with the alleged risk, and it proved nothing;
6) The study was unrepeatable;
7) The study was demonstrably flawed and had significant limitations
&/or
8) The claim was a complete fabrication.

An excellent example of a recent study used by fluoridation opponents to try and prove their opinions valid is the 2019 Green, et al. paper. It has been under extraordinary criticism by relevant science experts since publication last August. A nearly unprecedented request from 30 science and health experts to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for the release of the Green et al. study data for independent analysis was based on the fact that “In recent weeks, a number of experts in epidemiology, psychology, statistical methodology and other fields have raised numerous concerns about the Green article, including the following:”
1. Focusing on a subgroup analysis amid “noisy data”:
2. Modeling and variable anomalies:
3. Lacking data on relevant factors that can impact children’s intelligence and cognitive ability:|
4. Omitting crucial findings:
5. Using invalid measures to determine individual exposures:
6. Defining the final study group:
7. Assessing the impact of fluoride exposure:
8. Reporting anomalies:
9. Internal inconsistency of outcomes:
10. Overlooking research that conflicts with the authors’ conclusions:

You can find details of those criticisms and others here:
cyber-nook[dot]com/water/FluoridationInformation-Green.htm

GanG – Randy Johnson 
In case promoters of the toxic fluoride missed it.
Even if fluoride were somehow helpful to children's teeth, EXACTLY why should EVERY ADULT be forced (without consent) to consume it in EVERY glass of water EVERY day of life and suffer the serious health problems listed below?

Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book, "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There" It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health program.

Randy Johnson – GanG
In case you have not understood the concept of exposure levels, there is absolutely no legitimate scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water (0.7 pp, F-) is toxic.

This is the 5th time you have copy/pasted the nonsense about tCAF. Repeating the name of an anti-F propaganda piece does not magically create any validity. You have still never produced a single reference from that work of fiction to prove any of your opinions are true. That is expected, because as I noted the other 4 times you referenced tCAF, no actual study that was mentioned (nowhere near 1200, by the way) proved that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any of the health effects you listed.

GanG 
It is all so simple.

Put fluoride in your own glass of water – as much as you like.
Don't put this toxic chemical in drinking water, forcing EVERYONE to consume it –- without consent.
That practice is immoral and should be illegal.

Randy Johnson – GanG
The solution for the fluoridation issue is, indeed, very simple:

SIMPLE SOLUTION - TRUST THE EXPERTS
1. Leave the fluoride ions in the water at 0.7 ppm.
2. Distillation, RO and activated alumina are available for those who have been duped into fearing the process of fluoridation by deceptive practices of fluoridation opponents.
3. Leave the rest of the population out of it, providing everyone in the community, particularly the disadvantaged, the benefits of strengthened enamel.

 PROBLEM SOLVED.

 Fluoridated water is not toxic. No one is forcing anyone to consume fluoridated water without consent. Fluoridation, like all other water treatment processes, protects the health of citizens - anyone who believes "that practice is immoral" has no interest in public health and should be ignored. You have provided not a shred of evidence to prove any of your opinions are valid - to be expected, since you have no legitimate evidence.

 
GanG
As you read through the comments, you have a choice. Believe the promoter of this BIG money fluoridation scheme or go read the scientists who are using current science and not 75 year science.
See the next comment for the book with 1200 scientific studies and make up your own mind.

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
As you read through the comments, you do have a choice. Trust fluoridation-related conclusions of The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), and around 100 other nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations and their hundreds of thousands of members. Search on:
> What do water fluoridation supporters say? Campaign For Dental Health

 Or, you can uncritically believe the opinions of a few outlier fluoridation opponents, like GanG, whose opinions are supported only by the opinions from a handful of alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like FAN, nyscof, the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News]. Extremely strong opinions and vocal arguments can't hide the lack of legitimate scientific support for the anti-F opinions.

 Read the comments of GanG carefully, and observe that he can present no legitimate scientific evidence to prove his opinions valid - to be expected, since there is none. All he can come up with is the absurd notion that some "BIG money fluoridation scheme" is responsible for the worldwide expert acceptance of fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure to reduce the risk of dental decay.

 Read my response to GanG's reference to tCAF - nothing but unsubstantiated opinions.

 
GanG
Even if fluoride were somehow helpful to children's teeth, EXACTLY why should EVERY ADULT be forced (without consent) to consume it in EVERY glass of water EVERY day of life and suffer the serious health problems listed below?

 Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book,

"The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There"

 It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health pro

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - You have never explained how "EVERY ADULT" is being "forced (without consent) to consume it [F-] in every glass..." Who exactly is forcing everyone to drink the tap water - and exactly what methods are 'They' using - physical force or mind control? According to your twisted "logic", EVERY ADULT is also being forced (without consent) to drink residual disinfectants and disinfectant byproducts - which don't benefit health.

 You continue to mention an un-scientific, un-reviewed anti-F propaganda piece, TCAF. A quick read of the TCAF reveals that there are not anywhere near 1200 unique legitimate scientific references. In fact, many TV programs/videos, other books, letters, personal communications and newspaper articles are listed as “scientific literature”.

 Many of the “scientific references” were used (and counted) multiple times, and absolutely none prove any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. Have you even read this piece of fabricated fiction? I have, and it a work of desperation, not science.

If you can provide a “scientific reference” from TCAF you believe proves fluoridation causes harm there will be something to discuss.

 TCAF is authored by several of the more vocal anti-F outliers. There are always a few outliers in the scientific/health communities who dismiss the legitimacy of a scientific consensus created by the majority of relevant experts. The outlier opinions are driven by strong, inflexible personal beliefs.

 If those beliefs provide the foundation for legitimate scientific research which produces accurate, unbiased, reproducible evidence contrary to the consensus, the consensus will change - that is the way science progresses - by legitimate challenges to the scientific consensus by legitimate scientists.

 The scientific consensus that fluoridation is a beneficial, safe and effective public health measure (like the consensus that water disinfection is beneficial) has not changed despite more than 70 years of challenges by fluoridation opponents.

 You have never provided specific, legitimate scientific evidence to prove your claims. Why should anyone accept your opinions as valid over the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of relevant science and health care experts in the world? Search on:
What do health experts say? - Campaign for Dental Health 

GanG – Randy Johnson
Can you imagine, "if fluoride is dumped into drinking water", –- not understanding that EVERYONE is forced to consume it. Supporting fluoridation may turn off the brain
What do you think?

Randy Johnson – GanG
Can you imagine, "if chlorine (a toxic chemical weapon) is dumped into drinking water", –– not understanding that EVERYONE is forced to consume it. The only thing you prove is that anyone can make up any sentence to try and support any opinion.

 As always, you provide nothing but unsubstantiated opinions to try and support your false opinions. You have never provided a shred of legitimate scientific evidence to prove any of your opinions - which is to be expected, because there is no legitimate scientific evidence to support them.

 
GanG – Randy Johnson
How ignorant!
Chlorine is used to treat the water.
Fluoride is used to treat the body (teeth) –- A DRUG.
WE should not be forced to consume a drug

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
So, where is your evidence that proves anyone, besides fluoridation opponents, considers fluoridated water a drug? Fluoride is used to treat the water to protect teeth. Only someone who didn't care about public health would make a completely irrelevant claim.

Explain, exactly are you "forced to consume" fluoridated water (physical force or mind control?) - and who is forcing you to drink fluoridated water?

Water treatment chemicals are all poisonous at high exposure levels (so is water). Water treatment chemicals are used to protect the health of citizens. Water treatment chemicals (and created disinfection byproducts) are all diluted and regulated to be within safe levels when the treated water is ingested.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Yes, It is all so simple.

Put fluoride in your own glass of water – as much as you like.
Don't put this toxic chemical in drinking water, forcing EVERYONE to consume it –- without consent.

That practice is immoral and should be illegal.

Randy Johnson – GanG
So, no actual evidence supporting your opinions - that's to be expected, since there is none. Fluoride is no more toxic in fluoridated drinking water than any of the other chemicals, and it has the benefit of reducing the risk of dental decay. No one is forcing ANYONE to consume treated water.

 
GanG – Randy Johnson
Laughable – keep up the jokes.

 Note that the promoters of this toxic chemical, fluoride, simply refuse to go read the truth that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.
See my first comment above for 1200 scientific studies to prove this.

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
Sadly, fluoridation opponents seem to believe this discussion about an important public health measure is a joke.

 Note the promoters of the unsupportable anti-F opinions can't provide any legitimate evidence to prove fluoridation is "ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health" - not surprising, since here isn't any. See my response above to your alleged but irrelevant "1200 scientific studies".

 
GanG – Randy Johnson
Actually forcing a toxic (deadly) chemical, fluoride, on everyone without consent is no joke.

Read the science (see my comment above) which contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
Of course not, but your opinion that fluoridation is a "toxic (deadly) chemical" that is "forced... on everyone with consent" is a joke, because it is completely unsupported - as evidenced by your inability to provide any specific scientific evidence to prove any of your claims. All you can provide is the opinions of other rabid fluoridation opponents that interpret the evidence in the same way as you - by selecting and extracting only the studies and words you agree with and presenting them out-of-context and manipulated to fit the anti-F opinions. 

 Every time a specific reference is provided, it will have one or more of the following characteristics:
1) The study referenced had nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW);
2) The study examined exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW;
3) Actual study conclusions were deliberately distorted, misused &/or misstated to fit anti-F propaganda;
4) The study conclusions only suggested a possible weak correlation (or association), not a causal relationship;
5) The study didn’t consider or adjust for numerous other factors potentially associated with the alleged risk, and it proved nothing;
6) The study was unrepeatable;
7) The study was demonstrably flawed and had significant limitations
&/or
8) The claim was a complete fabrication.

 
GanG – Randy Johnson 
Once again –––-
Even if fluoride were somehow helpful to children's teeth, EXACTLY why should EVERY ADULT be forced (without consent) to consume it in EVERY glass of water EVERY day of life and suffer the serious health problems listed below?

Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book,
"The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There"

It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health pro

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
The scientific consensus that fluoridation is a beneficial, safe and effective public health measure (like the consensus that water disinfection is beneficial) has not changed despite more than 70 years of challenges by fluoridation opponents. Fluoridation reduces the risk of dental decay and is beneficial to both children and adults.

Search on: Fluoridation reviews and studies: cyber-nook

You have never explained how "EVERY ADULT" is being "forced (without consent) to consume it [F-] in every glass..." Who exactly is forcing everyone to drink the tap water - and exactly what methods are 'They' using - physical force or mind control? According to your twisted "logic", EVERY ADULT is also being forced (without consent) to drink residual disinfectants and disinfectant byproducts - which don't benefit health.

You continue to mention an un-scientific, un-reviewed anti-F propaganda piece, TCAF. A quick read of the TCAF reveals that there are not anywhere near 1200 unique legitimate scientific references. In fact, many TV programs/videos, other books, letters, personal communications and newspaper articles are listed as “scientific literature”.

 Many of the “scientific references” were used (and counted) multiple times, and absolutely none prove any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. Have you even read this piece of fabricated fiction? I have, and it a work of desperation, not science.

If you can provide a “scientific reference” from TCAF you believe proves fluoridation causes harm there will be something to discuss.

TCAF is authored by several of the more vocal anti-F outliers. There are always a few outliers in the scientific/health communities who dismiss the legitimacy of a scientific consensus created by the majority of relevant experts. The outlier opinions are driven by strong, inflexible personal beliefs.

 
GanG – Randy Johnson
Those who cannot understand that dumping the toxic fluoride into drinking water forces EVERYONE to consume it –- without consent –- must already have a IQ reduction from fluoride. We are sorry.

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
You continue to repeat the same false, unsupportable opinions. Fluorine, like chlorine is toxic only at far higher levels than in treated water. No one os forced to drink treated water –- without consent. There is absolutely no legitimate scientific evidence that drinking optimally fluoridated water reduces IQ or causes any harm. You have provided absolutely no relevant, legitimate scientific evidence to prove any of your opinions – of course, since there is none, that is to be expected.

 
GanG – Randy Johnson
Promoters would prefer that you don't read the truth yourself.
Here is an easy place to see 1200 scientific studies and 3 scientists' conclusions.

 Even if fluoride were somehow helpful to children's teeth, EXACTLY why should EVERY ADULT be forced (without consent) to consume it in EVERY glass of water EVERY day of life and suffer the serious health problems listed below?

Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book, "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There" It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
Once again, no legitimate scientific evidence that proves fluoridation is a "drug", or that it is "ineffective" or "dangerous to health". You list an anti-F propaganda piece, tCAF (which doesn't reference 1200 legitimate scientific studies that prove anything.

 Actually, reading tCAF is an extremely good idea for any rational individual who can understand science.
Have you even read tCAF and understood and evaluated the studies referenced? I seriously doubt it, but it makes another snippet for you to copy/paste.

I have read tCAF, and examined a number of referenced studies - until it became obvious they were irrelevant. They all had one or more of the following characteristics:
1) The study referenced had nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW);
2) The study examined exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW;
3) Actual study conclusions were deliberately distorted, misused &/or misstated to fit anti-F propaganda;
4) The study conclusions only suggested a possible weak correlation (or association), not a causal relationship;
5) The study didn’t consider or adjust for numerous other factors potentially associated with the alleged risk, and it proved nothing;
6) The study was unrepeatable;
7) The study was demonstrably flawed and had significant limitations
&/or
8) The claim was a complete fabrication.

The conclusions of virtually every study had been presented in a manner designed to convey the message that exposure to fluoride ions in ANY CONCENTRATION was seriously harmful to health. Fear-mongering can be extremely effective at molding public opinion.

 Provide a scientific reference from tCAF you believe proves fluoridation is harmful to health, and then there will be something specific to discuss.

Also, you have not described how EVERY ADULT is forced (without) consent to consume fluoridated water. And you certainly have provided nothing but opinions about any alleged health consequences.

 
GanG – Randy Johnson
Best advice: Fluoride toothpaste is widely available to apply to the tooth surface.

Don't swallow the toxic fluoride

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
Again, the best advice - trust the scientists and health care professionals instead of the opinions of fluoridation opponents. Fluoride toothpaste is effective at reducing the risk of decay, and so is drinking optimally fluoridated water. Only someone who cares nothing about public health would fight against fluoridation.

 Your advice is relevant to advising against not swallowing a tube of toothpaste, but a glass (or even a dozen glasses) of fluoridated water does not contain toxic levels of fluoride ions.

 
GanG – Randy Johnson
WOW! How silly. Even a simpleton can see no one suggested swallowing a tube of toothpaste.

But the tube does recommend that you call the "POISON CONTROL CENTER" if you swallow any amount. They need to protect their liability from this poison.
So don't swallow fluoride in drinking water or toothpaste.

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
Since the only levels of fluoride ions that could be considered "toxic" are in toothpaste and dental products, and because optimally fluoridated water is not toxic (unless you drink to much and die from H2O poisoning), the only rational conclusion is that you were referring to swallowing toothpaste.

If it were true that a glass of fluoridated drinking water was considered to contain "toxic fluoride" levels, there would be warnings not to drink the water, and the FDA would require F-warning labels on fluoridated bottled water.

 No rational person who understood science would use the phrase "Don't swallow the toxic fluoride" in relation to optimally fluoridated water. So, only a complete simpleton would use the phrase "Don't swallow the toxic fluoride" in a comment section about fluoridated water.

If this comment section was about not swallowing toothpaste, your opinion would be in context.

The degree to which you twist reality is mind-numbing.

GanG – Randy Johnson After over 70 years of use, even the ADA sees that fluoridation has been a failure.
The Journal of the American Dental Association (Dye 2017) reports, “65% of poor 6-8 year-olds and 12-15 year-olds have cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, respectively. More than 40% of children have dental cavities by the time they reach kindergarten. “… there has been little improvement in preventing caries initiation,”
said Dye.. “Childhood tooth decay is the #1 chronic childhood illness in America.”

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Wrong, as always. Your claim comes from an anti-F interpretation of a study, "Trends in dental caries in children and adolescents according to poverty status in the United States from 1999 through 2004 and from 2011 through 2014" (Dye, et al., JADA, August 2017).

 Only fluoridation opponents and other anti-science activists would draw a conclusion about effectiveness of community water fluoridation (CWF) from a study that did not specifically measure or study differences in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities or in communities where fluoridation practices had changed. The studies below demonstrate that when exposure to fluoridated water is actually considered, decay rates are lower in those exposed to optimal levels of fluoride.

 A study that compares decay rates based on differences in lifetime exposure to fluoridated water:
~> Contemporary evidence on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of childhood caries: Spencer, et al., Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018

Three recent studies have demonstrated an increase in dental decay in cities after CWF was halted:
~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health201818:215
~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unit
~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short‐term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016

The ADA continues to support fluoridation as an effective way to reduce the risk of dental decay.

Search on:
> Fluoridation Facts, American Dental Association
> Fluoridation | Open Parachute
> American Fluoridation Society
> Fluoridation Reviews and Studies – cyber-nook
> Fluoridation and the Scientific Consensus – cyber-nook
> AFS response to 2017 NYSCOF press release, Fluoridation

 
GanG – Randy Johnson
Of course, It is all so simple.

Put fluoride in your own glass of water – as much as you like.
Don't put this toxic chemical in drinking water, forcing EVERYONE to consume it –- without consent.

That practice is immoral and should be illegal.

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
So, again, no actual evidence supporting your opinions - that's to be expected, since there is none. Fluoride is no more toxic in fluoridated drinking water than any of the other chemicals, and it has the benefit of reducing the risk of dental decay. No one is forcing ANYONE to consume treated water.

 
GanG – Randy Johnson 
More laughs – more jokes.

Note that the promoters of this toxic chemical, fluoride, simply refuse to go read the truth that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.
See my first comment above for 1200 scientific studies to prove this.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Sadly, fluoridation opponents seem to believe this discussion about an important public health measure is a joke.

Note GanG and other promoters of the unsupportable anti-F opinions can't provide any legitimate evidence to prove fluoridation is "ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health" - not surprising, since here isn't any. See my response above to your alleged but irrelevant "1200 scientific studies".

 
GanG – Randy Johnson
The issue is so simple.

Put fluoride in your own glass of water – as much as you like.
Don't put this toxic chemical in drinking water, forcing EVERYONE to consume it –- without consent.

That practice is immoral and should be illegal.

 
Randy Johnson – GanG
The solution for the fluoridation issue is indeed very simple:

The fluoridation issue is, indeed simple - TRUST THE EXPERTS
1. Leave the fluoride ions in the water at 0.7 ppm.
2. Distillation, RO and activated alumina are available for those who have been duped into fearing the process of fluoridation by deceptive practices of fluoridation opponents.
3. Leave the rest of the population out of it, providing everyone in the community, particularly the disadvantaged, the benefits of strengthened enamel.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

GanG – Randy Johnson 
The science showing that fluoride is harmful to health is not the only problem. There is the morality and ethics of forcing a drug on EVERYONE without consent.

 A doctor or a dentist cannot force a drug on ANYONE. They would lose the right to practice if they did.

A city bureaucrat should not be allowed to do so either. To force EVERYONE to consume a drug,
fluoride,is immoral and should be illegal.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Again, nothing but your unsupportable opinions.

You have provided no specific scientific evidence "showing that fluoride is harmful to health", because there isn't any.

You have never provided any evidence that fluoride is a "drug", because there is none. Remember, the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a "Food for Human Consumption".

You have never demonstrated how a "city bureaucrat" is able to "force EVERYONE to consume" fluoridated water. Is it by mind control or physical force?

You continue to copy/paste the same anti-F opinions over, and over, and over, and over, and....

GanG – Randy Johnson 
Good Fluoride toothpaste is widely available to apply to the tooth surface.

Don't swallow the toxic fluoride

Randy Johnson – GanG

Best advice - trust the scientists and health care professionals instead of the opinions of fluoridation opponents. Fluoride toothpaste is effective at reducing the risk of decay, and so is drinking optimally fluoridated water. Only someone who cares nothing about public health would fight against fluoridation.

Your advice is relevant to advising against not swallowing a tube of toothpaste, but a glass (or even a dozen glasses) of fluoridated water does not contain toxic levels of fluoride ions.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Protect your health – read what experts say about the toxic chemical, fluoride.

Once again –––-
Even if fluoride were somehow helpful to children's teeth, EXACTLY why should EVERY ADULT be forced (without consent) to consume it in EVERY glass of water EVERY day of life and suffer the serious health problems listed below?

Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book,
"The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There"

It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Protect your health, read what the overwhelming majority of actual experts has to say about fluoridation.
Search on:
> What do health experts say about fluoridation: Campaign for Dental Health
> Fluoridation: Open Parachute
> American Fluoridation Society
> Fluoridation Facts: ADA
> Fluoridation and the Scientific Consensus: cyber-nook

Search this comment for "tcaf" to read several comments that address the anti-F nonsense contained in The Case Against Fluoride. It contains only standard, unsupportable anti-F opinions.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Fluoride is a toxic industrial waste product (hexafluorosilicic acid) which may also be contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. The fluoride added to municipal water supplies is not pharmaceutical grade.

The maladies from this forced pollution of your body include (but aren’t limited to) lowered IQ, impaired mental development (brain retardation) and dementia; damage to your kidneys, pineal and thyroid glands resulting in hyperactivity and/or lethargy, chronic fatigue and disrupted immune system; arthritic symptoms and digestive tract (gastrointestinal) problems.


Randy Johnson – GanG
All fluoride ions dissolved in water are identical, and they all come from natural sources - mostly fluorine containing minerals. At least try to understand the science. All fluoridation products are carefully regulated to be safe and have no significant (or harmful) levels of contaminants when diluted. In fact, the certification organization, NSF was only able to detect the reported trace amounts by dosing the chemicals into water at ten times the manufacturers maximum use level.” Search on: NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation.

You are simply repeating false, anti-F propaganda. Do you have a shred of specific evidence you can reference that proves adding fluoridation chemicals at optimal levels increases any contaminants to harmful levels??

There is none. You have provided absolutely no legitimate scientific evidence to prove drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any of the "maladies" you rattled off. Not at all surprising, because there is none - as demonstrated in the multitude of unsupportable comments you have blindly copy/pasted.


GanG –  Randy Johnson
The science showing that fluoride is harmful to health is not the only problem. There is the morality and ethics of forcing a drug on EVERYONE without consent.

A doctor or a dentist cannot force a drug on ANYONE. They would lose the right to practice if they did.

A city bureaucrat should not be allowed to do so either. To force EVERYONE to consume a drug,
fluoride,is immoral and should be illegal.


Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - You are wrong, as always. Your claims again are nothing but your unsupportable opinions.

You have provided no specific scientific evidence "showing that fluoride is harmful to health", because there isn't any.

You have never provided any evidence that fluoride is a "drug", because there is none. Remember, the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a "Food for Human Consumption".

You have never demonstrated how a "city bureaucrat" is able to "force EVERYONE to consume" fluoridated water. Is it by mind control or physical force?

You continue to copy/paste the same anti-F opinions over, and over, and over, and over, and....

GanG
The science showing that fluoride is harmful to health is not the only problem. There is the morality
and ethics of forcing a drug on EVERYONE without consent.

A doctor or a dentist cannot force a drug on ANYONE. They would lose the right to practice if they did.

A city bureaucrat should not be allowed to do so either. To force EVERYONE to consume a drug,
fluoride,is immoral and should be illegal.

Randy Johnson – GanG
There is no science proving "that fluoride is harmful to health" (in relation to optimally fluoridated water) as demonstrated by your complete inability to provide any.

You have also provided not a shred of evidence to prove fluoridation is a drug - never mind the absurd claim that it is forced on EVERYONE.

If you believe some 'entity' is forcing EVERYONE to drink fluoridated water without consent, then explain exactly who is doing the forcing, and how they accomplish the forcing - do they use physical force or mind control?

Rational individuals reading this understand that it is nothing more than your unsupportable opinion that fluoridation is a drug. It does not matter how a water treatment chemical protects health.

If you think you have proof that fluoridation is a drug then provide that evidence. So far, like your complete lack of scientific evidence that fluoridation causes harm, your opinion that fluoridation is a drug is completely unsupported by any evidence.

Do you, for example, have proof that the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a drug? Of course not - fluoridated bottled water is not regulated as a drug because it is regulated as a "Food for Human Consumption”, and there are no warnings required on fluoridated bottled water that the fluoride ions could cause any harm whatever – in fact, someone who binged on fluoridated water (bottled or otherwise) would die from overexposure to the the toxic H2O molecules long before the fluoride ions would cause any harm.

GanG – Randy Johnson 
Exactly why should ADULTS be forced to drink this poisonous fluoride in every glass of water EVERY DAY OF LIFE and then suffer the resulting serious health problems?

Modern science shows that ingesting fluoride, neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth, doesn't reduce tooth decay but is damaging to the body, especially brains, bones and thyroid glands.

Put fluoride on your teeth (toothpaste), not in the water or your brains. Stop fluoridation. You will save money, protect the infrastructure and, more importantly, protect the health of residents forced to consume fluoride via the water supply.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Read the 2016 WHO fluoride review. Apparently you never have, because it describes the multiple ways fluoride/fluoridation reduces the risk of tooth decay in children and in adults.
Search on: 2016 World Health Organization, Fluoride and Oral Health

You have provided no evidence to support your claim that there is a poisonous level of "fluoride in every glass of water" that causes "serious health problems". That lack of evidence is understandable, because there is no such evidence. A glass of fluoridated, treated water is no more poisonous than a glass of water treated with the chemical weapon, chlorine.

All water treatment chemicals are poisonous at high exposure levels, they are regulated to be within safe levels when diluted in drinking water, and they help protect the health of citizens in different ways.

You mention "modern science", but you can provide no specific, legitimate scientific evidence (modern or otherwise) to prove any of your opinions. What do you hope to convey with this repetitious gibberish except providing additional proof that you have no legitimate scientific evidence to support your opinions.


GanG – Randy Johnson 
It is all so simple.

Put fluoride in your own glass of water – as much as you like.
Don't put this toxic chemical in drinking water, forcing EVERYONE to consume it –- without consent.

That practice is immoral and should be illegal.


Randy Johnson – GanG
It is indeed simple. You can provide no actual evidence supporting your opinions - that's to be expected, since there is none. Fluoride is no more toxic in fluoridated drinking water than any of the other chemicals, and it has the benefit of reducing the risk of dental decay. No one is forcing ANYONE to consume treated water.


GanG – Randy Johnson 
Note that the promoters of this toxic chemical, fluoride, simply refuse to go read the truth that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.

See my first comment above for 1200 scientific studies to prove this.


Randy Johnson – GanG
You have provided no legitimate, scientific study that proves anything - what is there to read. All you can come up with is a work of copy-pasted anti-F propaganda by some anti-F activists. I have addressed this copy/paste opinion over and over - all you do is copy/paste another unsupported/unsupportable opinion.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Fluoride is an industrial waste byproduct ( hexafluorosilicic acid). . As aluminum production increased in the first half of the twentieth century, it became necessary to find somewhere to put the fluoride. Manufacturers could no longer dump it into rivers or landfills, because it was poisoning crops and making livestock sick.

So now they sell it to communities to dump in drinking water. SAD.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Really?? Provide proof that fluoride ions dissolved in optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) are any different from fluoride ions dissolved naturally in water?

The fact is, all fluoride ions are identical, and every fluoride ion comes from natural sources (fluorite, etc.) As always you present nothing but your misleading, false, diversionary opinions.

Claiming that "Fluoride is an industrial waste byproduct" is just another anti-science diversionary tactic, and is no more relevant than an anti-disinfectant activist claiming that “chlorine is a toxic chemical weapon added to water supplies because it can’t be dumped into the air”.
Search on: A Natural History of Fluoride - Wired


GanG – Randy Johnson 
See my comments at the top.

Fluoride is a deadly poison and is destructive to health.

Why should EVERYONE be forced (without consent) to consume it?


Randy Johnson – GanG
See my reply to your comment at the top.

Community water fluoridation is not a "deadly poison", and it is not "destructive to health". Over 75 years of studies continue to confirm that community water fluoridation reduces the risk of dental decay (which is beneficial to health). There is no legitimate scientific evidence to support any of your opinions. 

GanG 
Most countries avoid fluoridation like the plague.

The truth is spreading and people everywhere are learning that fluoride in drinking water is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health. With any drug, we all deserve freedom of choice.
Consider that 95% of the world rejects fluoridation:

In the US, 74 % fluoridated (more than the rest of the world combined).
In Europe, only 3%.
In the world, only 5%.
In Canada, now 30% –- down from 45% in seven years.
China, India and Japan have rejected it years ago.
Israel banned fluoridation in 2014.

Randy Johnson – GanG
No countries "avoid fluoridation like the plague." There are many reasons some countries don't employ the public health measure of fluoridation, but those decisions are not based on the false claims that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective promoted by fluoridation opponents. You would understand those reasons if you bothered to read something besides anti-fluoridation propaganda .
Search on: American Dental Association, Fluoridation Facts
Pages 29-30 and 102-103

As always, you provide no legitimate, relevant, reproducible supporting evidence to prove any of your claims that fluoridation is harmful or ineffective - why? because there is no such evidence.

That lack of supporting evidence is precisely why the virtually all the major science and health organizations in the world continue to support fluoridation, and the anti-F opinions are only supported by a few alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS] , David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News].

A wise man provided an excellent description of your antics, "Whenever we have an idea in our heads for which we seek only confirming information, that's exactly what we will find."– Brian Dunning, 2019

You can also search on:
Fluoridation | Open Parachute
American Fluoridation Society
Fluoridation Reviews and Studies – cyber-nook
Fluoridation and the Scientific Consensus – cyber-nook

 https://www.times-standard.com/2020/02/03/arcata-considers-putting-fluoridation-on-november-ballot/
·         15 Comments, 2/24/2020
·         EurekaTimesStandard

GanG
Even if fluoride were somehow helpful to children's teeth, EXACTLY why should EVERY ADULT be forced (without consent) to consume it in every glass of water every day of life and suffer the serious health problems listed below?

Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book,

"The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There"

It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - You continue to mention an un-scientific, un-reviewed anti-F propaganda piece, TCAF. A quick read of the TCAF reveals that there are not anywhere near 1200 unique legitimate scientific references. In fact, many TV programs/videos, other books, letters, personal communications and newspaper articles are listed as “scientific literature”.

Many of the “scientific references” were used (and counted) multiple times, and absolutely none prove any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. Have you even read this piece of fabricated fiction? I have, and it a work of desperation, not science.

If you can provide a “scientific reference” from TCAF you believe proves fluoridation causes harm there will be something to discuss.

TCAF is authored by several of the more vocal anti-F outliers. There are always a few outliers in the scientific/health communities who dismiss the legitimacy of a scientific consensus created by the majority of relevant experts. The outlier opinions are driven by strong, inflexible personal beliefs.

If those beliefs provide the foundation for legitimate scientific research which produces accurate, unbiased, reproducible evidence contrary to the consensus, the consensus will change - that is the way science progresses - by legitimate challenges to the scientific consensus by legitimate scientists.

The scientific consensus that fluoridation is a beneficial, safe and effective public health measure (like the consensus that water disinfection is beneficial) has not changed despite more than 70 years of challenges by fluoridation opponents.

You have never provided specific, legitimate scientific evidence to prove your claims. Why should anyone accept your opinions as valid over the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of relevant science and health care experts in the world?
https://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Files/Fluoridation_Facts.pdf?la=en
https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/debunking-anti-claims/myths/
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/Fluoridationinformation-reviews.html

GanG – Randy Johnson
We definitely don't need a book report rom a promoter of tis deadly poison, fluoride.

Everyone can go read the book by three scientists, one an M.D., and learn the truth.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Not a "book report" - only pointing out that TCAF has absolutely no credibility and presents no "truth"., as demonstrated by the fact that you can provide no solid, legitimate, scientific references that prove any of your opinions. Without specific evidence, your opinions are no more valid than opinions that the earth is flat, or that humans are controlled by reptilians. I can find many sources that support those opinions, but that does not make them true.


GanG – Randy Johnson 
One: You are entitled to your opinion to promote fluoride.
We understand.


Randy Johnson – GanG
One - Eleven: Unfortunately, in this case, freedom of speech allows the spread of completely false and unsupportable anti-F opinions - no fact checking or legitimate supporting evidence required.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Oh my, I guess promoters of this poisonous drug, fluoride, are not going to agree with me – or current science.


Randy Johnson – GanG
I don't agree with you because every opinion you have copy/pasted is false and unsupportable. You have provided nothing but opinions to support your opinions - understandable, because that's all you have - there is no scientific proof fluoridation causes harm, and over 70 years of research that demonstrates fluoridation reduces the risk of dental decay, which does cause harm.

Current science does not support your opinions either. That is why the major science and health organizations in the world continue to support fluoridation - and none support the anti-F opinions.


GanG – Randy Johnson
To see why fluoride is dangerous, Google "Fluoride dangers" and read a few of the over 1,000,000 articles,many by M.D.'s, dentists and medical scientists.

In addition, Fluoridation is a WASTE of Tax Money.

All Civil Engineers and all water managers know that people drink only 1/2% of the water they use. The rest goes directly down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc.

So for each $1000 of fluoride added annually to drinking water, people drink $5 and $995 is wasted down the drain. Children would drink only $0.50 (fifty cents).

That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.


Randy Johnson – GanG 
Provide one of those "over 1,000,000 published [scientific] articles" you believe proves community water fluoridation is dangerous. Provide the scientific study reference and the specific quote that proves optimally fluoridated water causes any harm. Then there will be something to discuss. Then explain exactly why that reference should be accepted by the scientific and health communities. So far you have provided nothing to prove anything.

Fluoridation opponents have no concept of public health. They are only interested in forcing their demands on the public - regardless of the harmful consequences. The fact is, there is nothing to support their strongly held opinions which conflict with the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of science and health professionals in the world.


GanG – Randy Johnson
There are many, many written by medical scientists.
Here is one of the first you will find:

9 Shocking Dangers of Fluoride Exposure
by Dr. Edward Group
https://globalhealing.com/n...


Randy Johnson – GanG
Remarkable. It appears you don't understand the difference between a legitimate, published scientific study you believe proves drinking optimally fluoridated water causes harm and the unsubstantiated, false opinions of an associate of Infowar conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones.

Referencing Edward Group's opinion proves nothing –- except that you can Google unsupported opinions that support your opinions. I can Google (and find) opinions that support a flat earth, alien abductions, the New World Order, anti-vaccination activism, chemtrails, and the rise of the Illuminati. That is not legitimate scientific evidence, and does not confirm (or make) any those opinions true.

One of Group's references, for example, was about "Acute fluoride toxicity from ingesting home-use dental products" and has nothing to do with fluoridated water. That is the case with all anti-F references I have seen, and that is why I request specific, legitimate scientific references that prove drinking optimally fluoridated water causes harm. After all, hundreds of millions of people have been drinking optimally fluoridated water for over 70 years. If there was any harm, one might expect someone might have provided legitimate evidence by now.

Here are examples of hundreds of specific scientific research papers that conclude fluoridation is safe and effective.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/Fluoridationinformation-reviews.html
https://cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationreferences.htm

"Alex Jones’s public fixation with his innards and what threatens them seems to have begun around 2006, when he launched Infowars Life, an offshoot of the Infowars media empire focusing on dietary supplements. By 2013, he’d acquired a trusted friend and advisor in Dr. Edward Group III, a chiropractor who he described as “on board with the liberty movement,” Jones’s term for a particular mixture of anti-government fervor and all-purpose suspicion."
https://jezebel.com/alex-jones-and-his-pill-pushing-chiropractor-are-here-t-1794383993
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/02/why-we-are-addicted-to-conspiracy-theories


GanG – Randy Johnson

WJOW! I hate to be so confused that I read and believe so may medical scientists who publish research showing that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.

In addition promoters have no answer to the important question: Even if fluoride were somehow helpful to children's teeth, EXACTLY why should EVERY ADULT be forced (without consent) to consume it in every glass of water every day of life and suffer the serious health problems.

A doctor or a dentist cannot force a drug on ANYONE. They would lose the right to practice if they did. A city bureaucrat should not be allowed to do so either. To force everyone to consume a drug, fluoride, is immoral and should be illegal.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Before you make such ridiculous claims it would be wise to have supporting evidence - but because there is none, I suppose you have no choice but to be confused.

If you actually "read and believe so may medical scientists who publish research showing that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health", then why have you not provided one single reference (with author conclusions) to a legitimate scientific study that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water is "dangerous to health"? Answer, there are none!

Your so-called "important question" is meaningless.

First, you have never explained how "EVERY ADULT" is being "forced (without consent) to consume it [F-] in every glass..." Who exactly is forcing everyone to drink the tap water - and exactly what methods are 'They' using - physical force or mind control?

According to your twisted "logic", EVERY ADULT is also being forced (without consent) to drink residual disinfectants and disinfectant byproducts - which don't benefit health.

Second, as noted above, you have provided no legitimate scientific evidence that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any "serious health problems". More unsupportable opinions.

Why do you keep calling fluoridation a drug (at least 20 times in these comments alone) when you have provided absolutely no evidence to prove your opinion valid? As noted before, the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water (o.7 ppm F-) as a "Food for Human Consumption", not a drug. There are no warnings about ingesting too much fluoride from optimally fluoridated water.

Toothpaste, on the other hand, contains over 1,000 ppm F-, and is regulated by the FDA as an over the counter medication - and warnings are required. Only a dedicated fluoridation opponent could mistake a tube of toothpaste with a glass of optimally fluoridated water.

Again, according to your "logic", to force everyone to consume a well-established chemical weapon (chlorine) and those nasty disinfection byproducts, is immoral and should be illegal.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Read what Dr. Mercola reports about Fluoridation.
Here are some headlines he uses.

Dental Fluorosis Is a Sign of Excessive Fluoride Intake––-

Why It's Dangerous to Swallow Fluoride––-

Make Sure Your Children Are Not Exposed to Fluoride––-

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation––-
https://articles.mercola.co...


Randy Johnson – GanG
Again, you provide nothing but opinions to support your opinions.

Mercola is right up there with Alex Jones and Edward Group as peddlers of alternate, anti-science reality.
https://quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

Google:
> Mercola quack
> Mercola scam


GanG – Randy Johnson
Of course, of course.

Promoters of the deadly poison, fluoride, will try to defame any doctor or scientist who tells the truth about the health dangers it causes from drinking water. Everyone should go read his article.

Dr. Mercola is by far the most popular M.D. on the net. He doesn't need any endorsements here.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Popular does not equal reputable or legitimate. Still no legitimate scientific evidence to prove any of your claims. Since there is none, I expect nothing but more opinions.


GanG – Randy Johnson
The best place to see the collected scientific research references is as I have reported many times.

Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book,

"The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There"

It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Indeed, you have copy/pasted that reference to a book of copy/pasted opinions from three anti-fluoridation activists many times. That proves nothing. As noted elsewhere, the book does not reference 1200 legitimate scientific studies - and the studies referenced prove nothing about optimally fluoridated water.

Provide a reference from tCAF that proves there is any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water - then there will be something to discuss. Since there are no such scientific studies, I expect nothing but more opinions.


GanG – Randy Johnson
None are so blind as those who will not see.

Promoters keep calling for scientific references, and when I respond with 1200 scientific references showing fluoride dangers, they are speechless –- almost (They never seem to run out of words)..

EVERYONE should go read the book I cited above. It exposes the fluoridation scheme showing serious health damages (cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis).


Randy Johnson – GanG
The fact that you have not been able to reference a single, legitimate scientific study that conclusively proves drinking optimally fluoridated water causes "serious health damages (cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis)" proves you have no supporting evidence to support your unfounded opinions.

Have you even read tCAF and understood and evaluated the studies referenced? I seriously doubt it, but it makes another snippet for you to copy/paste.

I have read it, and examined a number of referenced studies - until it became obvious they were irrelevant. They all had one or more of the following characteristics:
1) The study referenced had nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW);
2) The study examined exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW;
3) Actual study conclusions were deliberately distorted, misused &/or misstated to fit anti-F propaganda;
4) The study conclusions only suggested a possible weak correlation (or association), not a causal relationship;
5) The study didn’t consider or adjust for numerous other factors potentially associated with the alleged risk, and it proved nothing;
6) The study was unrepeatable;
7) The study was demonstrably flawed and had significant limitations
&/or
8) The claim was a complete fabrication.

The conclusions of virtually every study had been presented in a manner designed to convey the message that exposure to fluoride ions in ANY CONCENTRATION was seriously harmful to health. Fear-mongering can be extremely effective at molding public opinion.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Gee, fI wish I could produce ONE study.

Oh wait, 1200 is larger than ONE.  The world's premier pediatric journal has published a new government-funded study confirming our worst fears, linking exposure to “optimally” fluoridated water during pregnancy to lowered IQ for the child.

You can repair a cavity, but you cannot repair a child's brain.
The American Medical Association’s journal on pediatrics (JAMA Pediatrics) has published the second U.S. Government-funded study linking low-levels of fluoride exposure during fetal development to cognitive impairment. The observational study, entitled Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada, was led by a team at York University in Ontario, Canada and looked at 512 mother-child pairs from six major Canadian cities. It was funded by the Canadian government and the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health ScienceThe researchers found...
“...there was no safe level” of fluoride exposure during pregnancy.

Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada

A must-hear twelve-minute podcast featuring AMA Pediatrics Editor in Chief, Dimitri Christakis, MD, MPH, and Frederick Rivara, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief of JAMA Network
https://edhub.ama-assn.org/...


Randy Johnson – GanG
Finally, something to discuss. I figured you would reference the Green, et al. study since it has the anti-F contingent all a-twitter. In my list of characteristics above, it fits numbers 3,4,5 and 7 perfectly.

The study, in no way, proved drinking optimally fluoridated water has any negative effect on IQ.
Here's a list of detailed criticisms of the Green, et al. study from around the world:
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Green.html

Specifically, in reference to my list of anti-F characteristics noted above:
#3) Study conclusions were deliberately distorted, misused &/or misstated: Neither the published study nor Green's thesis mentioned "'...there was no safe level' of fluoride exposure during pregnancy." Again, you are fabricating opinions not made in the published study.

#4) The study conclusions only suggested a possible weak correlation (or association), not a causal relationship: The study actually stated, "Fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be associated with adverse effects on child intellectual development..." And yet the study showed the same IQ levels (108) in both fluoridated and not fluoridated communities. It was only by digging around in sub-set analyses could they find a very slight decrease in IQ for boys (and a slight increase in IQ for girls). And, even if there was a legitimate association, fluoride exposure only explained less than 5% of any association.

#5) The study didn’t consider or adjust for numerous other factors potentially associated with the alleged risk: There are numerous factors (listed in my link to criticisms) that can impact a child's IQ that were not addressed in the study - so any possible changes in IQ could easily be explained by many other factors,

#7) The study was demonstrably flawed and had significant limitations: Read the criticisms from experts around the world referenced above. In fact, a request was made by 30 science and health experts to the National Institute of Environmental Heath Sciences for the release of the Green et al. study data for independent analysis based on the fact that “In recent weeks, a number of experts in epidemiology, psychology, statistical methodology and other fields have raised numerous concerns about the Green article, including the following:”
1. Focusing on a subgroup analysis amid “noisy data”:
2. Modeling and variable anomalies:
3. Lacking data on relevant factors that can impact children’s intelligence and cognitive ability:|
4. Omitting crucial findings:
5. Using invalid measures to determine individual exposures:
6. Defining the final study group:
7. Assessing the impact of fluoride exposure:
8. Reporting anomalies:
9. Internal inconsistency of outcomes:
10. Overlooking research that conflicts with the authors’ conclusions:
https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/NIEHSLetter10-23-19.pdf

The severe limitations noted above are the reason the science and health communities have not accepted the Green, et al. study (or others like it) as proof of anything. Only someone who has an unwavering belief in the anti-F propaganda would accept that study as legitimate evidence of harm.


GanG – Randy Johnson
WOW! Think how much we now face on each of the other 1199 studies.
Perhaps it is better if you just go read all of the scientific studies yourself.


Randy Johnson – GanG
WOW! Think of what a waste of time it would be for someone to blindly trust that your opinion of the validity of those studies is true and try to read them - only to discover that they (like the Green, et al. study) all are inflicted with one (usually more) of the anti-F characteristics described above.

Now, instead of posting more nonsense, perhaps you could address the specific criticisms of the Green, et al. study that were presented by relevant experts. Can you explain:
1) the extremely low R-squared values reported for the alleged "association" between fluoride exposure and IQ, Unless the statistics is manipulated, the fluoride/IQ association is basically random.
2) which other potential contributing factors were evaluated and the huge number that were ignored,
3) how/why boy's IQ was reported to decrease while girl's IQ increased with higher fluoride exposure (other studies have reported no difference or the reverse observation),
4) no factors (genetic, diet, social, education, etc.) that contribute to IQ development from birth to 3-4 years of age were considered.
5) and so on, and so on....

The concerns every rational individual should have with fluoridation opponents (and other anti-science activists) is that only evidence that can be manipulated so it can appear to support their opinions is presented.

Anti-science activists must trust that most people's opinions will be influenced entirely by the false, fear-laced propaganda - and they will not have the training, experience, time &/or patience to dredge into the alleged 1200 "references" to personally evaluate them.

So, unless you can explain exactly why all of the Green, et al. study faults should be ignored, it can safely be assumed that you are simply accepting the anti-F interpretation because it aligns with your strongly held opinions - not because you understand the science.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Learn the facts. Simply Google "Fluoride Scam"and and you will be inundated with good articles just like those listed below.

Fluoridation: The scam of the century
https://www.naturalnews.com...
____________________________________
How Did The Fluoride Scam Begin?
http://www.stopthecrime.net...
_____________________________________
The Great Fluoride Scam
http://viewzone.com/fluorid...
_____________________________________
Fluoridation: The Fraud of the Century
https://www.westonaprice.or...


Randy Johnson – GanG
More opinions - trying to dodge the science. Have you even read or understood the Green, et al. study? If so, address my specific critiques of the study instead of dumping more opinions from Mike Adams [Natural News] and other irrelevant contributors into the mix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation

 
GanG – Randy Johnson
The science showing that fluoride is harmful to health is not the only problem. There is the morality and ethics of forcing a drug on EVERYONE without consent.

A doctor or a dentist cannot force a drug on ANYONE. They would lose the right to practice if they did.
A city bureaucrat should not be allowed to do so either. To force EVERYONE to consume a drug, fluoride,is immoral and should be illegal.


Randy Johnson – GanG
There is no science proving "that fluoride is harmful to health" (in relation to optimally fluoridated water) as demonstrated by your complete inability to provide any.

You have also provided not a shred of evidence to prove fluoridation is a drug - never mind the absurd claim that it is forced on EVERYONE.

You are simply repeating the same false nonsense over and over and over and over and over and....


GanG – Randy Johnson
OK –– I now think that we disagree.

Everyone reading this understands that fluoride is added to water to treat the body (teeth).; therefore, a drug – A DRUG.

A dentist sometimes prescribes it to children. Ask your pharmacist.

Of course doctors don't prescribe it to anyone because fluoride treats or cures nothing.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Rational individuals reading this understand that it is nothing more than your unsupportable opinion that fluoridation is a drug. It does not matter how a water treatment chemical protects health.

If you think you have proof that fluoridation is a drug then provide that evidence. So far, like your complete lack of scientific evidence that fluoridation causes harm, your opinion that fluoridation is a drug is completely unsupported by any evidence.

Do you, for example, have proof that the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a drug? Of course not - fluoridated bottled water is not regulated as a drug because it is regulated as a "Food for Human Consumption.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Your pharmacist can explain this DRUG to you. Ask Them.
Exactly why should ADULTS (teeth are already formed) be forced to drink this poisonous fluoride in every glass of water EVERY DAY OF LIFE
and then suffer the resulting serious health problems?

Modern science shows that ingesting fluoride, neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth, doesn't reduce tooth decay but is damaging to the body, especially brains, bones and thyroid glands.

Put fluoride on your teeth (toothpaste), not in the water or your brains. Stop fluoridation. You will save money, protect the infrastructure and, more importantly, protect the health of residents forced to consume fluoride via the water supply.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Really? if you asked a doctor for a prescription for fluoridated water (bottled or tap), or if you asked a pharmacist to to require a prescription for fluoridated water (bottled or tap), or if you asked a government official to require a prescription to be required for purchasing fluoridated water (bottled or tap) you would be laughed out of the country. So nothing but false opinions...

Read the 2016 WHO fluoride review referenced below. Apparently you never have, because it describes the multiple ways fluoride/fluoridation reduces the risk of tooth decay in children and in adults.

You still have not provided anything but repetitions of the same false, unsupportable opinions. You still have not explained how residents are "forced to consume fluoride via the water supply" any more than they are "forced to consume" any of the other residual chemicals in the treated water - including the disinfection byproducts.

Read some of the actual studies and reviews that have confirmed the safety and effectiveness of fluoridated water for reducing the risk of dental decay (and related health problems) and thus saving money.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/Fluoridationinformation-reviews.html
https://cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationreferences.htm

I don't believe I have ever encountered anyone else with as little relevant information to convey, as little actual evidence to support their opinions or as dedicated a routine of repetitious copy/pasting of nonsense.

You mention "modern science", but you can provide no specific, legitimate scientific evidence (modern or otherwise) to prove any of your opinions. What do you hope to convey with this repetitious gibberish except providing additional proof that you have no legitimate scientific evidence to support your opinions.

You still have not addressed the Green, et al. study criticisms.. But that's what you do - you ignore the science and try to divert attention from the fact you have no evidence by copy/pasting more of the same babble.


GanG – Randy Johnson
The prescription I mention is not for f. WATER. You are trying to deceive everyone.
We don't agree so have a nice day.
Goodbye.


Randy Johnson – GanG
The discussion is only about water fluoridation - not about prescription fluoride or rat poison, or even fluoridated toothpaste - just optimally fluoridated water.

And the fact is, you have absolutely no evidence that proves, or even suggests, that optimally fluoridated water is either a drug or harmful to health.

And there is over 70 years of evidence, referenced above, that demonstrates water fluoridation is safe and effective at reducing the risk of dental decay and potentially serious, related health problems.

The deception is all yours.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Go read the article before someone tries to tells you this School of Medicine is crazy.

Fluoride may diminish kidney and liver function in adolescents, study suggests –- Sinai Hospital / Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Even at low levels, the fluoride, added to , may be damaging the kidneys and livers of teens throughout the country, researchers report in a new study published in the journal Environment International.

Read about it in "Physician's Weekly."
https://www.physiciansweekl...


Randy Johnson – GanG
Sigh. “Individuals showing such disease were specifically excluded. The study reports values for kidney and liver parameters in “generally healthy” subjects. So, this study just could not have identified factors causing kidney and liver disease, let alone confidently attribute a cause to the disease. So we can reject the anti-fluoride activist’s claims and their misrepresentation of the study results.”

"Anti-fluoride activists are misrepresenting the finding reported in this paper. The authors themselves stress that their study was not designed to determine if fluoride exposure is associated with, or causes, declines in kidney or liver health. The FAN claim that the study shows“that fluoride at commonly experienced doses can damage the kidneys and livers of adolescents” is completely incorrect.

That is all we need to know regarding the way activists are misrepresenting the study. However, a closer look at the data suggests that the associations with fluoride for healthy individuals reported in the paper are extremely weak." (Ken Perrott)
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/anti-fluoride-activists-misrepresent-a-kidney-liver-study/

More misrepresentations. Also, as noted in previous comments, high scatter as exemplified in the study data graphs, indicate a low association between the factors studied.



GanG – Randy Johnson
As a smart man said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

There is so much money in the fluoridation scheme, that promoters try to refute any, yes any, truth no matter who publishes it. SAD.


Randy Johnson – GanG
My salary has nothing to do with countering your nonsense. Again, nothing from you but false, unsupportable opinions. That's to be expected, since that's all you have to offer. Facts and truth are completely irrelevant to you.

A smart man provided an excellent description of your situation, "Whenever we have an idea in our heads for which we seek only confirming information, that's exactly what we will find."– Brian Dunning, 2019


GanG – Randy Johnson
Here are a few interesting articles.

Fluoride is an industrial waste byproduct. As aluminum production increased in the first half of the twentieth century, it became necessary to find somewhere to put the fluoride. Manufacturers could no longer dump it into rivers or landfills, because it was poisoning crops and making livestock sick.
_____________________________________
Fluoride: How A Toxic Poison Ended Up In Our Water Supply
https://www.chrisbeatcancer...
_______________________________________
Fluoride is a neurotoxic chemical waste byproduct that damages bones and brain function
https://www.naturalnews.com...
_________________________________
The Fluoride Deception: How a Nuclear Waste Byproduct Made Its Way Into the Nation’s Drinking Water
https://www.democracynow.or...
____________________________________
Toxic Treatment: Fluoride's Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle
https://origins.osu.edu/art...
https://origins.osu.edu/art...
____________________________________


Randy Johnson – GanG
They are only interesting articles if you don't care about scientific accuracy or the legitimate presentation of information.

Again, instead of addressing my specific challenges and presenting proof of your opinions, you continue to provide nothing but more opinions from Natural News and other anti-science activists to support your opinions - no legitimate science presented whatever.

The few times you have referenced actual scientific studies, they have not even come close to proving optimally fluoridated water causes any harm - even if the studies were appropriately conducted, which they weren't.

All you are doing is providing more and more proof that you have no legitimate scientific evidence to support any of your anti-F opinions. Keep up the good work.


GanG – Randy Johnson
It is fortunate that we can all read. We don't need a promoter of this BIG money scheme to inform us about what an article says.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Again, instead of addressing my specific challenges and presenting proof of your opinions, you continue to provide nothing but more opinions to support your opinions - no legitimate science presented whatever.

You clearly demonstrate that, while you might be able to read, you don't understand anything about science. You seem to believe legitimacy and relevance of science-based issues, like health care, can be determined and supported by strongly-held opinions - not by legitimate, well-conducted, relevant, reproducible scientific evidence.

In GanG’s alternate reality of fake news and fake science:
> GanG’s opinions = facts
> GanG’s opinions = legitimate scientific evidence
> GanG’s opinions don’t require legitimate, demonstrable proof
> Google searches provide legitimate proof of opinions (as long as search results are limited to – and support - GanG’s opinions)
> any opinion that supports GanG’s opinion is legitimate, regardless of source
> any opinion that disagrees with GanG’s opinion is false, regardless of source
> scientific studies are legitimate only if they can be “adjusted” to support GanG’s opinions.

Those observations are clearly confirmed by your multiple, repetitive, unsupported comments to this article and countless others I have witnessed.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Fluoride is an industrial waste byproduct ( hexafluorosilicic acid). . As aluminum production increased in the first half of the twentieth century, it became necessary to find somewhere to put the fluoride. Manufacturers could no longer dump it into rivers or landfills, because it was poisoning crops and making livestock sick.

So now they sell it to communities to dump in drinking water. SAD.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Really?? Provide proof that fluoride ions dissolved in optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) are any different from fluoride ions dissolved naturally in water?

The fact is, all fluoride ions are identical, and every fluoride ion comes from natural sources (fluorite, etc.) As always you present nothing but your misleading, false, diversionary opinions.

Claiming that "Fluoride is an industrial waste byproduct" is just another anti-science diversionary tactic, and is no more relevant than an anti-disinfectant activist claiming that “chlorine is a toxic chemical weapon added to water supplies because it can’t be dumped into the air”.
https://www.wired.com/2013/05/a-natural-history-of-fluoride/


GanG – Randy Johnson
Everyone should read the many studies I have provided.
The maladies from this forced pollution (fluoride) of your body include (but aren’t limited to) lowered IQ, impaired mental development (brain retardation) and dementia; damage to your kidneys, pineal and thyroid glands resulting in hyperactivity and/or lethargy, chronic fatigue and disrupted immune system; arthritic symptoms and digestive tract (gastrointestinal) problems.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Really?? You have provided “many studies”?? I counted exactly three studies you specifically referenced when challenged to provide a study that actually proved drinking optimally fluoridated water caused harm.
> The 2019 Malin, et al. study published in Environmental International.
> The 2019 Green, et al. study published in JAMA Pediatrics.
> The 2017 Dye, et al. study published in JADA.

As I noted after each reference, the study proved nothing – either they were studies that dug around in the data until they could find a possible small negative association between fluoride and health issues (Green/Malin), or the study had nothing to do with comparing optimally fluoridated communities with those with low-fluoride drinking water. (Dye)
These references provides specific criticisms of the Green and Malin studies:
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Green.html
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/anti-fluoride-activists-misrepresent-a-kidney-liver-study/

What you did provide over, and over, and over… were:
> Various opinions and opinion pieces (no specific scientific evidence) from Fluoride Action Network, Alex Jones, Russell Blaylock, Joseph Mercola, about 5 - 6 dentists including Limeback & The Case Against Fluoride

> Eleven unprovable claims that a “Big money scheme” is responsible for fluoridation, not public health.

> Your unsupportable opinion (in at least 25 different comments) that claimed fluoridation = Forced consumption of a drug, a poison and/or medication. Fluoridation is only a drug or medication in your imagination, and optimally fluoridated water is not a poison. If any of those claims were even remotely legitimate, there would not be over 100 nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations that continue to recognize the benefits and safety of fluoridation.
https://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/health-experts-on-fluoride/

> A totally irrelevant opinion that because “A child died in the dentist office from swallowing a fluoride treatment” fluoridation is harmful. That accident had absolutely nothing to do with fluoridation. People die daily from car accidents, choking on food, walking across a street. According to your “logic” driving, eating and walking should be banned??

> A claim to “Check the toothpaste tube. It says call the poison control center if the child swallows the paste used” Which only proves that you can’t tell the difference between a tube of toothpaste and a glass of fluoridated water??

Bottom line: You have provided not a single, legitimate scientific study that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any of the negative health effects you copy/pasted from FAN propaganda. You have provided nothing but opinions from other fluoridation opponents to try and support your personal opinions.

GanG
A doctor or a dentist cannot force a drug on ANYONE. They would lose the right to practice if they did. A city bureaucrat should not be allowed to do so either.To force everyone to consume a drug, fluoride, is immoral and should be illegal.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Your unsupportable opinions are getting extremely tedious. You have already made your unsupportable fluoride=forced drug argument at least 12 times in this comment section.

As noted in other replies to your nonsense, the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a "Food for Human Consumption", and there are no warnings required on fluoridated bottled water that the fluoride ions could cause any harm whatever –- in fact, someone who binged on fluoridated water (bottled or otherwise) would die from overexposure to the the toxic H2O molecules long before the fluoride ions would cause any harm.

If you have anything besides your opinions (and occasionally the opinions of other fluoridation opponents) to support any of your opinions then produce the evidence and there will be something specific to discuss.

GanG – Randy Johnson
This is what you get when promoters of this deadly poison, fluoride, do not have an answer to this.
To force everyone to consume a drug, fluoride, is immoral and should be illegal.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Again - no evidence - only false, unsupportable, misleading opinions.

Every substance is a "deadly poison" at high enough exposure levels - even H2O.

There is no legitimate scientific evidence that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) is harmful. If you have specific evidence to the contrary present it.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Repetition does not equal truth. Just explain why EVEERYONE is forced to consume a DRUG.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Provide something besides your opinion to prove fluoride is not a water treatment chemical to protect the health of those who drink it. Do you really care how a water treatment chemical protects health?


GanG – Randy Johnson
Health and fluoride should not be used in the same sentence.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Unsupportable opinions of fluoridation opponents presented as facts should never be used in any sentence.

You are unable to provide any specific evidence from the anti-F opinion piece that actually compares dental decay rates in specific optimally fluoridated communities with similar low-fluoride communities? That's to be expected because there is no such evidence.

Also you have never provided any specific references that prove drinking optimally fluoridated water is a drug or that it causes any harm - that's also to be expected since there is none.

You have also been unable to explain why any rational individual should blindly accept your unsupported/unsupportable opinions over the conclusions of the major science and health organizations in the world.

Your mindless copy/pasting of the same unsupportable opinions over and over is a complete waste of electrons.


GanG – Randy Johnson
No reply necessary. Nothing new.


M Sester – GanG
Mr. GanG worries about "forcing" people to take part. He neglects to mention that that is how democracy works. We vote and then we are 'forced' to pay taxes and stop at stop signs and so on. Fluoridation is effective in reducing decay by about 35% and it is safe. No one has any valid study to suggest otherwise.


GanG – M Sester
Over 95% of the world's population is fluoridation-free. WHO data indicates no difference in tooth decay in 12-year-olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. Despite 7 decades of fluoridation reaching a record number of Americans, official reports indicate that a tooth decay crisis exists in the U.S.

Exactly why should ADULTS drink this poison in every glass of water evert day of life?


Randy Johnson – GanG
 GanG - Copy/pasting the same claims over and over (this is your third one here) does not make them true.

Apparently you don't understand that there are many causes of tooth decay and many ways to reduce the risk. Fluoridation, Brushing with fluoridated toothpaste, dental treatments, good diet, genetics, etc. are just some of the ways to reduce the risk of decay. Why would a rational individual not support all methods of helping reduce decay?

The WHO data does not prove there is "no difference in tooth decay in 12-year-olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries". The data you apparently reference has been manipulated by fluoridation opponents and does not compare decay rates between specific, similar communities that have fluoridated water and those with lower fluoride levels - and similar dental care and no other fluoride sources like milk or salt.

If the WHO data supported your claims, then explain why the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health, they would discover the following conclusions:
—> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.”
—> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.”
—> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”
https://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/fluroide-oral-health/en/

Also Search on:
American Dental Association, Fluoridation Facts
Fluoridation | Open Parachute
American Fluoridation Society
Fluoridation Reviews and Studies – cyber-nook
Fluoridation and the Scientific Consensus – cyber-nook


GanG – Randy Johnson
Two: : You are entitled to your opinion to promote fluoride.
We understand.

GanG
Data from the World Health Organization shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe with 3% fluoridation is as good or better than any fluoridated country including the U.S., with over 70% fluoridation. This shows how ineffective fluoride is for teeth.

Everyone wants safe, clean water and not the added drug fluoride.

The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.

SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

M Sester – GanG
Fluoride is not toxic just like salt is not toxic. You would be a fool to take too much salt. Fluoridation is less than one part per million of fluoride for every million parts of water. Only fools say that amount is toxic. This anti-public health guy belongs right up there with the anti-vaccinationists.

GanG – M Sester
Fluoride is used in roach and rat poison.
Wake up.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Chlorine is used as a chemical weapon. Your point?


GanG – Randy Johnson
Three: You are entitled to your opinion to promote fluoride.
We understand.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Remarkable - you seem to believe that repeating your simplistic solution over and over (at least 5 times so far) will somehow validate it.

The so-called "data from the world health organization" you are apparently referring to - hard to tell when you provide no supporting evidence - is some global data on decay rates that has nothing to do with any differences between optimally fluoridated communities and those with lower fluoride levels. Worse yet, the data was interpreted only by anti-F activists. If that anti-F interpreted conclusion is even remotely accurate, why does the WHO continue to support fluoridation?
https://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/fluroide-oral-health/en/

Public health measures, like water treatment processes, are designed and implemented to improve and protect the health of citizens. Only those who care more about their personal opinions than the overall health of everyone in their community will sink to the level of misrepresenting and fabricating evidence to scare people into believing the science and health communities are deliberately &/or ignorantly trying to harm them. Anti-disinfection activists, anti-vaccine activists all employ the same disingenuous fear-mongering tactics.

The solution for the fluoridation issue is indeed very simple:
SIMPLE SOLUTION - TRUST THE EXPERTS
1. Leave the fluoride ions in the water at 0.7 ppm.
2. Distillation, RO and activated alumina are available for those who have been duped into fearing the process of fluoridation by deceptive practices of fluoridation opponents.
3. Leave the rest of the population out of it, providing everyone in the community, particularly the disadvantaged, the benefits of strengthened enamel.
PROBLEM SOLVED.

GanG – Randy Johnson
To force everyone to consume a drug, fluoride, is immoral and should be illegal.

M Sester – GanG
"Force". That is your refrain Mr. GanG. Is that what you say when you have to pay taxes? "I don't like to be forced"? Sounds like a whine.


GanG – M Sester
Once again. A doctor or a dentist cannot force a drug on ANYONE. They would lose the right to practice if they did.

A city bureaucrat should not be allowed to do so either.To force everyone to consume a drug, fluoride,is immoral and should be illegal.


Randy Johnson – GanG
So you keep saying without a shred of evidence to support your opinion.

According to your "logic" , those who object to disinfection have exactly the same argument. To force everyone to consume chlorine, a chemical weapon (not to mention the created toxic disinfection byproducts), is immoral and should be illegal.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Wake up. Chlorine treats the water. Fluoride is suppose to treat the body (teeth). A DRUG.


M Sester – GanG
Fluoride is a mineral like calcium. A nutrient. A good thing.


GanG – M Sester
Fluoride is not a nutrient like calcium. The body has no need for it, and there is none in human milk. Fluoride is an active toxin in some rat poisons and cockroach powders. It is more poisonous than lead and slightly less poisonous than arsenic. It destroys thyroid tissue, makes bones weak and brittle and is suspected in bone cancer. It builds up in the brain, damages kidneys and causes a variety of other health problems. In countries where water is naturally high in fluoride, residents tend to age early, develop arthritis, have bones that shatter like glass and die before 50. The American Kidney Foundation now opposes fluoridation because of damage and even death to those with kidney problems.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Fluoride strengthens tooth enamel and makes it more resistant to decay - perhaps not essential, but certainly a beneficial element to protecting health.

Without legitimate evidence to support your opinions, you fall back on misleading and irrelevant claims that imply fluoridated water is toxic.

In fact, any chemical is an" active toxin" at high enough exposure levels. H2O molecules have killed far more people than the fluoride ions in optimally fluoridated water - so, according to your "logic", water should be banned. Chlorine, used to disinfect water is a chemical weapon at high exposure levels, so, according to your "logic", water disinfection should be banned.

Again, not a shred of evidence to prove any of your claims that fluoridated water is harmful.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Four: You are entitled to your opinion to promote fluoride.
We understand.


Randy Johnson – GanG

Wake up. Take a look at the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health. "Fluoride also interferes with glycolysis, the process by which cariogenic bacteria metabolize sugars to produce acid. In higher concentrations, it has a bactericidal action on cariogenic and other bacteria."

In other words, fluorine, like chlorine, can treat the water, so, like disinfection, fluoridation can have water treatment characteristics. Unlike chlorine, fluorine can help protect the teeth.


GanG – Randy Johnson
"Fluoridation useless and especially harmful to poor children, research shows"

NEW YORK, Feb. 10, 2020 /PRNewswire/ – According to Healthy People 2020, America's poorest children suffer high tooth decay rates, double that of non-poor children. Seventy-five years of water fluoridation failed to narrow oral health disparities between haves and have nots. Cavities are linked to poverty, malnutrition and inability to get dental care; not to fluoride deficiency. Further, malnutrition, more prevalent in low-income families, is linked to more fluoride-induced tooth damage (dental fluorosis), reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).


M Sester – GanG
Who would believe the Fluoride Action Network about anything? What is their business model Mr. GanG?


Randy Johnson – GanG
Again - you fail to provide any legitimate evidence - only a "PRNewswire" spouting the opinions of an anti-F activist group, FAN.

As always, the anti-f opinions are based on a complete misrepresentation (&/or fabrication) of evidence. None of the conclusions are based on specific studies that compare dental health in optimally fluoridated and no-fluoride communities..

Dental decay and related health issues should not be ignored by anyone who cares about the health of family members and fellow citizens..

Fluoridation opponents seem to believe there would be no consequences to stopping or preventing CWF. In fact, three recent studies showed an increase in dental decay in cities after CWF was halted::
~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health201818:2155
~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unitt
~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short‐term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016


GanG – Randy Johnsonn
Fortunately we can all read and do not have to depend on promoters to explain things. Everyone should go read the article..


Randy Johnson – GanG
Of course everyone should carefully examine the studies behind the anti-F claims. Of course fluoridation opponents hope no one will because it can easily be discovered that no studies have ever proven that drinking optimally fluoridated water is harmful or that any laws or regulations have ruled fluoridation a form of medication.

In addition, three recent studies have demonstrated an increase in dental decay in cities after CWF was halted::
~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health201818:2155
~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unitt
~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short‐term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016


GanG – Randy Johnsonn
Nothing new. No reply necessary..

GanG
Data from the World Health Organization shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe with 3% fluoridation is as good or better than any fluoridated country including the U.S., with over 70% fluoridation. This shows how ineffective fluoride is for teeth.

Everyone wants safe, clean water and not the added drug fluoride.

The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.
SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water..
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish)..
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice..
PROBLEM SOLVED.

M Sester – GanG
Mr. GanG you are stuck on the false understanding that fluoride is toxic at 0.7 parts per million. Have you studied science?

GanG – M Sester
The current science can be found in this book.

Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book,
"The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There"

It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Copy/pasting the same unsupportable opinions over and over, ad nauseam simply proves you have no supporting evidence. TCAF is nothing more than standard, unreviewed anti-F propaganda.


GanG – RandyyJohnsonn
Five: You are entitled to your opinion to promote fluoride..
We understand..

GanG
Everyone wants safe, clean water and not the added drug fluoride.

The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.

SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish)..
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice..
PROBLEM SOLVED.PROBLEM SOLVED.

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Everyone wants drinking water that will protect their health and the health of their families. All water treatment processes, disinfection, fluoridation, pH adjustment, corrosion control and coagulation/flocculation protect health in different ways.

Everyone has freedom of choice to drink the treated tap water or find alternatives. No rational, caring individual would deliberately stop any well-tested water treatment and increase the risk of any health problem in their community.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Therein lies the problem. A promoter wants to vote for EVERYONE to accept a drug in their drinking water without consent. As I suggest, use as much fluoride as you like, but quit forcing it on EVERYONE.


Randy Johnson – GanG
Fluoridation is a public health measure to reduce the risk of tooth decay. Fluoridation is not a drug - except in the opinions of fluoridation opponents.

You have provided absolutely no evidence to prove your opinion that fluoridation is a drug  because there is nonee.  As always, you produce nothing but unsupportable opinions..

The FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a "Food for Human Consumption", and there are no warnings required on fluoridated bottled water that the fluoride ions could cause any harm whatever –- in fact, someone who binged on fluoridated water (bottled or otherwise) would die from overexposure to the the toxic H2O molecules long before the fluoride ions would cause any harm..

As noted elsewhere, according to your "logic" water disinfection forces EVERYONE to accept a poisonous chemical weapon in their drinking water without consent..

As described in detail in previous comments, fluoridation opponents have nothing but fabricated fearful propaganda to support their opinions..
https://https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/Fluoridationinformation-reviews.html
https://cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationreferences.htm


GanG – RandyyJohnsonn
Opinionnis not needed. Fluoride is added to treat the body (teeth). Nothing else is needed to show that it is a drug..


Randy Johnson – GanG
Yourlack of knowledge and desperate willingness to fabricate a definition to try and support your opinions, is noted, but that is your only option. If fluoridation was a drug it would be regulated as such - it is regulated in the same manner as all other water treatmentt chemicals- not as a drug.- not as a drug.


GanG – Randy Johnsonn
e all know that to force everyone to consume a drug, fluoride, is immoral and should be illegal..


M Sester – GanG
Force, force, force, force, force - Mr. GanG’s constant refrain. Can't move him from that. Maybe someone was mean to him when he was a child. Fact is democracy works. People vote for or against and then everyone falls into line or they move. You choose, Mr. GanG.


Randy Johnson – GanG
You have made your unsupportable opinion very clear.


GanG – Randy Johnsonn
Wrong! Facts –- not opinions..

"Fluoridation useless and especially harmful to poor children, research shows""

NEW YORK, Feb. 10, 2020 /PRNewswire/ – According to Healthy People 2020, America's poorest children suffer high tooth decay rates, double that of non-poor children. Seventy-five years of water fluoridation failed to narrow oral health disparities between haves and have nots. Cavities are linked to poverty, malnutrition and inability to get dental care; not to fluoride deficiency. Further, malnutrition, more prevalent in low-income families, is linked to more fluoride-induced tooth damage (dental fluorosis), reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
https://finance.yahoo.com/n...


Randy Johnson – GanG
You have presented this baselessopinion..

Againn- you fail to provide any legitimate evidence - only a "PRNewswire" spouting the opinions of an anti-F activist group, FAN..

As always, the anti-f opinions are based on a complete misrepresentation (&/or fabrication) of evidence. None of the conclusions are based on specific studies that compare dental health in optimally fluoridated and no-fluoride communities..

Dental decay and related health issues should not be ignored by anyone who cares about the health of family members and felloww citizens.

luoridationnopponents seem to believe there would be no consequences to stopping or preventing CWF. In fact, three recent studies showed an increase in dental decay in cities after CWF was halted::
~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health201818:2155
~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unitt
~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short‐term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016


GanG – RandyyJohnsonn
Weecan all read and do not have to depend on promoters to explain things. Everyone should go read the article..


Randy Johnson –Randy Johnson – GanG
I am simply explaining are unable to provide any specific evidence from the anti-F opinion piece that actually compares dental decay rates in specific optimally fluoridated communities with similar low-fluoride communities? That's to be expected because there is no such evidence.

In addition, you have never provided any specific references that prove drinking optimally fluoridated water is a drug or that it causes any harm - that's also to be expected since there is none..

You have also been unable to explain why any rational individual should blindly accept your unsupported/unsupportable opinions over the conclusions of the major science and health organizations in the world.You have also been unable to explain why any rational individual should blindly accept your unsupported/unsupportable opinions over the conclusions of the major science and health organizations in the world.


GanG – Randy Johnsonn
Everyone is bored with promoter garbage. No reply necessary..


M Sester – GanG
Notbored. Science wins. Fluoridation is effective and safe. Ask anyone who lives in New York City, Chicago. Los Angeles, Miami etc.bored. Science wins. Fluoridation is effective and safe. Ask anyone who lives in New York City, Chicago. Los Angeles, Miami etc.


GanG – M M Sester
After over 75 years of use, even the ADA sees that fluoridation has been a failure.
The Journal of the American Dental Association (Dye 2017) reports, “65% of poor 6-8 year-olds and 12-15 year-olds have cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, respectively. More than 40% of children have dental cavities by the time they reach kindergarten. “… there has been little improvement in preventing caries initiation,” said Dye...
“Childhood tooth decay is the #1 chronic childhood illness in America.””


Randy Johnson –Randy Johnson – GanG
Again - no evidence. That paper does not compare fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, so it has nothing to do with fluoridation.

GanG
"Canada’s Top Dental Researcher and Fluoride Expert comments on the health dangers of fluoridation." Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, and former head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto and a past president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research.
http://www.fluoridefreepeel...


Randy Johnson – GanG
Hardy Limeback is an extremely vocal fluoridation critic who is no more able to answer challenges to anti-F opinions (or provide legitimate scientific evidence that proves harm from fluoridation) than you are. All his "evidence" consists of the same irrelevant, misrepresented &/or severely flawed studies all anti-F activists employ to try and support their extremely strong and inflexible opinions.

"Hardy Limeback does not engage at all with the science in the NZ Fluoridation Review, but does express his emotional attitude towards it.""
https://https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298109228_Fluoridation_is_Safe_and_Effective
https://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf

GanG – Randy Johnson
Sure, "flawed studies" and "incompetent experts" (even with outstanding credentials) are used by the promote of this BIG ;money outdated fluoridation scheme. Here are more expert opinions:  Here are reports by five dentists on the dangers of fluoride. There are many more just like them.

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2007)

"If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc." - Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)

"When I looked at the research, it was like a knee in the gut. My bias was I thought (fluoridation) was safe and effective because I had not looked at the research." - Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2016)

Fluorides make the germs in the mouth sick, and they’ll make the kid sick, too.” - Dr. David Kennedy DDS MPH, 3rd generation dentist and past president of IAOMT (2016)

"Ffluoride a known toxin that most people don't truly need...especially when its ingested via the water supply," and concludes that with safer alternatives (like toothpaste) available, it's just not worth the risk."

"I don’t think you don’t need fluoride."
Dr. Mark Burhenne, DDS of Sunnyvale, California


 C.E. –– GanG
Education works.

Dosing is expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary..
Chlorine partly dissipates and is easily filtered..


Randy Johnsonn –– C.E..
Yes, education works, but only if it is based on solid scientific evidence - the anti-F opinions are based only on very strongly helddopinions..

Overr70 years of evidence has demonstrated that community water fluoridation reduces the risk of dental decay and related health issues. The "Dosing" with fluoridation chemicals is no more expensive, dangerous or unnecessary than the "Dosing" with chemicals to disinfect the water, adjust pH, reduce corrosion, or coagulate contaminants..

Chlorine is easily filtered, but so are the disinfectant byproducts (which don't readily dissipate), fluoride ions, or any of the other residual chemicals in treated water..


Deleted comment by WRIII



Randy Johnsonn ––  deleted Guestt  commentt
WRII - Thanks. My statement should have read, Yes, education works, but only if it is based on solid scientific evidencee and read by those who understand the difference between a legitimate presentation of the evidence and fear-mongering propaganda - and who don't have fixed, unchangeable beliefs that must be supported..

My goal is not to ""get through too" the anti-F" the anti-F commentaters - that will probably never happen.

It is too easy these days for fake science –- particularly when it is fear-based –- to be considered legitimate..

My goal is to present as many warning signs for anti-science claims and verifiable, science-based alternatives as possible so the average, caring, non-scientist citizens reading these fluoride-driven comments will understand that the anti-F opinions represent an outlier position supportable only by accepting various conspiracy theories..

Your link references a scientist, KenYour link references a scientist, Ken Perrott, who has been publishing and posting detailed refutations of anti-fluoridation studies and arguments for years. He also provides clear alternate routes away from the anti-science cliff-edge.
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/




 C.E.–– Randy Johnsonn
You must be joking. "SCIENCE"??

Oral hygiene is hundreds of years old..

Today, brushing after every meal, limiting sugar consumption and an evening floss before bed is well-known as ample protection..

Or are you a "denier"? (Ha)..

Most children will adopt good oral hygiene after they see the grotesque decay of actual sets of human teeth..

Pick up your phone and start pricing reverse osmosis filters, ask your city to answer specific questions on their dosing procedures and costs, and ask yourself why there's growing concern from science professionals..


Randy Johnsonn ––  C.E..
Science? Yes! Anti-F opinions? No!!

Because there are a number of different ways to reduce the risk of dental decay does not mean fluoridation is not a beneficial public health measure that contributes to reducing that risk..

If any of the anti-F opinions that fluoridation causes harm were even remotely legitimate, how do you explain the fact that the major science and health organizations in the world (over 100) continue to accept fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure??
https://https://www.cyber-nook.com/...

If any of the anti-F opinions that fluoridation causes harm were even remotely legitimate, how do you explain the fact that no major science or health organization in the world accepts those opinions? The only anti-F support I am aware of comes from a few alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News]. Extremely strong opinions and vocal arguments can't hide the lack of legitimate scientific support for the anti-F opinions.
https://https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-consensus.html


 C.E. –– Randy Johnsonn
You have got to be kidding..

Do you, honestly, have no knowledge of the large number of chemicals deemed "safe" by "experts" over the centuries??

Yes, Fluoride has been called "safe" for 75 years. So have radiation waves and just last year a new study shows how individuals develop tumors where they keep their cell-phones close to their body..

If there were no alternatives and we were facing large numbers of fatalities then, by all means....

DOSE-AWAY!!!!

David Fierstien –  C.E.
Thank you, Carlisle. Your degree in Conspiracy Theories, attained at the University of Google, clearly outweighs the silly experts at the World Health Organization, the CDC, the Mayo Clinic, and every other credible health organization in the world.


C.E. –– David David Fierstien
How desperate you are to tag "conspiracy".

I use a prescription 1% fluoride toothpaste because it's effective topically..

Have you failed to notice that "Randy Johnson" is extraordinarily cautious in using the words::

"OPTIMAL FLUORIDATION"????

Everyone receives different quantities, not simply because it's in everything we ingest, no certification is required qualifying municipalEveryone receives different quantities, not simply because it's in everything we ingest, no certification is required qualifying municipal utilltiy employees to dose entire cities on machines that inevitably fail.

It's utterly insane to spend public resources on mass-dosing populations when there are safe, cheap, and effective alternatives!!

BTW, a day doesn't go by that our government isn't entangled in prosecuting conspiracy..


M Sester –  C.E.
What makes you think that fluoridation is not effective systemically? That is how it works. Fluoride is incorporated into the saliva and then bathes the teeth all day helping to prevent cavities.


GanG – M Sester
Even the ADA sees that fluoridation has been a failure afterv75 years.
The Journal of the American Dental Association (Dye 2017) reports, “65% of poor 6-8 year-olds and 12-15 year-olds have cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, respectively. More than 40% of children have dental cavities by the time they reach kindergarten. “… there has been little improvement in preventing caries initiation,” said Dye..
“Childhood tooth decay is the #1 chronic childhood illness in America.”


Randy Johnson – GanG
Again, completely false, unsupportable opinions. The ADA continues to support fluoridation and provides supporting evidence - and specific refutations of anti-F opinions:
https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts


GanG – Randy Johnson
13: You are entitled to your opinion to promote fluoride.
We understand.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Seven: You are entitled to your opinion to promote fluoride.
We understand.


Randy Johnson –  C.E.
CE - You have got to be kidding.

Do you, honestly, have no knowledge of the way science works to identify those chemicals deemed "safe" and "harmful? and at what levels of exposure?

There are thousands of studies over the past 75 years relevant to community water fluoridation. None of them have proven that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes harm. If you have relevant, legitimate, reproducible scientific evidence that proves otherwise provide it.

The fact that such evidence does not exist is the reason the major science and health organizations in the world continue to support fluoridation. That fact is also the reason anti-F opinions are promoted by conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News]. Extremely strong opinions and vocal arguments can't hide the lack of legitimate scientific support for the anti-F opinions.


Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Again, opinions by five fluoridation opponents are not scientific evidence that fluoridation is harmful or ineffective.

Trust science, not opinions:
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-reviews.html


GanG – Randy Johnson
We all understand. Thanks.

GanG
It’s no surprise that 74 cities have voted to remove fluoride from drinking water over the last few years.

Water fluoridation is unsafe, unnecessary, and only benefits industries who can turn their toxic waste into cash. Some groups have sued the EPA after the agency denied a petition to ban the practice of fluoridating water. The case is currently in federal court.

Simply put, there is no good reason to continue water fluoridation, and ending the practice could help protect our kids. It’s time the EPA ended this practice once and for all.

M Sester – GanG
The momentum is the other way. People are tired of painful dental treatment and expense when fluoridation can help children safely have strong teeth for life. Why would anyone oppose that who has normal mental health?

GanG – M Sester
Promoters of this BIG money scheme, fluoridation, would rather not read the truth. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
We understand.


GanG – M Sester
A 2006 report by the National Research Council called fluoride an endocrine disruptor, and a number of recent studies indicate that exposure to fluoridated water lowers thyroid function, particularly in women. Recent studies have also linked fluoridated water to kidney and liver impairment, as well as sleep apnea for adolescents.

Randy Johnson – GanG
As always, no evidence - only unsupportable "BIG money scheme" conspiracy theories.

The 2016 NRC review did not call fluoridated water an " an endocrine disruptor" and there were absolutely no recommendations to lower the secondary maximum contaminant level of 2.0 ppm for any reason. Look it up,. The reference to that scientific review of fluoridation and many others can be found here:
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/Fluoridationinformation-reviews.htm


GanG – Randy Johnson
Eight: You are entitled to your opinion to promote fluoride.
We understand.


M Sester – GanG
Please provide evidence of the alleged harms you claim and the false claims that people who advocated for fluoridation are paid to do so.


GanG – M Sester
You can do it.
To see why fluoride is dangerous, Google "Fluoride dangers" and read a few of the over 1,000,000 articles, many by M.D.'s, dentists and medical scientists.


Randy Johnson – GanG
So, you just believe whatever Google search results support your beliefs, regardless of the fact that you can't actually provide any legitimate scientific evidence to prove your opinions are true.


GanG – Randy Johnson
Here is what another very popular doctor reports. I suggest you go read it.

Read what Dr. Mercola reports about Fluoridation.
Here are some headlines he uses.

Dental Fluorosis Is a Sign of Excessive Fluoride Intake––
Why It's Dangerous to Swallow Fluoride––
Make Sure Your Children Are Not Exposed to Fluoride––-
Help End the Practice of Fluoridation––-
https://articles.mercola.co...


Randy Johnson – GanG
Again, you provide nothing but opinions to support your opinions.

Mercola is right up there with Alex Jones and Edward Group as peddlers of alternate, anti-science reality.
https://quackwatch.org/11In...
https://rationalwiki.org/wi...

Google:
> Mercola quack
> Mercola scam

Randy Johnson – GanG
Votes to discontinue fluoridation are nothing more than evidence that fear-mongering can be a successful tactic to change public opinion.

Fortunately, there are also many cases where those responsible for implementing safe and effective water treatment processes have trusted the scientific consensus over a few alternative "health" organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS] , David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News].
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-consensus.html

As always, you provide no legitimate evidence that proves your claims of alleged harm from fluoridation. Also, you have never provided a rational explanation for why, despite the vocal opinions of fluoridation opponents for over 70 years, the major science and health organizations in the world continue to accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems.

Simply put, there are no good reasons to believe the anti-F propaganda over the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems.

GanG – Randy Johnson 
Some suggest that the one supporter of this outdated BIG money scheme (fluoridation) gets paid by the word to keep the scheme going. After all, industries profit by $ millions selling their waste fluoride product to communities.
It is not certain, but what do you think?

M Sester – GanG
Paranoia.

GanG – M Sester
As John Wayne famously said:

"Life is tough."
It is even tougher if you are stupid."

Randy Johnson – GanG
You are a perfect example of that quote.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Unfortunately, it takes more words to explain false claims than it does to make false claims like:
1) Somehow the fluoridation industry is able to cause all of the major science and health organizations in the world to support water fluoridation if there is actual evidence of harm and ineffectiveness. Do you have such evidence? Of course not, because the claim is patently false, but you seem to believe your opinions are evidence.
2) I am getting "paid by the word to keep the scheme going". I assure you I am not. Do you have any evidence that proves otherwise? Oh, that's right, your opinion is your evidence.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Fluoridation results in waste of tax money.
Let people buy their own at the drugstore.

All Civil Engineers and all water managers know that people drink only 1/2% of the water they use. The rest goes directly
down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc.

So for each $1000 of fluoride added annually to drinking water, people drink $5 and $995 is wasted down the drain.
Children would drink only $0.50 (fifty cents).

That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest
of the gallon in the sink.

M Sester – GanG
Focus on children and child health. Dental decay down by 35% from fluoridation with no one harmed. This is a good deal for everyone.

GanG – M Sester
Fluoride is not a nutrient like calcium. The body has no need for it, and there is none in human milk. Fluoride is an active toxin in some rat poisons and cockroach powders. It is more poisonous than lead and slightly less poisonous than arsenic. It destroys thyroid tissue, makes bones weak and brittle and is suspected in bone cancer. It builds up in the brain, damages kidneys and causes a variety of other health problems. In countries where water is naturally high in fluoride, residents tend to age early, develop arthritis, have bones that shatter like glass and die before 50. The American Kidney Foundation now opposes fluoridation because of damage and even death to those with kidney problems.

M Sester – GanG
Mr. GanG, you are incorrect. Please review this statement: "Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:
The Impact of Fluoride on Health"ABSTRACT
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics to support optimal systemic and topical fluoride as an important public health measure to promote oral health and overall health throughout life. Fluoride is an important element in the mineralization of bone and teeth. The proper use of topical and systemic fluoride has resulted in major reductions in dental caries and its associated disability. Dental caries remains the most prevalent chronic disease in children and affects all age groups of the population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has named fluoridation of water as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 21st century. Currently,72% of the US population that is served by community water systems benefits from water fluoridation. However, only 27 states provide fluoridated water to more than three quarters of the state’s residents on public water systems. Fluoride also plays a role in bone health. However, at this time, use of high doses of fluoride for osteoporosis prevention is considered experimental only. Dietetics practitioners should routinely monitor and promote the use of fluorides for all age groups."
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112:1443-1453.

GanG – M Sester
Exactly why should ADULTS be forced to drink this poisonous fluoride in every glass of water evert day of life?

Modern science shows that ingesting fluoride, neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth, doesn't reduce tooth decay but is damaging to the body, especially brains. Put fluoride on your teeth, not the water or your brains. Stop fluoridation. You will save money, protect the infrastructure and, more importantly, protect the health of residents forced to consume fluoride via the water supply.

Randy Johnson – GanG
This is the second time in this comment section you posted this nonsense.

Fluoride strengthens tooth enamel and makes it more resistant to decay - perhaps not essential, but certainly a beneficial element to protecting health.

Without legitimate evidence to support your opinions, you fall back on misleading and irrelevant claims that imply fluoridated water is toxic.

In fact, any chemical is an" active toxin" at high enough exposure levels. H2O molecules have killed far more people than the fluoride ions in optimally fluoridated water - so, according to your "logic", water should be banned. Chlorine, used to disinfect water is a chemical weapon at high exposure levels, so, according to your "logic", water disinfection should be banned.

Again, not a shred of evidence to prove any of your claims that fluoridated water is harmful.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Nine: You are entitled to your opinion to promote fluoride.
We understand. 

M Sester – GanG
Mr. GanG, When you make incorrect statements about science, please apologise. It is unworthy to do otherwise and to cast aspersions on people who are trying to help you understand the science.

GanG – M Sester
I understand that promoters of the deadly poisonous fluoride won't go read the current science. Perhaps you will.

Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book,

"The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There"

It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Really? According to your "logic" then, any water treatment methods where most of the water "goes down the drain" should be discontinued.

Does your exercise in "logic" take into account the cost of treating preventable dental decay and related health issues? Of course not, but then you apparently don't give a rip about public health. You only present your opinions without an impartial discussion of actual, scientifically based, risks and benefits.

 C.E. – GanG
Thank you.

GanG –  C.E.
You are welcome.

Have you noticed how the promoters of this outdated BIG money fluoridation scheme refuse to accept any scientific publication even though it has been published in the best medical journals. I guess we know why.

M Sester – GanG
In Mr. GanG’s universe there must always be a bad guy when in fact there are lots of good guys who understand the science and know that children can have much better health if they live in fluoridated areas.

GanG – M Sester
Lower IQ is what kids get in fluoridated areas.
SAD.

Randy Johnson – GanG

Still, no evidence that proves your opinions.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Ten: You are entitled to your opinion to promote fluoride.
We understand.

David Fierstien – GanG
"outdated BIG money fluoridation scheme refuse to accept any scientific publication even though it has been published in the best medical journals."

QUICK!! Get those medical journals over to the idiots running the World Health Organization ASAP!! before one more human being dies from drinking fluoridated water!!

GanG – David Fierstien
"Fluoridation useless and especially harmful to poor children, research shows"

NEW YORK, Feb. 10, 2020 /PRNewswire/ – According to Healthy People 2020, America's poorest children suffer high tooth decay rates, double that of non-poor children. Seventy-five years of water fluoridation failed to narrow oral health disparities between haves and have nots. Cavities are linked to poverty, malnutrition and inability to get dental care; not to fluoride deficiency. Further, malnutrition, more prevalent in low-income families, is linked to more fluoride-induced tooth damage (dental fluorosis), reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
https://finance.yahoo.com/n...

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - So, your so-called "evidence" is a "PR Newswire" opinion piece from the anti-F activist group FAN?? Really?

Instead of opinions from an anti-F news report, provide the specific reference and conclusion that proves your opinion, "Fluoridation useless and especially harmful to poor children, research shows". I saw nothing in any of those studies that suggested that conclusion.

There is no way that malnutrition is "linked to more fluoride-induced tooth damage". If you believe otherwise, provide the specific reference and author conclusion - then there will be something besides unfounded opinions to discuss.

GanG – Randy Johnson 
It is no surprise that promoters won't read any truth.

Everyone wants safe, clean water and not the added drug fluoride.

The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.

SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

M Sester – GanG
You are on a loop Mr. Reeve. You make only three points. All incorrect.

GanG – M Sester 
I suggest you learn to read.

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Those who support fluoridation actually read and understand the 75 years of evidence that continues to confirm fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/Fluoridationinformation-reviews.html
 https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/Fluoridation.html

You have provided nothing but unsupportable opinions.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Big money drove many issues for years like the "science" of tobacco, DDT, lead in gasoline, thalidomide, and asbestos, which were all wrong. The "Vioxx" science resulted in 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths ( FDA data). The diabetes drug, Avandia, caused 150,000 patients to suffer stroke, heart failure, bone fractures, vision loss and death.

Remember when the health professionals advertised, "a pack a day keeps cancer
away?"

Over time the science corrects itself. It is time to correct fluoridation.

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Still in your completely unsupportable "BIG money fluoridation" conspiracy mode?

All scientific evidence is considered, but worthless fluoride "studies" that explain almost nothing and prove even less are not accepted by the scientific and health communities.

Consider what would be confirmed if the 2019 Green, et al. study (and related 2017 Bashash, et al. study) is eventually demonstrated to be a legitimate evaluation of the data.

> First: The study would only demonstrate that fluoride exposure was "associated with" (authors words) a very slightly lowered IQ - no cause and effect relationships were demonstrated.

> Second: The R-squared values (in Green's thesis, not the published paper) demonstrated that any conclusions of a possible "association" would mean that the fluoride exposure explained less than 5% of the reported IQ loss. That leaves over 95% of the "association" revealed in the scatter plots to be explained by other causes.

> Third: Finding an "association" or correlation is not proof of causation. Using the anti-F "logic", an increase in ice cream sales leads to increases in the murder rate.

Search on: ice cream sales lead to murder
Also, look at the graph at the bottom of the Green critique referenced below. Using anti-F "logic", I have clearly demonstrated that a 10 degree C increase in maximum daily temperature causes a 10-point reduction in IQ.
https://cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-green.html

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Votes to discontinue fluoridation are nothing more than evidence that fear-mongering can be a successful tactic to change public opinion. Fortunately, there are also many cases where those responsible for implementing safe and effective water treatment processes have trusted the scientific consensus over a few alternative "health" organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS] , David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News].

As always, you provide no relevant, legitimate scientific evidence that proves your claims of alleged harm from fluoridation.

If your opinion that "water fluoridation is unsafe, unnecessary, and only benefits industries who can turn their toxic waste into cash", how do you explain the fact that virtually all major science and health organizations in the world continue to accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems?
https://www.cyber-nook.com/...

Simply put, there are no good reasons to believe the anti-F propaganda over the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems.

GanG – Randy Johnson
The promoters of this outdated BIG money fluoridation scheme refuse to accept any scientific publication even though it has been published in the best medical journals. I guess we know why.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Still in your completely unsupportable "BIG money fluoridation" conspiracy mode?

All scientific evidence is considered, but worthless fluoride "studies" that explain almost nothing and prove even less are not accepted by the scientific and health communities.

GanG
Fluoride may diminish kidney and liver function in adolescents, study suggests –- Sinai Hospital / Mount Sinai School of Medicine 

Even at low levels, the fluoride, added to , may be damaging the kidneys and livers of teens throughout the country, researchers report in a new study published in the journal Environment International.

Read about it in "Physician's Weekly."

Randy Johnson – GanG
Provide specific references to specific studies that prove drinking optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) diminishes "kidney and liver function in adolescents".

If you are referencing the 2019 Malin, et al. study published in "Environmental International", then The study shows nothing of the sort. "How could it – individuals suffering liver or kidney disease were specifically excluded from the study population. The reported parameter values are all for healthy individuals."
https://openparachute.wordp...

As noted elsewhere, all such studies have, at best, manipulated the data to "uncover" a possible association between fluoride exposure and some alleged harm. For another recent example, consider the severe limitations and criticisms of the 2019 Green, et al. fluoride/IQ study also used by fluoridation opponents to try and prove harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/...

GanG – Randy Johnson
The world's premier pediatric journal has published a new government-funded study confirming our worst fears, linking exposure to “optimally” fluoridated water during pregnancy to lowered IQ for the child.

You can repair a cavity, but you cannot repair a child's brain.

The American Medical Association’s journal on pediatrics (JAMA Pediatrics) has published the second U.S. Government-funded study linking low-levels of fluoride exposure during fetal development to cognitive impairment. The observational study, entitled Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada, was led by a team at York University in Ontario, Canada and looked at 512 mother-child pairs from six major Canadian cities. It was funded by the Canadian government and the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Science

The researchers found...
“...there was no safe level” of fluoride exposure during pregnancy.

Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada

A must-hear twelve-minute podcast featuring AMA Pediatrics Editor in Chief, Dimitri Christakis, MD, MPH, and Frederick Rivara, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief of JAMA Network
https://edhub.ama-assn.org/...

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Obviously, you don't bother to read my comments or reply to the facts I have already presented before posting your opinions.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/...

The Green, et al. study has received unprecedented criticism by experts worldwide for limitations in methodology and interpretation as detailed in the link provided earlier. The authors, in the published paper, did not conclude, "...there was no safe level” of fluoride exposure during pregnancy." As always you fabricate your "evidence".

Immediately after the study's publication a number of experts in epidemiology, psychology, statistical methodology and other fields have raised numerous concerns about the Green article, including the following:”
1. Focusing on a subgroup analysis amid “noisy data”:
2. Modeling and variable anomalies:
3. Lacking data on relevant factors that can impact children’s intelligence and cognitive ability:|
4. Omitting crucial findings:
5. Using invalid measures to determine individual exposures:
6. Defining the final study group:
7. Assessing the impact of fluoride exposure:
8. Reporting anomalies:
9. Internal inconsistency of outcomes:
10. Overlooking research that conflicts with the authors’ conclusions:

Look at the Green, et al. scatter graph and compare it with the Bashash graph. The high level of data scatter is an indication that any possible association between the variables is exceedingly small. In fact, even if the study was conducted appropriately (it wasn't) and all potential factors that can influence IQ were considered, the fluoride exposure would only possibly explain less than 5% of the IQ observations.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Notice how the promoters of this outdated BIG money fluoridation scheme refuse to accept any scientific publication even though it has been published in the best medical journals. I guess we know why.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Still in your completely unsupportable "BIG money fluoridation" conspiracy mode?

All scientific evidence is considered, but worthless fluoride "studies" that explain almost nothing and prove even less are not accepted by the scientific and health communities.

GanG
Fluoride is deadly poison, more than lead and slightly less than arsenic.

A child died in the dentist office from swallowing a fluoride treatment.

Check the toothpaste tube. It says call the poison control center if the child swallows the paste used.

The 75 year old science of forced fluoridation is simply wrong and dangerous, but other big money schemes with the wrong science hung on for years, like tobacco, DDT, lead in gasoline, and asbestos. The drug, Vioxx, was approved by the FDA and caused 27,000 deaths (CDC data) before it was recalled. Some say over 60,000 deaths. We eventually learned the truth about all of these with corrected science. Modern science (last 30 years) now shows the dangers to health for fluoride.

So, it will take some time to overcome the old, dangerous fluoridation scheme. The U.S. forces 74% of citizens to consume fluoride, but only 5% of the world, and 3% of Europe fluoridate drinking water. China and Japan have rejected it many years ago.

David Fierstien – GanG
"A child died in the dentist office from swallowing a fluoride treatment."

That happened in 1974. His family was awarded $750,000. This raises a few questions.

1.) Got anything from . . say . . This Century?

2.) Where are all the lawsuits from all those brain-dead vegetables that you claim were created because 100 million people drink fluoridated water every day?

GanG – David Fierstien
Fluoridation results in waste of tax money.  Let people buy their own at the drugstore.

All Civil Engineers and all water managers know that people drink only 1/2% of the water they use. The rest goes directly
down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc.

So for each $1000 of fluoride added annually to drinking water, people drink $5 and $995 is wasted down the drain.

Children would drink only $0.50 (fifty cents).

That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest
of the gallon in the sink.

David Fierstien – GanG
GanG, what you have done here is called the argumentative technique of Gish Galloping.

It works like this: I point out that your little story has no merit because it happened in 1974 and is irrelevant today. So . . Rather than confronting my argument, you jump off to other things.

We could do this all day. For example you might go off in the direction of bringing up some meaningless economic argument . . I could point out the meritlessness of it, . . . and then you would go off about the number of atoms in the known universe.

Gish Galloping. You're the poster boy for it

GanG – David Fierstien
Data from the World Health Organization shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe with 3% fluoridation is as good or better than any fluoridated country including the U.S., with over 70% fluoridation. This shows how ineffective fluoride is for teeth.

Everyone wants safe, clean water and not the added drug fluoride.

The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.
SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.
PROBLEM SOLVED.

Randy Johnson – GanG
What you are apparently referring to - hard to tell when you provide no supporting evidence - is some global data on decay rates that has nothing to do with any differences between optimally fluoridated communities and those with lower fluoride levels. Worse yet, the data was interpreted only by anti-F activists.

The actual World Health Organization conclusions, based on actual scientific evidence, can be found in the 2016 WHO report: Fluoride and Oral Health, Conclusions:
—> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.”
—> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.”
—> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”
The review also describes the many ways fluoridation reduces decay, and it is not limited to topical exposure – of course drinking fluoridated water constitutes topical exposure.
https://www.who.int/oral_he...

FALSE SOLUTION: Blindly accept the unsupportable fear-mongering propaganda of fluoridation opponents.

Actual Solution: Accept and trust the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental decay. The major science and health organizations worldwide support fluoridation because there is no legitimate scientific evidence to support the anti-f opinions.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

GanG – Randy Johnson
WOW! This is what you get when a promoter gets paid y the word as some contend.
My simple solution is much better where EVERYONE gets to chose whether they consume a drug. The whole public recognizes this.

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Remarkable. Are you actually claiming I am getting any payment for refuting your nonsense, or are you mumbling meaningless suggestions that you hope some idiot would interpret as a specific claim? In any case - your claim (or suggestion) is absolutely false. I have noted that fact before, but like all truth, you ignore it. Typical and not unexpected.

You are one of the best promoters of fluoridation I know as evidenced by your obvious misrepresenting of facts and your highlighting the lack of evidence to prove any anti-F claims valid. Congratulations!

C.E. – Randy Johnson
The blogs are filled with paid posters.

Randy Johnson –  C.E.
Sounds suspiciously like an unsupported, false accusation.  Not surprising, since that is precisely what anti-F “evidence” consists of – false, unsupportable opinions.

I am not paid by anyone or any organization to refute the opinions of fluoridation opinions.  If you think you can provide evidence from the reptilian overloads, feel free to go after it.  Can you provide proof any pro-fluoridation commenters are paid to repudiate anti-science opinions?  Of course not – there is none.

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Virtually any substance is a deadly poison at high enough exposure levels. Death from exposure to a concentrated fluoride solution has absolutely nothing to do with drinking water fluoridation. According to your "logic" water should be banned because people have died from consuming excess amounts.

Search on:
> Strange but True: Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill, Scientific American
> Drinking too much WATER has killed 14 people, new research has revealed

Most people can recognize the difference between a cup of fluoridated water (with 0,7 mg/l fluoride) and a tube of toothpaste with over 1,000 mg/l fluoride.

After 75 years of community water fluoridation and rigorous study, the only negative effect of water fluoridation that has been found is a slight increase in the risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis. Unlike fluoridation, tobacco, lead, asbestos have never been shown by science to benefit health. The risks of Vioxx were discovered by the scientific process - if there were any health risks from hundreds of millions of people drinking fluoridated water for seven decades one might expect someone to actually produce proof besides fluoridation opponents who can only produce fabricated evidence to support their opinions.

Explain why, if any of the anti-F opinions are based on legitimate evidence, the only support for the anti-F opinions some independent fluoridation opponents like a few alternative "health" organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS] , David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News].

When you post your explanations, provide legitimate supporting evidence - in the past, you have only supplied various, completely unsupported, conspiracy theories.
Search on:
Fluoridation and the Scientific Consensus - Cyber-Nook
Fluoridation Reviews and Studies - Cyber-Nook

GanG – Randy Johnson
More than 50 studies have now linked fluoride to impaired IQ in children.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D., editor of The Blaylock Wellness Report

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Once again, absolutely none of those studies have even come close to proving that drinking optimally fluoridated water is "now linked fluoride to impaired IQ in children."

If you believe otherwise, provide a specific study with author conclusions that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water causes impaired IQ in children.

The best "link" in any studies is that fluoride levels above that found in optimally fluoridated water might possibly be "associated" with an extremely small change in IQ - and might possibly explain no more than 5% of the extremely small change.

None of the studies have considered significant other environmental, social, genetic, etc. factors that can influence IQ. Some studies have shown no change, some have shown an increase in IQ, some a decrease in boys and not girls and some an increase in girls but not boys.

If you examine the data plots of those studies, the data scatter looks as though it was created by a random shotgun blast - not a clear association with fluoride exposure (see image in my reply to your identical comment above).
https://www.ada.org/en/publ...
https://www.cyber-nook.com/...

Deleted Comment

GanG – Guest, deleted comment
Of course, of course – Promoters will try to destroy any authority who tells the truth about this outdated BIG money scheme.

After all the industries make $ millions of profit selling their waste, deadly poison fluoride to communities. So no one should be surprised.

M Sester – GanG
The money is in not fluoridating, Mr. GanG. No fluoridation means holes in the teeth. Holes in the teeth means money to dentists to fill them. Paranoia is not public policy.

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Your lack of evidence to prove any harm from fluoridation (or any BIG money scheme) should be obvious even to your fellow promoters of fake science.

GanG – Guest
As John Wayne famously said:
"Life is tough."
It is even tougher if you are stupid."

Deleted Comment explaining that John Wayne probably didn't make the "Life is tough..." quote.
"The phrase “Life is hard; it’s harder when you’re stupid” (also variously rendered as “Life is hard; it’s even harder when you’re stupid” or “Life is tough, but it’s tougher when you’re stupid”) has long been a favorite of memists, nearly all of whom attribute the saying to iconic Western film actor John Wayne. It sounds like something the blunt-speaking Duke would have said, and that’s sufficient for most people. But John Wayne didn’t actually say this, either as a line of character dialogue in a film or speaking as himself." (Snopes)

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Regardless of who made that statement, I suspect you will keep using it because it describes your condition so perfectly.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Here are reports by five dentists on the dangers of fluoride. There are many more just like them.

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2007)

"If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc." - Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)

"When I looked at the research, it was like a knee in the gut. My bias was I thought (fluoridation) was safe and effective because I had not looked at the research." - Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2016)

“Fluorides make the germs in the mouth sick, and they’ll make the kid sick, too.” - Dr. David Kennedy DDS MPH, 3rd generation dentist and past president of IAOMT (2016)

"Ffluoride a known toxin that most people don't truly need...especially when its ingested via the water supply," and concludes that with safer alternatives (like toothpaste) available, it's just not worth the risk."
"I don’t think you don’t need fluoride."
Dr. Mark Burhenne, DDS of Sunnyvale, California

GanG – Guest
It is no surprise that BIG money promoters of the dangerous scheme tries to insult experts in the field like Dr. Limeback.

It now appears that the scheme is paying many more commenters to try to protect it.

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Absolutely none of those studies have even come close to proving that drinking optimally fluoridated water is "now linked fluoride to impaired IQ in children." Trusting Blaylock to provide legitimate scientific conclusions is equivalent to trusting the anti-vaccine and anti-fluoridation opinions of Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News].

And, in response to your more recent comment, opinions "by five dentists" are nothing besides their personal, unsupportable opinions.

The best "link" in any studies Blaylock misrepresents is that fluoride levels above that found in optimally fluoridated water might possibly be "associated" with an extremely small change in IQ - and might possibly explain no more than 5% of the extremely small alleged change.

None of the studies have considered significant other environmental, social, genetic, etc. factors that can influence IQ. Some studies have shown no change, some have shown an increase in IQ, some a decrease in boys and not girls and some an increase in girls but not boys.

If you examine the data plots of those studies, the data scatter looks as though it was created by a random shotgun blast - not a clear association with fluoride exposure.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/...

jwahlund
Fluoride is a poison. That's why most countries have banned it. It does pacify the populace though 😀

Randy Johnson – jwahlund
Yes, fluoride is a poison, but so are oxygen, chlorine, H2O, potassium, vitamins, selenium, and virtually every other substance you can name - at high enough exposure levels.

Search YouTube for the Penn and Teller video which shows how legitimate scientific evidence about the potential dangers of H2O can be presented to scare well-meaning people into signing a petition against the dangerous substance (dihydrogen monoxide, aka H2O). Watch it carefully and then consider how much more effective the campaign could have been if they had used standard anti-science tactics to distort and fabricate the evidence. Search on:
> penn and teller youtube water ban
> dangers of dihydrogen monoxide

GanG – Randy Johnson
Once again.
More than 50 studies have now linked fluoride to impaired IQ in children.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D., editor of The Blaylock Wellness Report

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Once again.

Absolutely none of those studies have even come close to proving that drinking optimally fluoridated water is "now linked fluoride to impaired IQ in children."

The best "link" in any studies is that fluoride levels above that found in optimally fluoridated water might possibly be "associated" with an extremely small change in IQ - and might possibly explain no more than 5% of the extremely small change.

None of the studies have considered significant other environmental, social, genetic, etc. factors that can influence IQ. Some studies have shown no change, some have shown an increase in IQ, some a decrease in boys and not girls and some an increase in girls but not boys.

If you examine the data plots of those studies, the data scatter looks as though it was created by a random shotgun blast - not a clear association with fluoride exposure (see image in my reply to your identical comment above).
https://www.ada.org/en/publ...
https://www.cyber-nook.com/...

C.E. – Randy Johnson

Do any of your links specifically refute Dr. Russell Blaylock's research, or, do we take your word for it?

Randy Johnson –  C.E.
Yes, the overwhelming majority of studies refute Blaylock's opinions.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/...
https://www.cyber-nook.com/...

C.E. – Randy Johnson
I saw no specific scientific analysis specifically refuting Dr. Blaylock's work.

Randy Johnson –  C.E.
Yes, the overwhelming majority of studies refute Blaylock's opinions. 

Blaylock's studies have nothing to do with optimally fluoridated water, and his opinions are not supported by the evidence presented.

You have apparently not bothered to examine or understand them.

C.E. – Randy Johnson
Your link is not a scientific refutation but a collection of disagreements posted on the website of someone named "Bob Carroll".

I have never disputed the effectiveness of fluoride topically applied, but the idiocy of mass-dosing of potentially harmful quantities by municipal utility employees when there are other effective, inexpensive and safer alternatives.
RandyyJohnson ––  C.E.
Blaylockkdoes not evaluate studies, he provides his false opinions about studies he believes can be manipulated sufficiently to support his opinions..

GanGGanG –   C.E.
You are correct. The promotes will try to destroy any authority who presents the truth about the outdated, BIG money scheme of fluoridation.

There is a current lawsuit in federal court against the EPA for their support of this deadly poison

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Blaylock is not a recognized authority on fluoridation, he is recognized as a conspiracy theorist, he presents no truth, as always, you provide no evidence to support your opinions, and the fact that anti-science activists file a lawsuit is nothing more than their inability to provide legitimate scientific evidence (because there is none) to change the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

GanG – Randy Johnson
Well dang. Why don't promoters ever believe any scientist, doctor or dentist who reports anything negative on fluoridation?
Just one reason $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Randy Johnson – GanG
Because, like you, they misrepresent the evidence and fabricate unsupportable claims like your $$$$$$$$ schemes. If they had any legitimate evidence, the scientific consensus would change - it has not in 75 years despite the ongoing false opinions of fluoridation opponents.

Randy Johnson –  C.E. 
Blaylock's "work" has nothing to do with optimally fluoidated water. If you believe otherwise, provide a specific conclusion from his published work that proves his findings are relevant to drinking water that contains 0.7 ppm fluoride ions.

Blaylock's anti-F opinions are based on standard misrepresentations of studies and complete fabrications.

C.E. – Randy Johnson
Great, please provide a scientific refutation specific to Dr. Blaylock's assertions.

GanG –  C.E.
Thanks you. They can't refute any of Dr. Blaylock's information. Here is one article from him.  "Stay Away From Fluoride"
https://www.newsmax.com/Hea...
By Dr. Blaylock

Randy Johnson – GanG
You link is to an opinion piece, but then opinions are your "proof", so it's not surprising.

Absolutely none of Blaylock's "studies" (actually reviews) have even come close to proving that drinking optimally fluoridated water is "now linked fluoride to impaired IQ in children."

See more details in my comment above.

C.E. – Randy Johnson
Do any of your links specifically/scientifically refute Dr. Blaylock's reviews?

Randy Johnson –  C.E.
Blaylock’s studies have nothing to do with fluoridation.  His opinions about fluoridation are not reviews – which actually discuss the scientific evidence – they are only evidence/science-free opinions.

These references provide reviews (and a few studies) from around the world on studies that confirm the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/...

This link provides over 250 specific references (and other resources) to published studies that demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/...

Unlike the reasons provided to be extremely skeptical about the "studies" referenced by fluoridation opponents, there are no legitimate reasons to ignore this body of evidence (and many studies not referenced).

Those facts are the reason the major science and health organizations in the world continue to accept community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure.

M.R. – jwahlund
Fluoride is safe at 0.7 parts per million in the water which is the recommended level. If you ate a box of salt then you would be poisoned but some salt is necessary for life. Clearly, one must think about amounts before talking about poisons.

C.E.
I called the City of Eureka water department and asked a simple question:

"How much fluoride are you dosing and what does it cost?

To my amazement I received a candid response:

"Our machine hasn't worked correctly in years, it sometimes dumps very large quantities but Fluoride is safe and the machine is very expensive. We spend about $30,000 annually on Fluoride."

Aside from the obvious absurdity of having city utility workers make dosage decisions on a broken machine, $30,000 a year is enough to provide every Eureka classroom with the importance of basic dental care.

It worked for cigarettes and those disgusting dark lungs they shocked students with.

the_misadventures_of_bunjee –  C.E.
Whattis this "importance of" you speak of? $30k won't even cover braces for 3 students, let alone basic anything in every classroom. Where did you come of with that number? It is absurdly low.is this "importance of" you speak of? $30k won't even cover braces for 3 students, let alone basic anything in every classroom. Where did you come of with that number? It is absurdly low.

 C.E. – the_misadventures_of_bunjee 

I was told $30,000 which is plenty for K-12 teachers to acquire a free lesson-plan explaining what happens when oral hygiene is ignored.

It worked with cigarettes.

Maybe it's only educated people who trust education.

Randy Johnson – C.E.
Whodid you talk with, and what proof of your claims can you provide? did you talk with, and what proof of your claims can you provide? A serious claim like that requires significant, verifiable prooff! Even if true, that is not an argument against the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.

 C.E. – Randy Johnson
My information came from S. H., an employee working for many years with the City of Eureka's water treatment systems.

Interestingghow aggressive proponents of fluoridation have NO IDEA what's actually taking place on the ground, nor have sought to find out.how aggressive proponents of fluoridation have NO IDEA what's actually taking place on the ground, nor have sought to find out.

Randy Johnson –  C.E.
The bigger question is why S. H. chose to release that important data to you instead of to someone responsible for oversight?

Even if that claim is valid, the malfunctioning machine has nothing to do with the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation to reduce the risk of dental decay - any more than disinfectant spills and over-feeds are evidence that drinking water disinfection is hazardous and should be stopped.

 C.E. – Randy Johnson
No, the bigger question is why aggressive proponents would rather question a source than question themselves for not knowing anything about how this additive could be routinely disbursed in dangerous quantities by low-level city employees.

For all I know they eventually replaced the machine as knowledge of its long-term failure grew.

None of the newspapers I contacted investigated, probably fearing opposing orthodoxy. Too bad faith in education hasn't reached that level, it's more effective, and cheaper than dosing.

Inexpensive water filters can effectively filter chlorine, filtering fluoride requires reverse-osmosis.

Randy Johnson –  C.E.
Questioning sources and validating claims is precisely how evidence is found and evaluated so legitimate conclusions are formulated.

Accepting information as true because it confirms your fervently held beliefs is how anti-science activists accumulate supporting evidence. Your opinions of what may have happened are irrelevant to the question of safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.

All treated water contains regulated traces of various residual chemicals at levels shown for decades to be safe - and, in the case of fluoride ions in optimally fluoridated communities, beneficial.

If someone wishes to avoid ingesting residual disinfectants, disinfection byproducts, fluoride ions or any other chemicals which remain in the water after treatment, they are free to purchase any treatment method they choose. It is extremely unfortunate that some individuals allow their fear and unsubstantiated opinions to try and dictate beneficial health practices.

 C.E. – Randy Johnson
Apparently, your fervently held beliefs have blinded you to any interest or knowledge regarding the low-level municipal employees dosing cities with machines inclined to fail, as all do. Or, the actual costs of fluoridation, or the actual costs of reverse osmosis filters that are prohibitive for working class families, or the division among lettered professionals that should give intelligent advocates concern.

It is amazing to me how an educated person could ever promote involuntary dosing at the hands of random utility workers when proper education produces the same results without the cost or the risk.

Failure to chlorinate could cause fatal epidemics, hardly an apt comparison.

Randy Johnson –  C.E.
You seem to have no respect for the water treatment industry or what you consider the "low-level municipal employees dosing cities with machines... at the hands of random utility workers" that protect your health, and yet you presumably accept involuntary "dosing" of all water treatment chemicals besides fluoride.

Failure to implement any water treatment processes increases the risk of various health issues - are you only interested in reducing the risk of fatal epidemics?

 C.E. – Randy Johnson
Being incurious about those who are dosing you with a potentially harmful substance, how they are doing it and what it costs sheds great doubt over your other assertions about Fluoride.

It's fallacious to compare Chlorine to fluoride, or the potential of fatal epidemics to tooth decay.

Again, Chlorine dissipates and the remainder can be inexpensively filtered. Not so for Fluoride.

There's really no way to insure "optimal" municipal dosing when Fluoride is already present in everything we eat and drink.

That's why I use a $1,000 Rhino whole-house filter that must be replaced every 5 years and use a prescription 1% fluoride toothpaste.

It's effective topically and dentists are not experts in internal medicine.

 C.E. – Randy Johnson
Your paranoia and the marketing success of Rhino are so noted. If you were to take some time and actually examine and understand the evidence, you might begin to have a clue why all of the major science or health organizations in the world continue to support the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.

In fact, three recent studies have demonstrated an increase in dental decay in cities after CWF was halted:
~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unit
~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short‐term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children using tooth surface indices: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016
~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health 2018

If you continue to blindly accept the anti-F propaganda, without bothering to examine the very specific and provable criticisms from the scientific and health communities, you will continue to fear a public health measure that has been successful at reducing the risk of tooth decay - which can have serious health consequences that are far more serious than any alleged, unproven harm of fluoridation.

 C.E. – Randy Johnson
You have already shown your complete ignorance and disinterest in what's actually occurring at water treatment facilities, the qualifications for municipal employees responsible for daily dosing, the costs, the potential harm from routine over-dosing, or the more disturbing fact that scientists are increasingly in disagreement.

You have ZERO credibility.

GanGGanG
After over 75 years of use, even the ADA sees that fluoridation has been a failure.

The Journal of the American Dental Association (Dye 2017) reports, “65% of poor 6-8 year-olds and 12-15 year-olds have cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, respectively. More than 40% of children have dental cavities by the time they reach kindergarten. “… there has been little improvement in preventing caries initiation,” said Dye..
“Childhood tooth decay is the #1 chronic childhood illness in America.”

Randy Johnson – GanG
GanG - Wrong, as always. Your claim comes from an anti-F interpretation of a study, "Trends in dental caries in children and adolescents according to poverty status in the United States from 1999 through 2004 and from 2011 through 2014" (Dye, et al., JADA, August 2017).

Only fluoridation opponents and other anti-science activists would draw a conclusion about effectiveness of community water fluoridation (CWF) from a study that did not specifically measure or study differences in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities or in communities where fluoridation practices had changed. The studies below demonstrate that when exposure to fluoridated water is actually considered, decay rates are lower in those exposed to optimal levels of fluoride.

A study that compares decay rates based on differences in lifetime exposure to fluoridated water:
~> Contemporary evidence on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of childhood caries: Spencer, et al., Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018

Three recent studies have demonstrated an increase in dental decay in cities after CWF was halted:
~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health201818:215
~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unit
~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short‐term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016

The ADA continues to support fluoridation as an effective way to reduce the risk of dental decay.
Search on::
> Fluoridation Facts, ADAA
> AFS response to 2017 NYSCOF press release, Fluoridation