He's back

Welcome back Steven I know you've been busy writing comments elsewhere. According to Google almost 900 hits on this page when you wrote far more than normal so I must thank you for writing.
I don't know if people believe you or not but you are passionate in fluoridation's support.
What are your views on the pineal gland does fluoride affect it not forgetting the thyroid of course. Your views on both would be appreciated.

Below is Stevens latest comment followed by Chris Cooke's and then Steven at his rude best.
Followed by Chris's
_____________________________________________________________

"Misleading answer"?

No. Dental fluorosis can only occur during the teeth developing years of 0-8. Skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the 74.6% fluoridated US as to be nearly non-existent. The US Institute of Medicine established daily upper intake of fluoride before skeletal fluorosis or any other adverse effct may occur, is 10 mg.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

_____________________________________________________________
Steven, nice to have you back! :-)

I have to tell you, though, that there is a multitude of sin hidden behind your simple quotation of a statistic. Take your "everything is hunky-dory if you consume less that 10mg per day" figure.

1. That "upper intake" limit for babies is not 10mg/day of course. It is actually 0.7 - going as high as 2.2mg/d for 4 - 8 yrs.

2. Bear in mind this is the upper "tolerable" intake (U.T.I.) - above which, presumably, it would not be tolerable?? Not for anybody. You seem not to want to use that qualifying word "tolerable". Why not?

3. This U.T.I. applies to "almost all individuals in the population" according to the Institute. No idea then of who it does NOT apply to? Or the harm that might be done? I would imagine people with pre-existing medical conditions, particularly kidney malfunction, were most at risk. How many people is this? What harm may occur to them? Will any die - or live shorter lives - as a result? How do we protect them?

4. Yet this U.T.I. becomes meaningless when set aside the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) because there is NO RDA (apparently not enough research!). Makes you wonder how they managed to get the U.T.L. figures! Instead they give what they call an "Adequate Intake" (A.I.) figure (they admit this figure is not much better than a guess and do not know how many people this A.I. might apply to). This A.I. varies between 2 - 4 mg/d for (healthy!) adults to the much lower levels for children, to as near as dammit zero for babies. Not forgetting that water fluoridation is being sold to us as helping children's teeth - children seem to have a much lower tolerance for this poison. Natural mother's milk also uniquely filters out the fluoride from the body - showing that perhaps breast-feeding is really best?

5. However the real damnation of this 10mg U.T.I. figure lies in the source - which is dated 1997! 18 years ago!! There's been a lot of research in those intervening years virtually without exception showing fluoride to be more dangerous than previously believed.

So, you see Steven, your reassuringly glib assertion about a 10mg "Upper Limit" is more deceptive than clarifying. As is your comment reference "skeletal fluorosis". Younger and younger people nowadays are being diagnosed with "arthritis" which is almost identical to skeletal fluorosis. Doctors are not trained to recognise anything but the severest forms of skeletal fluorosis and, until that point, invariable will diagnose arthritis instead. Maybe it's the skeletal fluorosis diagnosis that is rare, rather than the condition??

Regardless, I guess you'll continue to use those same 10mg/d ("upper intake" - nothing about "tolerable"!) figures on other forums. But you will now know that on this forum at least we won't have the wool pulled over our eyes with seriously misleading statistics.


Chris
_____________________________________________________________


1. The IOM daily upper limit for infants:

0-6 mos -0.7 mg.
6-12 mos - 0.9 mg
1-3 years- 1.2 mg
4-8 yrs- 2.3 mg
Above 8 yrs- 10 mg

The only risk to infants and children 0-8 years from exceeding this upper limit due to optimally fluoridated water, is mild to very mild dental fluorisis, a barely detectible effect which causes no adversity on cosmetic, form, function, or health of teeth.

That mild dental fluorosis is the only risk to infants is evidenced by the fact that after age 8, the daily UL jumps to 10 mg . Dental fluorosis can only occur during the teeth developing years of 0-8.

The validity of the IOM daily UL is evidenced by the fact that in the 70 year hustory of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects.

Your unsubstantiated speculation and personal opinions are meaningless. If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride.....including to patients with "pre-existing, conditions, particularly kidney malfunction".....then present it, properly cited.

As no such evidence exists, I will not hold my breath in anticipation.

Steven D. Slott, DDS


Steven - the first part of your latest comment is about amounts for infants. That merely reproduces and expands on what I said. Were you trying to make a point? If so what was it? The rest of your comment simply sidesteps my five points. I must take it therefore that you agree with me that your quoting of an official "Upper Intake" figure of 10mg lacked proper qualification and or explanation. Therefore I was right and your comment was indeed misleading.

The rest of your comment is a "come on - show me the evidence" type of comment. There's no way I'm going to text volumes for you merely to "refuse to accept" or simply ignore. You can have this link here: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/schiffl-2008/ . There's enough other links on the web if you care to research.

The five studies quoted in this link are mostly recent. They are peer reviewed because otherwise they would not get published in well known and respectable medical journals - although I understand (before you say so) that peer review standards vary from journal to journal.

BTW - I've just been having a chortle at the ADA pro-fluoridation propaganda "Fluoridation Facts" (71 pages!!). It has a very curious idea of what a "fact" is. They don't seem to be able to tell simple truth on anything!! So if that's what fills up you daily reading diet I can understand why you dentists say the things that you say! Just one little "for instance". They claim not one single European Country has ever banned fluoridation. Despite Germany having an actual law against it and Holland stopping it in the 1970's when it was judged illegal. This link will fill you in: http://topinfopost.com/2014/02/13/98-per-cent-of-europe-banned-water-fluoridation - Complete with scanned copies of confirmation letters from the proper authorities in each of those countries. So .... tell me Steven .... how can this ADA - whose "professional opinion" you seem to value so highly - make up such gob-smacking and patently untrue "facts"? Is it willful ignorance or deliberate deception?

_____________________________________________________________