FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #26 – VULNERABLE SUB-POPULATIONS PT. 2: MINORITIES AND THE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

8 thoughts on “FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #26 – VULNERABLE SUB-POPULATIONS PT. 2: MINORITIES AND THE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED”

  1. All very true but safe for all and everyone benefits are still the health department talking points. Pure lie but plays well to those trusting soles thinking they and the dentists are actually experts on fluorides.
    The 1993 US Tox profile also stated seniors 50 and over which is a huge group. Heart patients, kidney disease, low on calcium, magnesium, vit c and also low protein intake. The majority of America is in one or more risk groups and many all. The CDC has even refused to warn risk groups like blacks after ethics charges in 2007. This was not just about double moderate and severe dental fluorisis but the double kidney disease also. They ignored the risk their data proves.
    The EPA data also had shown 1 gal water put a person in the top 1% of risk. Of course they never told the public but instead say optimal dose is safe for all. The Warren Levy Iowa 2008 study reminds us there was no solid science basis of the optimal dose theory. The Levy Eckland Dental Textbook also confirms the term should not be used. I see it in every statement about total safety along with the wide margin of safety because it is less then 4ppm.
    They forget to mention the 12-0 vote by NRC in 2006 4ppm is not protective (safe) and the EPA was directed to revise down. The 1986 Surgeons Generals report said by a 7-2 vote it was not safe to raise the Max from 2.4 to 4.0ppm but it happened anyway with no science to show it true. That is why the EPA unions got involved in calling fluoridation fraud. Because by magic the report was altered and findings reversed to opposite of the truth.
    Canada has lots of energy in a fight and have attorneys speaking up to help.So many things about fluoridation are illegal but ignored by government.It never was about protecting the poor or cavity prone. Follow the money makes more sense always.
    Maybe if dentists see potential lawsuits endorsement and supplemention would need more science. They feel immune now and only repeat talking points or say I can always tell fluoridation teeth. So can I with all the dental fluorosis. Sometimes from across the room ugly. See http://www.nidellaw.com for sample form and pictures for litigation. Is fluoride the new asbestos. Very soon maybe. Not soon enough for me.

  2. It’s beyond sad. No one making decisions that put fluoride in the municipal water seems to care about the babies!!!

  3. It is about more then the babies. In 1996 I think the Nrc looked at 10 studies on hip fracture in senior populations with fluoridation exposure. Seven had 20 years and over exposure and 3 had only short term 7 and under and post memopausal exposure after most of the bone is already developed. The long exposures all showed from 50% to double the hip fracture. The short term did not so they did not find fluoridation a risk because the three did not show risk. The simple fact is at 1ppm it takes many years exposure to reach a point of damage. Canada did bone fluoride content comparisons in two cities one with fluoridation and non. Very consistantly the numbers were much lower in the non fluoridated one. The strange thing is there was huge variation in the range in the fluoridated one but much higher on average also. The Rohlm 1938 cryolite mine studies showed very few could put more then a dozen years in the mine with out huge physical damage. Like clockwork it grew as the years pasted until the persons spine was fused and twisted and all the joints painful. Our exposures are rocketing up from dental,and beverage and food contamination at levels once rare except in pandemic exposure regions. It can take many decades but it still happens. For kids only a few months exposure can damage specific teeth that are forming enamel at that time. 5 years later the ugly surprise pops out.
    A new site for showing your damaged teeth and not the total face. You can get feedback or maybe look into a lawsuit that nidellaw.com is now collecting pictures and information for future lawsuits. They also have a contact number to talk to a expert.
    Also spotsonmyteeth.com is that contact. This just started so is in the growth stage but does have pictures of damage and lots of links so you can see exactly what the wide range of damage looks like. The mildest is simply white chalky splotches but it can get much worse with ugly brown on whole teeth with pits and crumbling edges very cavity prone. Blacks get about double the most ugly damage as has been know by the CDC for decades. They tell no one.

  4. COGNIF IP, formerly Innova Patent Services, provides patent-related services to patent attorneys, licensing managers, deal-makers, R&D managers, and strategy officers in law firms, corporations, universities, research institutions, and patent market players throughout the world.

Leave a Reply to Michele Deradune Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>