1. You invited me, David Kennedy, DDS, as one of the persons interviewed in this film to participate in your blog and I accept with one caveat, we talk about solid science and not opinions. Agreed?

    The solid science I would like to address involves the dose of fluoride we receive from water fluoridation with hydrofluosilicic acid especially infants on tap-water-formula. The US EPA has what they call a presumably toxic dose (PTD) of 5 mg/kg which is presumably an acute dose that would be lethal to a substantial portion of the population. They also have a Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.06 mg/kg which is their minimum risk level (MRL) above which certain members of the population will develop adverse health effects. Both these dosages are obviously very out of date as the most recent review by the National Academy of Science in 2006 (Table 8-2) you will notice that injury to thyroid occurs at substantially lower doses.

    So my question to you is; what dose of fluoride you would recommend a baby receive? And while you are explaining that dose please explain the rationale for giving a baby a systemic dose of a xenobiotic in an attempt to provide a topical dose of that agent.

    David kennedy, DDS
    Past President
    International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

  2. While your Metabunk blog seems to focus entirely on opinions about various conspiracy theories I wish to focus on facts.

    The undisputed fact is the US government and all of the related government "health" agencies (CDC, US PHS, NIDR) have recommended systemic exposure to fluoride since 1945. They claimed in 1945 that systemic exposure to fluoride made teeth harder and more resistant to decay. That was not true. The CDC acknowledged in their 1999 Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) that they now understand that fluoride's effects on decay are predominantly post eruptive and topical.

    That makes the only remaining claim of benefit from exposure to fluoride's action just like sunblock . . . topical.

    Advocates for continuing the practice of fluoridation claim that it has saved millions of people from tooth decay but point only to anecdotal evidence. When you review tooth decay on a worldwide scale by looking at the World Health Organizations records they show no significant difference between the few countries that fluoridate and the majority that do not. In fact, decay has declined more rapidly in many of those that do not allow fluoride to be added as is the case throughout the majority of Europe. Only the Republic of Ireland has a substantial amount of fluoridation (60%) and their teeth are substantially worse than many other non-fluoridated countries. On the other hand Northern Ireland has consistently refused to fluoridate their public water supply (0.0%) and a recent survey found substantially lower rates for several cancers in Northern Ireland than Southern Ireland.

    While it is true that ecological studies can always be faulted because of design weaknesses and the inability to control for other variables using an island with ethnically similar people and economic status removes many of these weaknesses. It should be noted that no confounding variables were controlled for in the original "trials" that claimed a huge reduction in tooth decay. Those "trails" were not even blinded.

    The motto of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is "show me the evidence". If you are so fond of systemically dosing the entire population with hydrofluosilicic acid I'd sure like to see the evidence that this dose of fluoride is without harm to the recipient. Please show me that evidence.
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Hi David, and welcome to Metabunk. It would be helpful for discussion if you could register, which would allow you to post freely, and get notifications of responses.

    Regarding fluoride and babies, from what you say there seems to be no great benefit for them to get any fluoride, so recommending a dose seems like a rhetorical question. The real question is if they are actually harmed by the inclusion of fluoride in the water supply.

    It would seem that would be pretty trivial to demonstrate, simply by comparing health figures from fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated regions. Of course there are confounding factors in such studies - it's hard to precisely compare, say, Georgia, with California. But if there was a significant effect it seems very likely that it would be reasonably easy to demonstrate.

    The Northern Ireland vs. Ireland study sounds interesting. Do you have a link to the study?
  4. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Dr. Kennedy,
    I am also curious to see your peer reviewed studies, controlled and blinded, of course, showing harm from fluoridated water causing cancer in Southern Ireland. The Irish have enough problems, don't they?

    But I am also curious to find out why you accepted to be interviewed for this film.
    By now, I'm sure you realize what the film really was about, the film is desgned to propagandize folks into believing that the entire world is being sprayed with poison by jets which make what look exactly like contrails. The producers are part of a cult of conspiracy theorists whose eventual goal is to gain converts to their way of thinking which goes down a rabbit hole to include some very strange, preposterous and quite frankly false stories.

    Even if what you stated for the film was perfectly legitimate in all respects, the producers will be using you to promote the hoax of chemtrails. I'm not so sure that you yet realize what they intended to use your comments for, here is the trailer for this movie which explains what they are really up to.

    Here are my questions:
    1. Did the producers explain to you fully the goals of their film before you consented to the interview ?
    2. Do you feel that the producers misrepresented themselves in any way in order to gain your cooperation?
    3.Have the producers shown you the trailer of their movie?
    3. Do you trust the producers to edit your comments fairly, do you expect they will not take your quotes out of context?
    4. Would you participate in any further projects produced by these men?
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's one recent study:

    And another related study in the US:

  6. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Active Member

    Well Doc....that all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Topical application (during cleanings, exams, in toothpaste) is a good thing...adding it to water purely for dental health is useless and possibly dangerous. Did I sum that up correctly? I'm not sure if there are any other reasons to add it or not? I'm doubtful as chlorine and ozone are the normal sterilizers I believe

    I would like to ask (and I am a real newbie here) if you could provide the references to the studies that you cited? Or at least a site that provides links to the studies?
  7. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    Dear Mick,

    I fundamentally disagree with your premise that proof of harm is necessary before we stop spending copious amounts of money injecting hydrofluosilicic acid in our drinking water at a level which is known to cause harm. This is called the cigarette defense (proof of causation) which as you pointed out is not just extremely difficult but technically impossible in an epidemiological study. What we do know is the amount of fluoride a baby receives on a bottle is far greater than has been linked to a wide variety of harm and since no "benefit" can possibly accrue it is illogical to continue.

    FYI I didn't say "no great benefit" but rather solid evidence of harm with no conceivable possibility of benefit since action is topical at high levels and certainly not from chronic systemic exposure.

    I can email by attachment the 500 page 2006 Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water by the National Research Council and would direct your attention to several chapters but particularly the ones on neurological and endocrine function table 8-2.
  8. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    Dear Jay,

    I haven't seen the film and spend most of my time working to try and move my profession toward evidence based care. I began in the 70's trying to spread the word about the preventability of dental disease. FYI tooth decay is an infection caused by bacteria and so is gum disease. It is reliably economically treated with hygiene, antibacterials and nutrition so why don't we apply this knowledge to the care in this country? Every child when they go to kindergarten should be allowed to spit in a test tube and if they are infected with Streptococcus mutans (decay germs) then be disinfected. Very simple. No pain. Almost no cost and a wonderful opportunity to discuss good nutrition as well.

    >1. Did the producers explain to you fully the goals of their film before you consented to the interview ?

    I have agreed to be interviewed by every filmmaker, TV station, radio talk show host that asked in over 30 years and will continue to do so as I stand firmly behind what I say as to the best of my knowledge it is precise and accurate. In my many interviews is has been the TV media that has made every effort to distort meaning and context. The snippets I saw of my interviews appeared to accurately represent what I have said and continue to say so I'd like to address those issues.

    > 2. Do you feel that the producers misrepresented themselves in any way in order to gain your cooperation?

    No see above.

    >3. Have the producers shown you the trailer of their movie?

    Yes I've watched some and I will be at the public screening 9/8 saturday in La Jolla to see the whole think. Have you seen it?

    > 3a. Do you trust the producers to edit your comments fairly, do you expect they will not take your quotes out of context?
    See answer 1.

    > 4. Would you participate in any further projects produced by these men?

    Yes, if I thought it would move the practice of dentistry further toward my goals of evidence based care.

    I've intensely studied the toxicology of dental materials for the last 30 years. I had a background in biochemistry and physiology and medical technology before I went into dentistry so I do understand the scientific method. it is not making fun of those who disagree with your paradigm. So many people think that pointing out flaws in an experiments design is the equivalent of doing the experiment yourself and finding a divergent result. What is expected in science is that if you disagree with a result then because of the section called methods and materials you should be able to duplicate the experiment and confirm or refute the results.

    What politicians do is criticize some aspect of the scientists personality or methodology as though that is an equal substitute for learned investigation. it is not. it is merely PR (spin) and has no value in my opinion.

    I'm sure you realize what the film really was about, the film is desgned to propagandize folks into believing that the entire world is being sprayed with poison"

    How does spraying differ from trucking or shipping in raw untreated hazardous waste (Hydrofluosilicic acid / Silicofluoride) from China, Mexico, Japan and Florida from the pollution scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer mining industry that is highly contaminated with arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury to add to the public water supply as a "medication" to prevent tooth decay?
  9. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    And so again, what earthly purpose can you have in posting this obvious criticism of an admittedly small science based organization IAOMT as you struggle to respond to my very clear and very simple but extremely important question, "What dose of fluoride do you recommend we give an infant?"

    Deal with the question above and later I will happily discuss how we (you and I) can grow the number of dentists who actually study the scientific literature in order to make cogent decisions in providing optimum toxic-free dental care.
  10. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member


    You got it, pretty much. And yes I'd be more than happy to provide you with references and the like. In fact the easiest way to pack your head with the most recent review of fluoride is read the NRC Review of fluoride in Drinking Water 2006. I can email you a copy if you like. What would you like to see?

    One point that I had not mentioned is the National Toxicological Program (NTP) study of rats that drank 79 ppm fluoridated water for 2 years. The high dose rats in the words of the Bettelle columbus Laboratory pathologists who did the study, "were awash with disease."
    They can cancers of everywhere the fluoride went of their, lips, tongue, liver and bone. These cancer diagnosis were changed by the US Public health /Service and when Dr. Wm Marcus Senior Scientists at the Office of Drinking Water (ODW) proposed in a memo the EPA do an in-house review of the pathology slides the EPA fired him.

    During his whistleblower trial the EPA and Justus department forged documents, witness tampered, shredded evidence and obstructed justus. Dr. Marcus won and not one person at the EPA was punished and only the justus dept. lawyer who lost was fired.

    The ADA claimed that the rats were exposed to very high levels of fluoride which is not true. if anything they were according to Dr. Marcus under dosed. They drank water with 79 ppm F and got carcinoma in situ of the lip. Toothpaste with fluoride contains between 1000 and 1500 ppm F. Dental office topical can be 15,000 ppm Varnish can be 50,000 ppm.

    So if rats got lip cancers from sipping F several times a day what incidence of oral cancers can we expect from brushing three times a day with 1500 or time-release sealants at 50,000?

    I'd love to send you the Dr. Marcus' May Day Memo that got them so excited at ODW. It is abundantly clear when you read it and as a result I no longer recommend any toothpaste that contains anything that can cause cancer regardless of whether or not it is spit out.
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's not my premise at all.

    My premise is that we should not stop doing some beneficial thing if the evidence suggests that it's both actually beneficial, and causing no harm.

    All things are toxic at some level, and using a "chemical" sounding name for something does not make it more toxic. Vitamin D (Cholecalciferol) is used in rat poison.

    Asking what dose to give an infant is just an appeal to emotion, unless you can demonstrate, statistically, that it's harming those infants. Perhaps the infants are not benefiting from it, but if overall public health increases, and nobody gets hurt, then in theory there's no problem.

    Demonstrate that current levels are harmful, and you'd have a case. There should be ample data.
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm guessing about 100% of toothpaste users?

    So why didn't that happen?
  13. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    I am not sure where you got the idea it (fluoridation with hydrofluosilicic acid) was causing no harm? 41% of children today show visible signs of fluoride overdose during early development according to the CDC in the form of dental fluorosis. While advocates always try to minimize this obvious systemic fluoride-caused injury those who have the permanently disfigured teeth have a vastly different opinion on how it feels to have brown spots on their teeth. You should check out the website "Spotsonmyteeth" to see their comments.

    My point exactly and I was merely asking what dose is recommended for an infant.

    In 1995 Levy published "Levy SM, Kohout FJ, Kiritsy MC, Heilman JR, Wefel JS Infants' fluoride ingestion from water, supplements and dentifrice, J Am Dent Assoc 1995 Dec" In this article the use of fluoridated-tap-water formula was highly associated with dental fluorosis. You can easily calculate the dose that caused this injury. This as you've requested it has been demonstrated statistically that children whose parents rely upon the tap water are much more likely to suffer the inevitable consequences of overdosing a small child with fluoride.

  14. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    The infant is particularly important to the discussion for a number of reasons and first and foremost they are growing and thus more vulnerable than adults and furthermore they drink their weight in water every 3 to 5 days.

    Now calculate how much water you'd have to drink daily if you were to consume as much as a baby. Water weights 8 pounds per gallon. Theoretical Baby weighs 8.8 pounds or 4 kilograms (2.2 pounds = 1 Kg) and drinks 1 liter of formula a day or 1 mg/F. This the daily dose would be 1 divided by 4 or 0.25 mg/kg.

    As you may recall the EPA's MRL is 0.06 mg/kg about 1/4 what a baby gets.

    In addition the NRC Chapter 8 identified iodine deficient infants as particularly at risk and found significant altered T4 and/or T3 (thyroid hormones) at 0.03 mg/kg. Even ordinary iodine sufficient infants suffered elevated TSH at 0.05-0.1

    With no possibility of systemic benefit and a huge database showing excessive exposure to babies and young people it seems the ultimate in foolhardy to continue this debunked practice of adding hydrofluosilicic acid to the public drinking water.
    NRC Table 8-2 pp 220.
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No you are not. You are asking a rhetorical and emotive question. There are many toxic substances that we allow in the environment for various reasons for which the "dose recommended for an infant" is zero. The recommended dose of carbon monoxide for infants is zero, and yet they get exposed to it every day, because the benefits of burning stuff greatly outweigh the damage done to babies.

    The real question is if the benefits outweigh the risks. So far you've pointed out some kids get spots on their teeth. This would be weighed against fewer people having serious dental problems later in life. It's a trade-off. In that aspect I'd go with the science.

    But it's also something of a philosophical and political thing. Many conservative and libertarian people equate fluoridation with communism or socialism. For them it's more about personal freedom than the actual science.
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So why is there no evidence that fluoridated people are sicker than unfluoridated people? surely there's no absence of data?

    Exactly HOW BAD is this? Are they 0.1% sicker than average? 0.12%? 2000%? What?
  17. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    Well for one thing it wasn't 100% of the rats at 79 ppm over 2 years. If you are looking for 100% as an end point for anything I suspect you will be very disappointed as that seldom occurs.

    Dr. herbert Needelman changed toxicology back in the early 70's by demonstrating that low levels of lead caused a decrement in IQ. At that time 49.9 mcg/dcl was "normal" Today 2 Mcg/dcl is cause for concern and if 10 is know to lower IQ substantially. Toxicology went away from using death and an endpoint from that point on and thus a 100% cancer would not likely be found from low dose exposure. However I can tell you that the mouth for its size and weight is by far one of the most common site for cancer in humans. Obviously many other factors than toothpaste such as mercury fillings/ oral infections, smoking must be considered and I know of no such study.
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So how much sicker do they get?
  19. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    is your premise faulty because you don't understand what I am saying or are you just being the Devils Advocate?

    There is ample evidence that people consuming fluoride are affected adversely but certainly they are not falling down dead instantly. The recent meta analysis published in Environmental Health Perspectives linking fluoride exposure to neurological impairment lower IQ.

    If you don't remember we exposed the entire nation to exceptionally high levels of lead from many sources for more than 50 years and to my knowledge no one never noticed the IQ damage which is now well understood to occur. if you think you can stand around and theoretically see neurological injury by merely looking you're sadly mistaken. it took years of careful research and decades to overcome the skeptics and those who tried to discredit Dr. Needelman. In the end the ones that suffered the most were small children exposed during infancy thus the importance of addressing injury to the most vulnerable first and adults second.

    In addition three different courts in three different states have held lengthy trials on the merits of fluoridation. All three courts determined that it was a harmful practice that aggravated existing illness, did not reduce tooth decay and increased the cancer death rates.

    Although these findings of fact remain intact to this day all three court decisions were overturned on appeal as courts cannot legislate and under the police powers of our constitution the elected officials are empowered to place a substance in the water that causes harm if they deem it necessary. Many have deemed it necessary and thus we have become one of the most fluoridated countries in the history of the planet. The fact that we rank between 41 and 47 worldwide on infant survival should be of concern to anyone paying attention. We used to be the best and now have fallen way behind.

    Enough of the misdirection and back to the essential question, What dose of fluoride do you recommend we dose every bottle fed infant and why?
  20. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    You need to read Dr. Marcus' May Day memo and then ask. I'll email ti to you.

  21. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    Got to go. It is Beer-o-clock;-)

    Yes I know beer kills but at least that is my choice.
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Courts do not make science. Peer reviewed metastudies make science.

    And what percentage increase did the court find?

    I think I've explained why this question is rhetorical. Continuing to ask it is just silly. What dose of carbon monoxide should we add to babies air?
  23. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    There is no discernible benefit as the data simply does not show the reduction in tooth decay that is claimed. As a debunker I'd expect you to delve into dat a little deeper. Here is the largest study ever done in the US. NIDR 1987 on 39,000 children in 84 randomized communities. Please point out where

    NIDR Decay.

    you see a "benefit".
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    After age 17? But perhaps you cherry pick your studies? Let's see a bunch of them:

    (That conclusion actually sums up my stated position quite well.)

    Fig 2 Change in decayed, missing, and filled teeth for primary/permanent teeth (mean difference and 95% confidence interval)
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's ten to wine here.

    Your comment on "my choice" makes me wonder if a part of your motivation here is the whole specter of socialism?

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So I read it. It seems to be some dispute about the level of fluoride used in the (rat) controls, and disputing the significance of the fact that the same incidence of osteosarcoma cancer was found in both control (lower fluoride) and test (high fluoride).

    But actual studies on people have shown no link between fluoridation and osteosarcoma, including specifically the Ireland va. Northern Ireland populations - which is where you said differences were found.

    Where are the studies that show that fluoridated people are measurably sicker than unfluoridated people? Specifically the Irish, but any will do.
  28. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Well, for instance, the planes they are falsely saying are spraying poison are actually identifiable as ordinary jetliners. As a result of this hoax and a previous film made by one of the producers of the movie you are involved with, the adherents to this idea have been issuing threats to shine lasers into cockpits, stab and kill pilots, and to shoot at airplanes with guns and missiles:

    Beyond this, their 'science' is so pathetically false that you will quickly find it to be an embarrassment when you begin to take a close look.

    This is what you are now involved with.

    I strongly recommend that you not involve yourself with these people, they are more toxic than any substance you could ever dream of fighting against. You made a bad choice in allying yourself with these people, and will eventually regret doing so. I imagine that they made you sign documents before your interview. My advice would be to take your copy to an attorney and try to get your name and reputation disassociated from the whole thing. This may be impossible, if so, they've got their hooks in you good and best of luck.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  30. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    Cherry picking is what you are showing me as thyroid inhibition and fluoride exposure delays eruption so in order to show actual benefit you either have to adjust for the number and age of teeth in the mouth or wait until they have all arrived i.e adult age. You wish to see a bunch of studies you may be interested to know that the one I showed you is the ONLY board based blinded study ever conducted in the US. In other countries the same thing was found. This is why Europe is not fluoridated. in German they now have a number of studies showing that when you stop fluoridation (russians left) that toot decay declined.

    As I said and three lengthy trials confirmed there is NO EVIDENCE or dental benefit from ingested fluoride and ample evidence of harm.

    The York did not find any studies that were Mode3rate in design so I would question the validity of your graph B UT my question about dose to an infant remains unanswered which saddens me as i thought Debunkers would be a little bit more perceptive instead of dogmatic.
  31. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    How can there be any dispute in levels exposed when the studies were done by NTP and published. What are you saying?
  32. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    By " both control (lower fluoride)" you may be referring to the "Historical Controls" and I sent you that in Dr,. Marcus' memo. Those so called controls were introduced after the experiment was completed to refute the findings but since they did not have the low fluoride diet they actually constituted in Dr. Marcus' opinion low exposure group of 6000. That made their osteosarcomas even more significant considering the size of the studies. Marcus pointed out that the cancerous rats had lower fluoride levels at the site of their cancers (bone) than do humans living in water that is at the EPA MCLG.

    Since Osteosarcoma is a very rare disease and since only the male rats got the disorder Bassin studied in a case controlled fashion young males and found that there was not a dose-dependent link but a time-dependent link. So if you examine all the so called studies that failed to find this rate cancer none controlled for time-of-exposure which has been shown to be the critical point but instead look at bone or area water fluoride levels a very blunt and obviously flawed way to look for a rare cancer.

    So my question is that since Douglass knew that in young growing males that time-of-exposure was the pivotal finding why did he claim editorially that his larger study would refute Bassin's 2006 and then publish a smaller study in 2011 of older adults both male and female which says "For example, if risk is related to exposures at a specific time in life, rather than total accumulated dose, this metric would not be optimal."? Kim et al. An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma JDR July 2011

    This weak study in no way refutes the NTP and basin. Nevertheless my question remains unanswered: why dose a baby with any amount of fluoride when systemic exposure to fluoride has neither been proven safe nor effective?
  33. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    Hmmm that sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theorist?
  34. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Yes, its anecdotal, but we dosed our daughter with drops of fluoride while a baby, on the advice of our pediatrician.

    We have a perfectly healthy beautiful 25 year old who has never had a hint of a cavity. Last month a dentist said she had a small cavity, she got a second opinion since she seemed to be immune to them, and the second dentist said he found nothing at all.
  35. cheeple

    cheeple Member

    The Nazi's discovered they could mass medicate the public with Fluoride turning them "stupid and docile" what we call Autistic today , the effect is much more long term here, There is no reason to Fluoridate the water here since it's already in our toothpaste and much of our mouth washes and most of Europe has now stopped the Fluoridation of their citizens water thats why they riot when oppressed they are no longer pacified and really see whats happening. The Cardiovascular implications from Fluoride are also well documented. It's not a cooincidence that Fluroide is the #1 Ingredient in Prozac and other anti-depressants.

    [h=2]Government Admits Dangers Yet Continues to Pump Fluoride Into Your Water Supply[/h]Over 24 other studies have unanimously concluded that fluoride negatively impacts cognitive function. In addition to these 24 studies focusing on cognition, over 100 animal studies have linked fluoride to an increase in male infertility, diabetes, and a whole host of other health problems.

  36. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    In those studies, the level of exposure that caused a lowering of IQ by 0.45 points was in the 2-10 mg/L range. The recommended level for US drinking water is 0.5 - 1.0 mg/L.

    Do you have any evidence that shows 0.5 - 1.0 mg/L of fluoride in drinking water causes neurological impairment and lowers IQ?
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You keep ignoring my question about how much carbon monoxide a baby should get.

    Both questions are silly. The goal here is not to give babies fluoride - that's just additional exposure that they get. Babies also get exposure to carbon monoxide from cars. The REAL question is if the amount they are getting is harmful.

    I get the feeling this is a rhetorical question you've been using for decades with some success? Let's cut the spin, and stick with science. What evidence is there that fluoridated people are sicker than non-fluoridated people?
  38. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member


    As I pointed out earlier one cannot use an ecological study to find a rare form of cancer especially when known confounding variables are not controlled for. In Levy study did they assess toothpaste, mouthwash, dental applications? NO.

    Bassin showed that it was time-of-exposure and not total dose that triggered the cancers. When she controlled for all other known variables her results were ROBUST as in 6 FOLD increase in males 6 to 8 YO. Because of the rarity it is not surprising that poorly controlled studies fail this simple test.

    Ireland Cancer Prostate, Leuk, Pancreat . Ireland Cancers Bladder:Brain.
  39. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    Dear Triggern Hipple,

    Actually your quote it incorrect as to the actual levels of exposure we may experience. The studies were done in countries that do not have fluoride fillings, sealants, varnishes, toothpaste, mouthwash so the sole source of exposure may be actually less than individuals in our overdosed society. Several studies found more severe impact at much lower levels but nevertheless how many IQ points are you willing for your child to lose for a worthless program that costs billions?

    Why would a supposedly bunk-proof group support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid to the public drinking water for no good reason?

    I thought you were supposed to be critical thinkers not sheepel.

    There is no benefit to swallowed or ingested fluoride and as you just pointed out there is considerable research showing that Fluoride is neurotoxic. Why put that in drinking water?
  40. davidkennedydds

    davidkennedydds New Member

    That is similar to saying you smoked and lived thus smoking is OK. Fortunately for your daughter she got pharmaceutical grade fluoride and not hydrofluosilicic acid from the phosphate mining industry.

    Some years before you dosed your daughter with fluoride the FDA rejected all claims of effectiveness.
    So you might mention to the pediatrician that he/she is recommending a drug which the FDA has asked manufacturers to remove because it is ineffective. I saw many children in my practice who like your daughter had taken Rx fluoride. Peebles found that 67% of children given Rx fluoride had dental fluorosis. Does your daughter fall into the 33% that did not or are you overlooking the first outward visible sign of fluoride overdose during development?

    It well be decades before the joint and soft tissue symptoms arise and since there is no known reason to swallow fluoride you should ask for your money back.