Dr. Mehmet Oz has a big national TV show on health watched by millions each day. He has been called “America’s Doctor” by Oprah Winfrey. Dr. Oz has the courage to take on controversial issues, and has been attacked for it many times. On February 1st, 2016 he had long time guest Erin Brokovitch on to talk about her opposition to fluoride. This was probably the most widely watched TV show in U.S. history to ever allow an opponent of water fluoridation significant time to present their views. There are now more American celebrities openly against fluoridation than any time in history.
Each day Dr. Oz posts segments of his program on a web page. But for that day no segments with Erin Brokovitch appeared. Instead there were 5 endorsements of fluoridation by large institutions on the webpage, along with video of other segments not related to fluoride. Dr. Oz also posted a disclaimer. Americans who heard about it later could not see what Erin had to say, but now Natural News is showing the Erin Brokovitch segments
Dr. Mina Kim, DDS of the American Dental Association (ADA) was given some time to make a speech defending fluoridation from her seat in the audience. Her first statement was this.
It is considered “safe” to get dental fluorosis, although a child might not like having stained teeth that are embarrassing to the point if affects their self esteem. Even mild fluorosis can be embarrassing in some cases. Poor children are often stuck with no way to fix dental fluorosis, which can be expensive. There is no government program paying to fix it and no dental insurance pays out for this problem. Fluorosis is the hidden reason why people are told to not swallow fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash.
Fluorosis is the admitted risk of any fluoride ingestion in the U.S. It was accepted as a trade off for reducing tooth decay when fluoridation started. But a tremendous increase in fluorosis since 1950 prompted the CDC last year to lower the recommended amount of fluoride added to water. Before fluoridation and the use of fluoridated dental products there was very little fluorosis in the United States.
Fluoride is clearly not safe at higher doses. The EPA sets the maximum amount allowed in tap water at 4 parts per million (ppm) because they say more than that causes a risk of skeletal fluorosis in the US. There are an estimated 30 million people in India with crippling skeletal fluorosis, and millions more in other countries. Some of them have less than 4ppm in their water. Until last year the highest recommended “optimum” amount was 1.2 ppm, which is not that far away from 4ppm leaving little margin for safety. That low margin for safety is not tolerated for most contaminants. Fluoride has been described as a contaminant in many water quality reports. When fluoride is found at 2 to 4ppm a warning must be included in water quality reports advising parents to not give that water to young children. The EPA requires this warning because there is a significant risk for moderate and severe fluorosis, which is quite disfiguring. In 2006 a National Academy of Sciences committee tasked with advising the EPA declared that severe dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect, but the EPA has done nothing about reducing the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride in drinking water.
Fluoride has been one of the biggest industrial air pollutants of all time. Farmers downwind of aluminum plants have had fluoride particulates falling on them for more than a century, poisoning plants, the farm animals that eat those plants and the farmers. Fluoride is not “safe” to those farmers. Native Americans on Cornwall Island have dealt with fluoride air pollution for decades, but “official” pollution friendly science was used to deny them justice in a court of law. After World War 2 for a period of years there were more lawsuits over fluoride air pollution than all other air pollutants combined. Several decades ago the EPA required pollution “scrubbers” to be installed on industrial plant smokestacks. Liquid coming out of the pollution scrubbers is called “scrubber liquor” and is the most commonly used fluoridation chemical because it is cheap and high in fluoride. Fluoride is now trapped and added to public water systems. But there is less air pollution than before the scrubbers were introduced.
Dr. Oz said during the show regarding adverse effects: “I had the medical unit check this out, and the only thing they could find was this cosmetic fluorosis.” That is true from the mainstream public health point of view. But since the 1950’s there have been many people in fluoridated nations that claim to be super sensitive to fluoride and have allergic type reactions to fluoridated water. They typically find this out by accident, since it is denied by government science, and thus there is very little public knowledge about this. Once they start avoiding fluoride exposure they feel much better, and it’s probably not psychosomatic. Doctors have tested these people with double-blinded tests and believe they do exist. At the same time the large institutions supporting fluoridation deny they exist, mostly because they never went looking for them and thus there is very little published about this in mainstream scientific journals.
Through the decades scientific studies on people and animals and in laboratories have found a variety of adverse health effects from fluoridated water or fluoride exposure. But governments with fluoridation have always said they are “bad” or weak science. When evidence looks threatening to fluoride “good” studies are then produced to counter the negative effect it has on the various uses of fluoride to prevent tooth decay. The use of fluoride to prevent cavities with its defensive science has helped fluoride polluting industries avoid responsibly for the damage they do.
The tremendous rise of fluorosis in children is a sign we are getting far too much from a variety of sources. There is not much current good science that says taking fluoride out of water would result in a huge increase in tooth decay. And there are plenty of examples from mostly non-fluoridated Europe where they don’t have more tooth decay than in the heavily fluoridated nations. Most nations do not practice fluoridation, and some have stopped doing it.
Far in the future mankind will be evaluating whether dosing entire populations with fluoride was a good policy and did not result in more harm than good. Recently enough international science has accumulated to the point where the National Toxicology Program is now looking into the question of whether fluoride is a neurotoxin. This research was almost entirety produced in nations without water fluoridation.
The ADA spokesperson also said:
“I see community water fluoridation… it really benefits everyone”
According to all the authorities today, including the CDC and the ADA, people with no teeth in their mouth get no benefit while they are consuming fluoridated water. For elderly people who lost all their teeth there is no more benefit after their teeth are gone. And there seems to be a strange correlation between states with the highest levels of fluoridation and people who lost all their teeth.
Fluoridated water is not beneficial for young infants. All authorities, including CDC and ADA, agree that the recommended intake level of fluoride for toothless infants from 0 to 6 months of age is .01 milligrams per day. All newborn infants are ingesting that much from their liquid food sources without drinking any fluoridated water at all. The director of the CDC was forced to admit that they had no evidence showing any amount above that tiny intake level provided any benefit. Thus, fluoridated water provides zero benefit to toothless infants, but nobody promoting fluoridation would ever word it that way. In 2006 the ADA and CDC finally admitted what dental researchers had been saying for years before that. Scientists stated that if you prepare powdered infant formula using fluoridated water infants gets big doses of fluoride and have an increased risk of fluorosis.
Opponents of fluoridation started using these facts about infants in their campaigns. Infants were being put at risk of fluorosis for no benefit if fluoridated water was used to prepare infant formula. It was a powerful campaign point, especially when authorities were advising caution. So public health dentists formed a committee that studied this issue for several years. In 2011 they published their report in the Journal of the American Dental Association. They said that health professionals could now recommend using fluoridated water to prepare infant formula. Why? No explanation was ever given. They also never said whether parents or doctors should be informed about this risk. By saying this large exposure could now be recommended it implied that they no longer thought it was a risk, even though the scientific facts never changed. And they could back off their earlier recommendation to reduce the risk.
This camp of public health professionals has consistently attempted to block all attempts to inform parents and doctors about this fluorosis risk. In some communities opponents of fluoridation have been able to get the appropriate CDC advisory printed in the annual water quality reports of water utilities, overcoming strong opposition by dental associations.
Erin Brokovitch is fairly new to the fluoride debate, and made one obvious error. She said the initial fluoridation level was 1.7ppm. The initial levels used were 1 to 1.2ppm. Dr. Oz presented a balanced point of view on fluoride, representing the public health officials that support fluoridation. But by doing the show he broke an unspoken rule to not allow any discussion of this on network television. And perhaps he took some heat afterwards, which led him to cut the fluoride segments out of his webpage while posting 5 endorsements of fluoridation on that page.
Our IP Address: