Raise the Hammer

Adrian--I have read the studies and do citations for most but do not memorize the links just the data. Fluoridealert has links to all of the above and just search on thir site. You can see a list of all european countries and their position statements on FAN also. It lists who fluoridates with salt but most do not..
The 2000 York review is also at FAN and showed 15% dental fluorosis in non fluoridated areas...48 in fluoridated and 12.5% ugly enough to require cosmetic restoration. Triple damage plus.. They also stated not a single of the 3200 studies was high quality bias unlikely. On the basis of the poor studies carie decrease could have been as high as 15% or maybe zero.
98% of western europe does not fluoride now. Many have in past but the details are listed at FAN also. I think a spanish city still does.
You will not find specific data for many cities on fluorosis. It is avoided with a passion. The health department in Florida told me it is not a medical effect and Florida keeps no records so could not give me data.
The 1945 Newburg kingston study claimed huge benefits but in 1998 Kumar with NY health dept discover slightly more cavities in fluoridated newburgh in never fluoridated Kingston with almost double the dental fluorosis in Newburg.
Where did all the benefits go?
The Warren Levy 24 Nov 2008 pre release clearly shows a huge range of exposures but no corralation to caries decrease. A very robust dental flurosis increase that is linear. But that was all documented by H.T. Dean which is the basis of fluoridation. It was proven on fluorosis but theory on cavity reduction. His 21 city study were just the cities that he found favorable data. The great majority of data showed the opposite. Calcium and magnesium were high in the cities cited which protects from fluoride damage and makes the teeth healthy. I just try to get peoples atention with the data but am not looking at the studies. In a effort to prove me wrong some actually look at the data.. Everything I talked about is at fluoridealert.org or waterloowatch.com but maybe you should start at ntew280.org which started opposition in 1985 when as the headquarters union they discovered fraud and altered documents and 90% of the unfavorable studies ignored... You can listen to a short video at FAN by Dr Hirzy to congress in 2000 and he makes most of the points. the 8 position papers are on the site under fluoride but they are not current. 29 Feb 2008 19 unions asked for moratorium and goal of ZERO.
Look at the waterloowatch.com and at the top of home page a study by coplan 2008 should wake anyone up how Hfsa makes water more corrsoive.
There are huge numbers of pages of very unfavorable government studies all over the place but it is much easier to have it in one place. Often then I go read the study in full. It is easy to create deceptive data as there are huge differences by income just look at the CDC data also on FAN by Osmunson DDS MHP .. That holds true in every state. Chris Neruth also did the same data in a chart also. I will try to get to the sites and put some links on but an getting ready to go speak to a city commission as I did last night also. Close to home is more important to me then Hamilton..
You should read Hardy Limebacks DDS researcher positions and his paper when he changed sides. He was one of the 12 NRC reviewers from 2003-2006 and admitted he had no clue as a leading researcher where this product comes from. He know from his practice and others cosmetic restoration for fluorosis now costs more then even the claimed savings would be. The 1986-7 NIDR study on 39,207 kids 5-17 ,84 communities showed no benefit at first. They refused to release and then only reported on narrow segments like 5 year olds and looked at surfaces to exagerate the effects as it really show delayed eruption which can be reported as fewer cavities. There is a slight shift in the graph but it is a delay.
If you really want a eye opener get a copy of the Fluoride deception by Chris Bryson which is half once secret government studies and transcripts released in 1996. It is a goldmine of coverups. The AEC was even allowed to rewrite studies on fluoridation for national security to protect the NUKE program.
I will be happy to answer any questions later and get some links but I need to get 11 copies ready for the commission.Florida pays the head fluoridation lobbist in the world to insult the people. Nobody drags andyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country. He said that this year to the chronical in California. I goty to debate him in the lobby.. He is a aggresive jerk but he is far from stupid but most of the supporters I talk do never read any current studies--The just cite policy and endorsements. Any moron could do the job.
I do not try to put anything out of contex and tend to remember most of the points. Wack me if I get the facts wrong. I can take it. Jim Sometimes you have to anger people some to get a response..Nothing personal really. Sometimes we aggree on more then we disagree. I just wnat people to not be forced with a medication that has no benefit. The water is not really the big issue with drinking but where else it ends up and all the new pesticies as now over 200 food groups can be fumigated with fluorides with the foods in the processing facility. Allowed levels of residue are up to 70ppm for any processed food like cake mix,hamburger helper etc and a heart stopping 900ppm for dried eggs. For the troops you know. I thought it was a typo at first but the whole regulation is at FAN also as Ann does the pesticides research. Check that out.