From the shadows huh? HKHP has over a half million in campaign contributions (from just a small handful of PAC's), vs. Clean Water Portland's $73,000 (mostly from individuals). Now you tell me who the under-dog is?

If you "turn any corner in this city and you'll probably be bombarded with some form of anti-fluoride campaigning", sounds to me like the people of Portland don't want an unrefined, unregulated waste pollutant in their drinking water.

Not to mention the pro-fluoride lobby's sleazy under-handed tactics like their secret backdoor meetings with City Council, manipulating dental health figures to paint a false perception that Portland is facing some "dental health crisis", and paying off minority groups for support.

http://swoolley.org/files/fluoridedonation…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfbrLGwwZOM…

Thanks for covering this! This coalition may have money as spindles says, but they also have hundreds of volunteers--myself included--working hard to protect our community's health. I'm voting yes because all reputable scientific studies; along with countless dentists, doctors and public health officials all support fluoridation as safe and effective for reducing tooth decay. And millions of people in cities across the US have been drinking fluoridated water for decades with no ill effects.

Oregon's rate of untreated dental decay: 44%. NON-FLUORIDATED Portland's rate of untreated dental decay: 21%. We actually bring the statewide average down to 35%.

There is no scientific consensus that fluoride is either safe or effective, and a considerable body of evidence that would suggest otherwise:

The Iowa Fluoride Study:

“This study assessed the relationship between dental caries and fluorosis at varying fluoride levels in drinking water. 420 study subjects received dental examinations at age 5 on primary teeth and at age 9 on early-erupting permanent teeth… Conclusions: Fluorosis prevalence increased significantly with higher water fluoride levels; however, caries prevalence did not decline significantly.” (Hong 2006a)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/ifs/

"We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide." – York (2003). “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain. The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.” – Lead author, Harvard study.

National Research Council (2006)
"On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” p.222

“Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.” p.222
http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2…

Chronic fluoride exposure has a role in etiology of coronary artery ectasia: sialic acid/glycosaminoglycan ratio.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2113619…

Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

The Effects Of Fluoride On The Developing Human Brain
http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/du-19…

The Effects of Fluoridation on Degenerative Joint Disease (DJD) and Hip Fractures.
http://www.slweb.org/hegmann.html

The actual science on fluoridation: its effect on salmon and the environment, efficacy for dental health, and safety for human consumption:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PYej_OgZHE

The pro-F group is okay with trading the health of the body for something they think will improve tooth health. The most troubling fact is fluorosilicic acid hurts the body and does not decrease dental disease (the stats bear this out). Read Dr. Kathleen Thiessen's report "General Comments on the Fluoridation of Drinking Water for Prevention of Dental Caries" 2011. She was a panel member on the National Research Council for the 2006 EPA report "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review". She is a toxicologist and writes about ALL the negative health effects caused by ingesting this chemical (fluorosilicic acid). She and many other scientists, doctors, dentists are calling for a ban to fluoridation because of the damage it causes to the body. I'm voting NO in May.

And what about the people with thyroid disease and kidney disease who simply cannot afford to risk drinking fluoridated water? What of them? Add to their medical bills by having them purchase expensive fluoride removing water systems?

And as far as reputable sources:
"Environmental health groups are looking to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to impose tougher standards on fluoride in drinking water, building on a decision Friday by the federal Department of Health and Human Services to lower the recommended level for the first time in nearly 50 years." http://www.friendsofwater.com/No_Fluoride.…

And Time magazine's April 12th issue "included fluoride on a list of "The Hazards Lurking at Home." As they point out, fluoride is "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed; the American Dental Association advises that children under 2 not use fluoride toothpaste." Of course that is far from the whole story, but it does seem that awareness of the serious risks of fluoridated water has built considerably."

It's nice of you to want to "think of the children" - but since fluoride is only successful topically, then perhaps supporting free toothpaste and toothbrushes and better education would be of more practical and direct aid to "under-privileged children" and less harmful to everyone else.

In the graph in the above comment I split out the referendum committee and the miscellaneous committee. The total raised against fluoride altogether is about a quarter million versus the pro fluoride half million, mostly from corporations and PACs and more than 95% from those two sources and over ten thousand dollar checks, some in the six figure range too.

I was surprised to see the West Hills filled with anti-fluoride campaign signs...or was I?

@Joneser, I guess the top level scientists on the National Research Council and senior scientists at the EPA are tin foil hat wearers? Just look with an open mind and you'll see the same disturbing research on the health damage that they (and many others) have seen.

I'm kinda sick of anti fluoride vs pro fluroide. Many folks who will vote no are voting no on Fluroide in the drinking water and are perfectly fine with topical -- which is the best use and a pharmcutical grade and doesn't involve building a treatment plant, and forever having to pay to have the industrially made byproduct moved across the country (that's a big foot print).

HKHP over and over tells people it's a natural mineral -- it is in places like Colorado who have very high amounts naturally in the environment. Portland does not. Ask HKHP where this fluoride is coming from, they say "we don't know" or "it will be voted on later". Sounds like we should have a few more information sorted out before saying Yes because we are voting on something that has some missing information, costs money, and has conflicting data and research, and we are still waiting for the latest Oregon Smile Survey full results on the last 5 years -- which was due out in February and is still not being released.. hmmmm.

AND NOW THE PULITZERS ARE IN ON THE VAST FLUORIDE CONSPIRACY!

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawi…

Fluoride is also responsible for causing autism and a 43% increase in toxins around the main chakra points.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Do you want to risk your health to find out??? It's also a chemical. Chemicals in our water supply? No thank you!

What I wish for is that people would focus on our community and what's best for Portland, a place where we haven't fluoridated before.

It's too bad that in Florida the mainstream media (ie. owned by some industry) was essentially a big bully in making their goal to make sure the community goes back to fluoridation after they decided not to. Hey it worked. I haven't read all the editorials but the parts I did were again trying to pit anti against pro. Hey it sells papers. Many other communites in the US, Canada are choosing to no longer fluoridate their water, and they aren't bullied. Winning a Pulitzer doesn't mean your editorial is the truth -- it's just writing. What you'll find is there isn't a fluoride conspiracy but everyday people who have done their own research and may found out that most of the world doesn't need fluoridation for good teeth. Americans need better diets.

There are already chemicals in our water supply. Chlorine, for one, though I admittedly don't know what the impact of chlorine is on the main chakra points. Hell, I don't even know how it effects the MINOR chakra points.

I love this debate because it's impossible to tell who's being serious anymore.

Holy quacks alive! The pseudoscience running rampant through this town is like the blob out to kill all rational, critical thought and actual, viable evidence. Why don't the journalists in this town do their jobs, learn how science works and report it accurately. If you need help, there is a great source in town. Mark Crislip, MD. You can find his good work online at Science Based Medicine.

Holy trolls alive! Why can't people learn how to read and post thoughtful comments on the internet instead of peddling vitriol?

If you bothered to read the article it's not for or against water fluoridation in Portland. It's about the fact that this issue seems to appear entirely one-sided in Portland.

Also, this is very interesting considering that most real studies in peer-reviewed science journals point to little or no correlation to many of the adverse affects that so many of you anti-fluoride fanatics claim to be saving Portland from. *note, this is my own observation and is not from the article (I thought I'd point that out since you clearly have trouble processing information from a source).

The York review is very much a landmark for water fluoridation studies (much better than mentioning a possible quack doctor who doesn't post in peer reviewed medical journals *again, that's only a possibility based on the facts of the internet and you could be full of crap, unlike, say, the British Medical Journal:
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/CRD_Reports…
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm

And at it's very core, water fluoridation is meant to help those of a lower socio-economic level who can't afford real dental care than the trolls posting here or the well-to-do white college elite who seem to be up in arms about everything in Portland. Most people complaining already buy their own water and get regular dental checkups. Studies show water fluoridation has the biggest effect on children, children living in poverty who regularly drink tap water because that's all they can afford. So if you can propose an alternative to help alleviate cavities from the possible 40% of children this fluoridated water could help, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, you should hear the crying of a child who has a cavity and is too poor to see a dentist. Then you can tell them you're doing this for them.

thoughtful comments ?

Holy trolls alive!
anti-fluoride fanatics!
quack doctor!
trolls!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/95197904@N04/8676153925/in/photostream

:)

The antifluoridation people are using disingenuous statistic manipulation and cherry-picking low-quality studies that agree with their preconceived ideas, along with fearmongering about "chemicals". I.e.: They are so full of shit, it's shooting out of their ears.

Name-calling
Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the an idea or belief on its own merits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_te…

The point is I do not want it-Do not need it- And it is not safe.

@The Dragon, oh won't somebody think of the children ... please.

After over five decades of the EPA recommending that the maximum limit of fluoride in drinking water be set at 1.2 ppm, they had to back peddle and lower the limit in 2011 to .07 ppm after even the CDC confirmed that 2 in 5 children in America showed signs of dental fluorosis, a direct result of over exposure to fluoride.

Of course, it has been established that even concentrations of .07 ppm can cause harm to salmon populations and affect their migration: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577…

http://sonic.net/kryptox/environ/salmon.ht…

Fluoride is an element (negative fluorine ion) that does not biodegrade to anything else as it is not radioactive. Continuing this practice for generations will create an accumulation of toxins we will never be able to clean up without incredible expense. It also combines with other toxic elements such as lead. The NSF International, a private company that regulates public water supply additives, reported in February 2008 that 2% of 245 fluoridation batches sampled over a six year period had detectable levels of lead. Lead is an allowable trace contaminant in fluoridation chemicals along with antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, selenium, and thallium. http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribu…

Further, fluosilicic acid, the type of chemical proposed by City Council to be used in fluoridation our water (for which no scientific tests has ever been been conducted to determine optimum dosage, which can't be controlled en masse anyways because of the wide variety in weight and consumption) is 100% soluble which results in nearly 67,000 times more fluorine ions dissolved into the water than natural calcium fluoride which is nearly insoluble.

You say: "Studies show water fluoridation has the biggest effect on children', you're right. According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”

There have now been 33 studies from China, Iran, India and Mexico (countries that do not have a vested financial interest in water fluoridation) that have reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. One of these studies (Lin 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g., 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency. Other studies have found IQ reductions at 1.9 ppm.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/brain…

After reviewing 27 of these studies, a team of Harvard scientists concluded that fluoride’s effect on the young brain should now be a “high research priority.”

After all that, the very core of this issue can really just be simplified down to that fact that water fluoridation violates most basic principle of medicine: a patient’s informed consent. All medicines prescribed by doctors have a specific dosage based on the nature of the problem, age, gender, existing medical conditions, treatment, and consent of the patient. Water fluoridation is the mass medication of an entire population without any medical diagnosis whatsoever and without any regard for dosage, consent, or case specifics of the individual.

I think my favorite anti argument is the one based simply on the idea of "chemicals" in the water. You know what else are chemicals? Hydrogen (2) and oxygen. Looking forward to the vote on removing those from our water because... chemicals!

Runner-up: even in every anti study I've seen, the amount of fluoride it takes in a water supply before it crosses the threshold from health benefit to potential health risk is many multiples higher than the amount proposed here.

This vote will most likely fail and the status quo will remain. It's just strange that a generally progressive, greater-good minded Portland population would choose fluoride as the issue where they decide to be distrustful, everyone-for-themselves, libertarians.

Oh yes, hydrofluorosilicic acid, a chemical derived from the “wet scrubbers” – the pollution control devices used by the phosphate industry to capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer, a substance that would otherwise be classified hazardous waste if it wasn't barreled up and sold, unrefined, to communities across the country, is just as pure as mountain snow.

Oh yes, the status qou, those that claimed that leaded gasoline was safe, and DDT was safe, and asbestos was safe, and mercury fillings were safe, and nuclear power was safe, and BPA was safe, and GMO's were safe, and thalidomide was safe, and Vioxx was safe, will remain.

Spend the money to allow greater access to health care, not mass medicate an entire community.

Also what's the point of this article? To show we haven't been listening to enough personal stories on peoples experience with fluoride? I have horrible stains on my teeth thanks to fluoride but haven't had a cavity in all my time living here without it. Who cares, some like it, some don't, just keep it out of the water.

thalidomide is an effective anticancer drug (multiple myeloma), and was never deemed safe for pregnant women in the US- thanks to the work of Frances Kelsey, a woman then starting her career with the FDA. (gasp!) US FDA gets it right! And a WOMAN IN THE 1960's!

TERRIBLE EXAMPLE, SPINDLES

Now do you trust them with assessing the fluoride data and determining safe levels a little more, with some historical context?

Also:
Do you prefer coal burning to get electric fuel for cars? Do you prefer coal burning to nuclear power? Do you prefer ibuprofen to VIOXX? What about GMO's-- can you be more specific about complaints of safety, or how you might mitigate their risk?

This comment is the trademark of an irrational zealot- lumping diverse issues into one argument, based only on fear, and providing no alternatives to address problems.

Everyone is having fits over to fluoride or not to fluoride while thousands of people die every year by consuming dihydrogen monoxide that the government puts in our plumbing.

If there were an anthrax or smallpox or plague bioterrorism, I'm sure you would run to the CDC and ask their expertise on how to survive. Why would you trust your life to the scientific experts at the CDC (Center for Disease Control), but not your teeth?

@Spoolo, that's the most uninformed diatribe I've seen in a while.

@Virginia Feldman, here's a couple reasons:

2006-08-21: Lawmakers Sever Ties Between CDC And Big Pharma
www.opednews.com/articles/genera_evelyn_p_…

2009-10-27: Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews…

2009-12-23: Former CDC Director exits via the revolving door
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009…

2010-01-17: The 'false' pandemic: Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu, claims Euro health chief
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242147/T…

2010-05-19: CDC misled District residents about lead levels in water, House probe finds
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…

2011-10-11: CDC official accused of child molestation, bestiality
www.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justice/georiga-cdc…
www.cdc.gov/osels/leadership/bios/lindsey.…

This is an example of the type of person who's given a high rank within an organization that is responsible for the health of American adults and children. Also, the CDC is involved in "Terrorism Preparedness"? Oh crap don't even get me started on the whole "War on Terror" BIG LIE.

2011-10-28: Dr. Lindsey Played Primary Role in Bogus Swine Flu Propaganda Campaign
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/10/2…

Fluoride is a legal drug and a dentist can prescribe it to anyone wishing to take it. No dentist has ever prescribed the chemical used to fluoridate drinking water, hexafluorosilicic acid, which is a toxic waste byproduct of the fertilizer industry containing contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, and koteh heavy metals.

However, it is illegal for a dentist to force anyone to take a drug.
So some want you to rely on the government to specify a drug (Hexafluorosilicic acid) for you to be forced to take. It is the only drug on the market not tested and approved as safe and effective for human consumption ( in the USA) by the FDA.

50% of fluoride consumed is retained in the body, in the bones and in the brain resulting in cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.

I wonder if those young mothers who have been convinced that fluoridation is a good idea have been told about all the fluoride that's already in food - especially those meant for babies.

There's no dispute between those for and against fluoridation, that too much fluoride damages teeth and bones and that parents and caregivers should carefully monitor their children's daily fluoride intake. But how?

According to the Journal of the American Dental Association (October 2009), all infant formula contains fluoride, whether concentrated or not, whether organic or not. In fact, they all already include over the "adequate intake" of fluoride for six month olds.

Researchers measured fluoride content of 49 infant formulas. See:
http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/infan…

-- “Some infant foods/drinks, when reconstituted with fluoridated water, may result in a F intake in infants above the suggested optimum and therefore may put infants at risk of developing dental fluorosis,” Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology (4/2012). (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111…)

-- All baby foods contain fluoride, according to research presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the International Association of Dental Research. (http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2012tampa/webp…)

-- Commonly-consumed infant fruit juices contain fluoride, some at levels higher than recommended for pubic water supplies, according to research was presented 3/17/2011 at the International Association for Dental Research annual meeting in San Diego (http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2011sandiego/w…)

Researchers from the University of Indiana School of Dentistry report in the scientific journal “Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology” that McDonald’s French fries deliver more than guilty pleasure. Your teeth bite into 0.13 milligrams fluoride along with that small portion of McDonald’s fries that goes upward to 0.38 mg in the supersize,

Two slices of “Iron Kids Bread” dose your kids teeth with about 0.08 milligrams fluoride. While two slices of “Aunt Millie’s Homestyle Buttermilk White Bread” releases only .03 mg. Five and one half ounces of Lay’s baked potato chips confers 0.20 mg fluoride, while, the same amount of Ruffles delivers .11 fluoride Many other studies reveal hidden fluoride in jarred baby chicken food, chicken sticks and luncheon meat. Forty two percent of juices contain more fluoride than recommended for small children. And 71% of sodas contain more than .6 ppm fluoride (0.6 milligrams per liter or quart)


The USDA lists the fluoride content of some common foods here:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?…

It's sad to see well-meaning people manipulated into believing (or maybe being paid to) that adding more fluoride into low-income children is a good idea. I'd like to see the same people rallying to raise money to cover the inevitable fluorosed teeth that will occur if fluoridation passes.

Can someone please give me link to read up on this fluoride debate?

So, are Vancouverites' teeth any better than Portlanders'?? I seriously doubt it, but please show me some evidence and prove me wrong.

If you for some strange reason believe in systemic fluoride intake, you have many options. Including adding Fluoride tablets to your water, supplements, fluoridated salts, tea, or moving to Vancouver, WA.

Rusty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX0s-4AyWfI…

Oh, it's the old "move to Vancouver" gambit. How tired is that?

I'm impressed with how much fear-mongering anti-science copy-pasta this thread.

Recently, the NAACP came out against water fluoridation and one of the main reasons they mentioned was that somehow fluoridation causes problems for diabetics. However, despite all my attempts to find any information supporting this thesis, I have found none. Can anyone point me towards actually scientific studies that show fluoridation causing problems with diabetics in doses that aren't looking at LD50 levels?

Would any of you people who have a google alert set for "fluoride" care to speak up and be interviewed on how your life got to that point?

Beyond that, thanks for being the left's answer to climate-change deniers! Isn't it unifying to realize we're ALL wired to ignore/misuse science wherever reality differs from our preferences?

http://www.portlandoccupier.org/2013/04/24…

I LOST 20 POUNDS IN 3 WEEKS THANKS TO RASPBERRY KEYTONES

I'm on my lunch break and don't have time to read all 40 comments, has anyone mentioned today's Willy Week article stating that Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland is paying the Center for Intercultural Organizing $20,000?

I DIDN'T BELIEVE SHELLY WHEN SHE TOLD ME, BUT NOW I'M MAKING $400 A WEEK WORKING FROM HOME, JUST TAKING SURVEYS ONLINE.

Minds are definitely being changed in this enthralling discussion here.

I'm gonna go do some shots of Scope and watch Babe: Pig In The City.

"Maher grew up in rural/water-fluoridated Alaska, didn't see a dentist until she was 14, and has never had a cavity."
While we're on the subject of fluoridation in rural Alaska, has anybody here heard of the notorious Hooper Bay fluoride accident? In 1992, the town's fluoride injection system malfunctioned, killing one man and sickening 292 others.
If you choose to fluoridate Portland's water supply, you are placing your family's health and well-being in the hands of a few workers who operate the fluoride injection system. Would you like to be drinking a cup of tea or taking a bath when something goes wrong at the facility? Humans make mistakes and machines malfunction. This is not a reasonable risk for our city to be taking.
I'll be voting no in May.

WORLD BANK AGENDA 21 FLUORIDE NEWTOWN AURORA IRAN SYRIA AIDS WACO AREA 51 JIMMY HOFFA FRANK SINATRA DEALEY PLAZA POPE FRANCIS ISRAEL PALESTINE VAN JONES ALEX JONES DAVEY JONES DEES BONES

http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-eve…

Please be aware that all the name-calling is in fact a framing technique that is being used to vilify those who are against water fluoridation. This is being done because the pro side does not have any real data to stand on so it's the old game of shoot the messenger. These terms have been used and abused for a long time.

The Framer's Lexicon:

"Tin Foil Hat"
"Cherry Picked Data"
"Junk Science"
"Fear Mongering"
"Conspiracy Theorist"
"Copy Pasta"

Also use of the Internet is being used against people (see "copy pasta"), however, that one is pretty frail since we are all on the Internet these days including the scientific papers. If someone doesn't have the data or misrepresents the facts, then it would make sense that they would fear the Internet where information is readily available. I don't see the pro fluoride lobby using Morse code or pony express, so that one is obviously full of holes.

(I had to look up tin foil hat. It is a pop culture icon originating from science fiction stories and movies dating back to 1927. The military likes to use that one a lot, go figure.)

Floridated Water?
Fuck Yes!!!
What you got against poor kids anyway?

Spindles, what's uninformed about me pointing out that you are wrong about thalidomide in the US, thanks to the US FDA? And perhaps my diatribe is pointing to your loony, diffuse amalgamation of fear-based irrationalities that have nothing to do with water fluoridation. I note again that in fact, you have not offered one-- count 1-- alternative to any problem you cite as so fearful.

So grow up. And next time you call someone uninformed, try to reply with some substance. In the meantime, just send a thank you letter to the US FDA for defending your mom against thalidomide, and get a clue.

I think it's last call for Drunk & Write.

Oh, sorry Spoolo, didn't see you there.

Please, by all means feel free to search engine "thalidomide birth defects", "thalidomide investors apologize for birth defects, 50 years later".

Feel free to search engine "Leaded gasoline, EPA"

You're going to defend GM crops? Well, other than the fact that they don't increase crop yield, do increase the use of pesticides, contain hidden viral genes (search engine it), allow one company to own a complete monopoly over food production, can not and have not undergone long-term studies in the US for for safety (but other countries have, search engine it), and are contaminating the environment ... what's not to love?

You're going to defend mercury amalgam fillings? Really, even the World Health Organization has come out against that.

You want me to give you alternatives??? I would invite you to make your own decisions for your health. Do not try and circumvent mine.

Oh, and feel free to search engine "Vioxx settlement".

Wow Merc, you're making the Oregonian look pretty decent right now.

Dear supporters of mass medication without informed consent,

My sister almost died this year because her doctors didn't bother to check side effects and drug interactions from Prozac. Her psychiatrist didn't know. Her neurologist didn't know. Even the pharmacist apparently didn't raise a flag for them to at least keep her closely monitored. Then she ended up in the emergency room. The hospitalist and weekend neurologist in the hospital didn't know. NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE EVEN THOUGHT TO DO ANY RESEARCH.

I made the diagnosis myself. Yes, I used the Internet. Lots of intelligent people all over the world use the Internet, scholars even. My wife is lead counselor with 15 years seniority in the genetics department at Kaiser Permanente so she has access to the same resources the doctors have (MICROMEDEX).

Meanwhile her condition was getting worse because instead of removing the Prozac, the neurologist decided to experiment with a different epilepsy med. And of course she starts having seizures. She had five total. I'm talking about the severe Grand Mal scary type of seizures where you moan like a demon. One of the hospital workers almost cried because she'd never seen anything like it. This is the type of seizure you can die from. She was also in a semi-conscious state of delirium for 24+ hours non-stop. Eventually they had to put a feeding tube down her nose.

I battled with those weak-ego assholes (they're just kids really, spoiled brat kids who aren't used to dealing with someone who knows more than them) for 2 days until finally the Medical Director Head Neurologist stepped in and confirmed my hypothesis.

But the night before he arrived I had already invoked Patient Consent Law. I may have saved her life or prevented permanent damage, and at the very least I reduced her recovery time.

I vowed to do everything in my power to prevent this from happening again not just to her but everyone. America's entire healthcare system is fucked. I'm not going to apologize for the language. There is no better word to describe it.

The fluoride/dentist connection is exactly the same type of situation. The generic name for Prozac is fluoxetine. The molecular structure is C17H18F3NO. Fluorine is the common element in both treatments (Prozac and water fluoridation). Fluorine compounds are used in many drugs, even some antibiotics, and are also a commonly used pesticide. Polytetrafluoroethylene (aka Teflon) is used for non-stick cookware and there are a variety of known health risks from that as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluo…). Our environment, plants, the soil, and leeching into underground water systems, public water systems, so many drugs, and flushed down the toilet and into our sewer systems ... it all reminds me of the old Palmolive TV ad. Fluorine: You're soaking in it.

The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry does not support the use of prenatal fluoride supplements. Pregnant women with MS are even specifically instructed to avoid fluoridated water. The National Kidney Foundation no longer supports fluoridation because it's bad for people with CKD (chronic kidney disease). Far more fluoride collects in the pineal gland (the extremely important connector of the brain and endocrine system) than teeth or bones. The National Research Council in 2006 stated that it might be a factor in early puberty and various other critical effects regulated by the pineal gland. Fluoride also has greater effects on those with poor nutrition and hypothyroidism. Some people are allergic to fluoride. There was also a coverup of a huge Harvard study on osteosarcoma. Fluosilicic acid is far more toxic than natural calcium fluoride because it is 100% soluble and all those free-floating ions of the most reactive element in the known universe readily combine with other toxins such as arsenic, lead, and aluminum, which oh by the way are also added to the water as part of the fluoridation process. Fluorine compounds are able to breach the blood-brain barrier and the placenta, which is a likely factor in Alzheimer's and early onset dementia. And by the way, what is the toxicity level for a fetus? Oddly it's not defined by the USDA, even though they have done so for newborn babies. Peer-reviewed placebo studies on the adverse health effects from fluosilicic acid have NEVER BEEN DONE. You want me to show you the NRC consensus report that proves the risks of so-called "optimal" fluoridation? No, YOU show me the NRC report that proves it is SAFE, because there is a preponderance of evidence indicating likely harm.

Why is all of the science being ignored? The only conspiracy I truly believe in is that some people want to make a hell of a lot of money. CRAZY HUH?! The original fraudulent Grand Rapids "study" was sponsored by Alcoa. No conflict of interest was declared even though they converted toxic waste disposal expenses into profits. The ADA has a huge conflict of interest as well because they profit from their seal of approval on fluoridated products and they even sell their own co-branded fluoridated water at Wal-Mart. The Harvard professor who tried to cover up the osteosarcoma study works for Colgate.

Fluoridation was sold to the American people by Edward Bernays, the same man who sold Lucky Strike cigarettes aka "Torches of Freedom" to a new generation of women demanding equal rights. He used his understanding of uncle Sigmund Freud's psychology also to manipulate doctors into endorsing large quantities of bacon as a healthy breakfast. I know this sounds like an episode of Mad Men, but truth is stranger than fiction. Look it up if you don't believe me. Bernays is known as "The Father of Public Relations". One of his clients was United Fruit. Their profits were threatened by the democratically elected president of Guatemala, so Bernays convinced American politicians and the American public of a Communist threat. The U.S. overthrew their government and ignited a civil war in which 200,000 people died, and all those new family farms were lost. Bernays' ad campaign for WWI was "we're making Europe safe for democracy". Does anyone still believe that?

The ADA has been fighting Medicare/Medicaid since 1965, now the same with Obamacare, and they also fight midlevel practitioners which would greatly help people in rural and poor areas that don't have enough dentists. The ADA is one of the main reasons people suffer from cavities. The EPA ignores its own scientists as well as the Safe Drinking Water Act and manipulated the NRC's ability to have more of an impact on fluoridation policies. The EPA Union even sued the EPA and successfully got fluoride removed from their workplaces. The CDC ignored half of the NRC report in their summary. 68 years of fluoridation doesn't prove it's safe. TIME Magazine: "For nearly six decades, gasoline companies ignored the known dangers associated with lead to get rich." SOUND FAMILIAR?

We're not going to allow this in Portland. And after we're done here, we're going to lead the rest of America back to its senses.

Spindles: again, your diction betrays a paranoid and irrational person who combines topics romantically, but totally unconvincingly if you're trying to proce a point. e.g. are you really suggesting genetically modified crops are bad (scary!) because they contain "hidden viral genes"? Are they hidden to you, only because you didn't bother to read about them? How's your understanding of molecular biology? Are you just afraid of viruses? Genes? Are you also afraid of carbon, or the hydrochloric acid in your stomach? stay on topic-- these loose associations are killing your credibility.

I grew up w/ fluoridated water & had 8 cavities. Better access to care is the REAL solution.