Pro-Fluoride Apologist Steve Slott Responds to TIME Magazine Citing Fluoride as an Industrial Chemical That Harms the Brain

Posted: February 21, 2014 in dental, durham, fluoride, health
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hi Steve,

I hope you’ve been well.

I am mailing you to find out if you would be willing to make a public comment on this recent article published by TIME magazine which cites Fluoride as being an industrial chemical that causes harm to the brain.

Children Exposed to More Brain-Harming Chemicals Than Ever Before (TIME magazine)

 “Now the same researchers have reviewed the literature and found six additional industrial chemicals that can hamper normal brain development. These are manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Manganese, they say, is found in drinking water and can contribute to lower math scores and heightened hyperactivity, while exposure to high levels of fluoride from drinking water can contribute to a seven-point drop in IQ on average. The remaining chemicals, which are found in solvents and pesticides, have been linked to deficits in social development and increased aggressive behaviors.”

I’d also like to take this opportunity to make you aware that I receive regular traffic to my website, as a result of people searching YOUR name, ostensibly to discover your feelings on this topic (see graphic below).  Whether the people searching your name are in alignment with your “convictions” or not, I’m not sure…but in any case I thought I would offer my website as a platform to get your “expert” analysis on this TIME magazine article & why you feel the general population should ignore all the warnings about drinking too much fluoride published by respected scientists at Harvard University.  I will gladly publish whatever you have to say on this subject since I know you are highly motivated to combat any “anti-fluoride” sentiments that show themselves on the internet.

slott

Sincerely yours,

Corey Sturmer

____________________________________________________

Corey, i have no specific comment for you to place on your little blog.  Actually, it’s of no concern to me what you post on it.  If you simply want to be educated on Grandjean’s statements, first, notice that there is no mention of concentration levels of fluoride, simply the implication that the mere presence of fluoride at any concentration will “hamper brain development”.  There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water.  Fluoride is certainly no exception.  Concentration level is the difference between safety and toxicity of ANY substance we ingest. Water is fluoridated at the minuscule concentration of 0.7 ppm.  At this concentration it is not toxic.  If you care to dispute this elementary fact then provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claim.  Keep in mind that the antifluoridationist websites, and blogs on which you solely rely for your “information” do not qualify as valid sources.

As far as Choi and Grandjean’s Harvard Review on which Grandjean bases his “suggestions” about IQ and brain  development in regard to fluoridated water, this was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian village. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:

“–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

–Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study. These studies were flawed that NOTHING could be “concluded” from them.

Steve

Steven D. Slott, DDS

PO Box 1744

Burlington, NC.  27216

Sent from my iPad

____________________________________________________

Steve,

I have to be honest I really just wanted to be entertained by the psychological acrobatics I knew you would perform in order to justify the continued addition of an industrial chemical to our water supply.  Like always you delivered so thanks for the laughs!

However  I must admit it would be a lot funnier if it wasn’t so sad, how many people like yourself have to resort to picking a part each damning study which individually contribute to the gradual chipping away at the 60 year long PR stunt that is public water fluoridation.  I respect you more than most apologists because at least you put forth a lot of effort…But let’s be real – you are on the defense because the body of evidence which supports public water fluoridation is diminishing quickly & the body of evidence which supports its removal is growing all the time.  You & others of your ilk have had your time and I think you are acutely aware of this fact, as evidenced by all the frantic attacks you wage against those who speak out about this crime on the internet.

One would think,  given the self pronounced efficacy of this practice, that we would not be finding out about adverse health effects 60 years after the fact & instead the “scientific community” would have known ALL possible ramifications of ingesting fluoride when it was first forced on the American public in the 1950’s.  Of course, we know that the establishment did know many of the ramifications (and that they were negative), but this was ignored intentionally & those reasons are precisely why it was rammed down our throats in the first place.  NOT for the “dental health” of our nation but to actually impair the rational cognitive ability of the American people, which you epitomize by the way.

It is even more laughable, how focused you & other statists are on the “optimal concentration level” of fluoride in our water, when this so-called “optimal level” was so recently lowered due to the department of health & human services own admission, that over ingestion of fluoride is responsible for 40% of adolescents now suffering from some degree of fluorosis.    Statists always hide behind the auspices of having figured out the “exact optimal level” of fluoridation thanks to the “science,” except they never acknowledge that their “science” was originally flawed by their own admission.  Do you not see how discrediting it is to unilaterally change the “optimal level” without admitting that the prior “optimal” was too much?
Maybe that’s a mental trapeze act you just aren’t ready to perform yet.

Of course,  another thing I never hear you & other statists say, is whether you actually know the proper “dose” of fluoride.  I suspect this is because

  1.  There isn’t a proper dose to ingest orally since drinking fluoride is absolutely non-essential & has no material positive effect on any organ when ingested &
  2.  Talking about dosages & what medications one should ingest would be outside the scope of your licensure as a dentist & surely discredit you as a legitimate source of information on this topic…

But you have already discredited yourself countless times around the web & I thank you for providing one more example today.

Corey

____________________________________________________

Gee, Corey, it’s not like I haven’t seen all this ridiculous nonsense copied/pasted from  antifluoridationist websites, countless times.  Your total lack of success in furthering your irrational vendetta against fluoridation, in spite of your repeated “presentations” to intelligent people,  is all that needs to be viewed in regard to your claims.  Why don’t you surprise everyone and actually come up with something intelligent, instead of just parroting Connett’s  nonsense from “fluoridealert.org“?

Steve

Steven D. Slott, DDS

PO Box 1744

Burlington, NC.  27216

Sent from my iPad

____________________________________________________

Steve,

Without giving any credence to your opinion of what is “intelligent” or not, since it has been made abundantly clear that you are no authority whatsoever on original thought, I humbly submit my latest video which will teach you more about water in 10 minutes than you ever learned in the fluorescent lit halls of academia which seem to have forever savaged your feeble mind.

Corey

____________________________________________________

Thanks, Corey, but I prefer to obtain my information from credible, reliable, and authoritative sources of peer- reviewed scientific literature…..not from “YouTube” videos and antifluoridationist websites.

Steve

Steven D. Slott, DDS

PO Box 1744

Burlington, NC.  27216

Sent from my iPad

Advertisements
Comments
  1. […]  Pro-Fluoride Apologist Steve Slott Responds to TIME Magazine Citing Fluoride as an Industrial Chemic… […]

  2. Tom Cornwell says:

    Corey
    Thanks for the video demonstration. I sold the MegaHome distillers for a number of years and did, in fact, collect the residue left over from the process as you have done. It is quite dramatic, and I appreciate your using it in your video.
    One thing I want to point out about the distillation process is that there may be a number of compounds in the water, depending on the location, which will vaporize before the water does, simply because they would have lower boiling points. This is why anyone using any type of home distiller should include pre- or post carbon filtration, which will remove those compounds. As you know, MegaHome units come with carbon sachets, through which the distilled water will pass as it exits the unit. As an added measure, one could always pre-treat the tap water by running it through a cheap carbon filter, as well, prior to pouring it into the boiling chamber. Worth the risk of redundancy, in my opinion.
    Finally, your point on the mineral ‘loss’ when drinking distilled water is on the mark. We also supplement with colloidal minerals, ensuring a more controlled intake.
    Good luck with making Durham fluoride-FREE.
    Tom Cornwell
    Mizar5.com

  3. R. A. Greinke says:

    Dr. Slott stated: “Water is fluoridated at the minuscule concentration of 0.7 ppm. At this concentration it is not toxic. If you care to dispute this elementary fact then provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claim.” I submit to Dr. Slott the following peer reviewed article that was published in the Journal of the Chemical Society of Pakistan, Volume 11, No.1, p.71, 1989. The authors quantified nanogram amounts of fluoride by its inhibition of the activity of the enzyme, lipase. A glass of 0.7 ppm water contains about 200,000 nanograms of fluoride. Slowing down the catalytic activity of an enzyme required for bodily functions (in this case the digestions of fats) means that your are poisoning the enzyme. This is why fluoride was so effective as a rat and rodent poison and that a number of patents were issued in the early part of last century recommending fluoride for this purpose. Trace amounts of fluoride are toxic to enzymes. R. A. Greinke, PhD

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s