Kennedy, DDS Presentations to Officials

8/2/2019 Kennedy, DDS Presentations to Officials

1/12

David Kennedy, [email protected]

4380 Monaco Street San Diego, CA 92107

Drinking water with fluoride is neither safe nor effective.

Although, some have called artificial fluoridation controversial, I find that it can be a very easy subjectto understand. It is as easy as 1, 2, 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l84eU7oQatI

First, does fluoride work to reduce tooth decay if swallowed? No, it does not.1After claiming for more than 50 years that the effects of fluoride on tooth decay were systemic, virtually

all of the fluoridation proponents have now reluctantly acknowledged that the only measurable dental

effects are topical.2

Like sun block, its topical. You shouldnt drink it.

Read the FDAs Warning on fluoridated toothpaste:

KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN UNDER6 YEARS OF AGE. IN CASE OF ACCIDENTAL INGESTION,

SEEK PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE OR CONTACT A POISON CONTROL CENTER IMMEDIATELY.

Second, is it safe for babies or the handicapped? No, it is not.34

Any doctor would be guilty of gross malpractice if they prescribed the same dose of fluoride that an

infant receives from drinking formula made with fluoridated tap water about 0.25 mg/kg. NationalAcademy of ScienceReview of Fluoride noted that an iodine deficient child is injured by as little as 0.01

mg/kg. They listed dental fluorosis, bone fractures, and endocrine disruption as adverse health effects.5 2

out of 3 children raised in a fluoridated community already have at least some degree of dental

fluorosis.6http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgifD0TPKCY&feature=channel

If fluoride is not safe for babies, are other subsets of the population unusually vulnerable to the toxiceffects of fluoride? Certainly!

The U. S. Center for Disease Control Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry states that, These [susceptible] populations include the elderly, people withdeficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with

cardiovascular and kidney problems.7


2/12

Third, is ingested fluoride for the purpose of reducing tooth decay FDA approved?

No, it is not.8 (Congressional Hearings 2001 www.keepers-of-the-well.org)

The U. S. Food and Drug Administration has never approved any fluoride containing substance intended

to be ingested to reduce tooth decay. In fact, by 1975 they had rejected 35 new drug applications forfluoride vitamins and supplements stating that, There is no substantial evidence of effectiveness as

prescribed or labeled. 9

It is just as simple as 1, 2, 3.

1) Dental benefit, if any, is only TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC2) The ADA agrees that tap water formula is NOT safe for small babies.3) NOT FDA Approved as safe or effective because that is not how it works.

The really bad news is they dont use fluoride but rather arsenic, lead and mercury contaminatedhydrofluosilicic acid which is raw untreated hazardous waste from the pollution scrubber systems of the

phosphate fertilizer mines of China, Mexico, Japan and the United States.

In my opinion, the water should be safe for us all to drink. The public agrees. Fluoridation steals dentalcare dollars from children in a fake prevention program that only benefits industry with hydrofluosilicic

acid hazardous waste.

And besides, the state legislature AB733 specifically restricted its compelling legislation to onlysituations where rate-payers and tax payer funds are not required. The Metropolitan Water District

(MET) is not required to fluoridate nor are many of their member water agencies. MET recentlyannounced a 40% increase in their water rates.

References:

1 Featherstone, J Journal of the American Dental Association 7/20002 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report CDC on Fluoride August, 20013 http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=22124

Levy SM et al Sources of fluoride intake in children. J Public Health Dent. 1995:55(1)39-52

5 National Research Council NRC 2006 Review of Fluoride6

Heller et al Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis Journal of Public Health Dentistry Vol. 57: No. #3 July, 1997

7 Agency for Toxic substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profile (TP 91/17)8 FDA Letter to congressman Ken Calvert www.keepers-of-the-well.org9

Drug TherapyNDA withdrawn for fluoride and vitamin combinations 1975


3/12

1

Adverse Health Effects from Fluoride in Drinking Water

Comments to the Metropolitan Water District

Los Angeles, California

August 20, 2007

Kathleen M. Thiessen, Ph.D.

SENES Oak Ridge, Inc., Center for Risk Analysis

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Slide 1

10 100 1,000 10,000

Adults 20+

Youth 11-19

Children 1-10

Infants < 1

Range of intake of community water

Water intake, mL per day

Source: EPA-822-R-00-001 (2004)(includes on ly consumers o f community water)

28-1,147 mL/day

29-1,137 mL/day

58-1,973 mL/day

103-2,848 mL/day

1,517 mL/day

4,631 mL/day

3,689 mL/day

1,722 mL/day

The first graph illustrates the expected range of consumption of community water (public tap

water) for various age groups, in quantities of milliliters per day (mL per day). The ranges

include only people who actually consume tap water. Note that some people consumesubstantially more tap water than the usual range. This information is from an EPA reportpublished in 2004.

The total consumption of community water shown here is not to be confused with total fluid

consumption or total water consumption. It does not include well water, bottled water, or


4/12

2

commercial beverages. It does include water consumed directly and water used to prepare

household or restaurant foods and beverages.

Slide 2

1 10 100 1,000

Adults 20+

Youth 11-19

Children 1-10

Infants < 1

Range of intake of community water,per unit body weight

Water intake, mL per kg per day

Source: EPA-822-R-00-001 (2004)(includes only consumers of community water)

3-185 mL/kg/day

1-57 mL/kg/day

1-34 mL/kg/day

1-39 mL/kg/day

261 mL/kg/day

62 mL/kg/day

60 mL/kg/day

92 mL/kg/day

The second graph shows the same information as in the first slide, but in terms of water intake

per unit body weight (milliliters of community water intake per kg of body weight, or mL per kgper day). Note that infants have the highest tap water consumption per unit body weight, with

some infants reaching more than 250 mL per kg per day.

In general, the people with the highest tap water intakes include babies fed formula made with

tap water, people with certain medical conditions (e.g., diabetes insipidus, diabetes mellitus) or

taking certain medications (e.g., lithium), people in unairconditioned residences in hot climates,people who work outside in hot climates or do heavy physical labor, and athletes.


5/12

3

Slide 3

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Adults 20+

Youth 11-19

Children 1-10

Infants < 1

Range of fluoride intake from community water,assuming 0.8 ppm fluoride in the water

Fluoride intake, mg per kg per day

Based on wate r intake from EPA-822-R-00-001 (2004),

assuming 0.8 p pm fluoride(includes on ly consumers o f community water)

0.0024-0.15 mg/kg/day

0.0008-0.046 mg/kg/day

0.0008-0.027 mg/kg/day

0.0008-0.031 mg/kg/day

0.21 mg/kg/day

0.050 mg/kg/day

0.048 mg/kg/day

0.074 mg/kg/day

EPA's Reference Dose (RfD)0.06 mg/kg/day

The third graph shows estimated fluoride intakes for each age group (mg of fluoride per kg of

body weight per day), assuming the range of tap water intakes shown in Slide 2 and a fluoride

concentration in the tap water of 0.8 ppm (0.8 mg fluoride per liter of water). Also shown is

EPAs reference dose, which is defined as an estimate of a daily oral exposure to the human

population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of

deleterious effects during a lifetime. For fluoride, the reference dose is 0.06 mg per kg per day.As seen in the graph, many infants have a fluoride intake just from tap water that exceeds EPAsreference dose for fluoride. The children (ages 1-10) with the highest water consumption also

exceed EPAs reference dose. Older children (youth) and adults with the highest water

consumption are very close to EPAs reference dose.

Note that this graph shows estimated fluoride intakes only from tap water. These estimates do

not include fluoride intakes from other sources, such as commercial beverages (which are often

made with fluoridated tap water), toothpaste, tea, or food. When these other sources of fluoride

intake are included, total fluoride intakes for many members of all age groups exceed EPAsreference dose.


6/12

4

Slide 4

0.001 0.01 0.1

Adults 20+

Youth 11-19Children 1-10

Infants < 1

Impaired thyroid fu nction(iodine deficiency)

Moderate dental fluorosis

Impaired thyroid fu nction(adequate iodine intake)

Impaired glucose metabolism

Stage II skeletal fluorosis

Severe dental fluorosis

Neurotoxicity

Increased risk of bone fracture

Estimated "No-effect" levels in humans

Fluoride intake, mg per kg per day

Range of intakeof fluoride fromcommunity waterat 0.8 mg/L(consumers only)

EPA's Reference Dose (RfD)0.06 mg/kg/day

0.09 mg/kg/d

0.05 mg/kg/d

0.05 mg/kg/d

0.04 mg/kg/d

0.03 mg/kg/d

0.03 mg/kg/d

0.02 mg/kg/d

0.005 mg/kg/d

Information from sources revie wed by theNational Resear ch Council (2006) and

Limeback e t al. (2007)

The final graph shows the estimated fluoride intakes from tap water from Slide 3, plus estimates

of the no-effect levels for various adverse health effects. These no-effect levels representfluoride intakes at or below which most people are not expected to experience any harmful

effects. Note that these are estimates based on average exposures of study populations; theseestimates do not include any margin of safety, and they might not be protective for allindividuals. Intakes above these levels cannot be considered safe.

Note also that most of these no-effect levels are lower than EPAs reference dose for fluoride.

In other words, EPAs reference dose is not protective for most of these health endpoints.

Note also that most of these no-effect levels are exceeded by many members of the population,of all ages, just from fluoride at 0.8 ppm in community drinking water. When other fluoride

sources are included, even more people are expected to exceed the no-effect levels. In order tobe safe for all members of the population, fluoride intakes for all people must be kept below

the lowest no-effect levels, with all sources of fluoride intake are included, and with anadequate margin of safety.

This list of adverse health effects does not include cancer. A carcinogenic (cancer-causing)

effect of fluoride cannot be ruled out from the available data, and at the very least, a cancer-promoting effect is likely. For carcinogenic substances, the risk of cancer increases with the

amount of exposure, such that even a very low exposure carries with it some cancer risk.


7/12

5

In conclusion, I would like to quote from the Director of Laboratories, Department of Water

Supply, Gas and Electric, of the City of New York, from a presentation made in 1956 but stillrelevant today:

The continued promotion of water supply fluoridation in [the] face of mounting

adverse evidence an criticism requires some evaluation. It seems that theproponents hit upon an idea years ago which appealed to them, and which they

felt was sound. As their claims for safety were progressively discredited, rather

than acknowledge this, they persisted in condoning such evidence. At the sametime they were lending their prestige to such equivocation. Certainly the

proponents of fluoridation are not intent upon poisoning or harming anyone,

however, the dilemma of prestige is a very difficult matter to resolve.

The proponents have tried to demonstrate various factors of safety which are

patently nave. . . . It has been customary to consider a minimal factor of safety of

not less than 10 for substances which may be admitted to water supplies. This

would mean that ten times the amount of the proposed substance when present inthe water supply would be definitely without harm to human or beast. It is

obvious from the knowledge of fluoride toxicity that such factor of safety cannotbe established when fluoride is added to the public water supply at the level

recommended by the proponents of fluoridation. In view of the fact that the range

of water consumption may vary over a ratio of 20 to 1 the insistence upon a factorof safety of 10 is exceedingly moderate.

It must be concluded that the fluoridation of public water supplies is a hazardous

procedure, people are bound to get hurt, it remains to find out how many andwhen. I do not believe the water supply fraternity is interested in demonstrating

this with wholesale experimentation on populations.

References (Provided in written submission):

EPA 2004 (water consumption)

EPA (IRISthe RfD)NRC 2006

Limeback et al. 2007

Nesin (1956)


8/12

David C. Kennedy, DDS

2425 Third Avenue

San Diego. CA 92101(619) 231-1624

Board of Supervisors

County of Santa Cruz

701 Ocean StreetSanta Cruz, CA 95060RE: Drinking Water FluoridationMarch 1, 1998Dear Supervisors,I am David Kennedy, DDS. I am a preventive dentist. I have practiced dentistry in San Diego for morethan 20 years. My father and grandfather before me were also dentists. I served on the board of the San Diego Better Business Bureau for over 10 years, and have been amember of the Centre City Optimist Club for 20 years as well.I have been a member of the San Diego County Dental Society for over 20 years, and for three yearselected to the Board of Directors. I have participated on numerous committees including. Senior Care,Speakers Bureau, Political Action Committee, and the Council on Dental Care.In 1974 Eddy Oriole and I planned and built the Chicano Children's Dental Health Clinic at 1809 NationalAvenue. I care about children's dental health.I am immediate Past President of International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, the author of abook on preventive dental health entitled How to Save Your Teeth, and a nationally and internationallyrecognized lecturer on toxicology and restorative dentistry.I am intensely interested in the welfare of my patients and the community at large. Although I am a member of the San Diego County Dental Society (SDCDS), The California Dental

Association (CDA) and the American Dental Association (ADA), I must begin my statement by expressing

my opposition to these organization's stances concerning the safety of fluoride and further clarify what anendorsement by any of these organizations represents.1) CDA and ADA perform no research of their own.2) These trade associations have successfully argued in court that they assume no legal liability for anyharm that may result from their recommendations.3) Dental organizations are not responsible for studying adverse systemic effects of water fluoridation.

These issues are appropriately studied by medical researchers, epidemiologists and toxicologists.

4) CDA and ADA have never provided their members any large scale blinded studies which prove thatfluoridation reduces tooth decay. An expert for the ADA testified in court that she was not aware of any

blinded animal or broad based blinded human epidemiological studies that has ever found a reduction intooth decay from drinking water with one part per million fluoride.5) CDA and ADA have never polled their membership for their knowledge or opinion of water fluoridation.The two following examples clearly illustrate the depth and reliability of dentist's understanding of thiscontroversial issue.


9/12

A) Despite the local dental society's recommendation of water fluoridation, my conversation with the

President of the San Diego Dental Society, Dr. Joel Berick, revealed that he was completely unaware ofeven the existence of numerous studies linking water fluoridation to hip fracture.B) An elderly dentist from Chula Vista took umbrage with my position opposing water fluoridation. He

claimed that, over the last 50 years in his practice, he had personally witnessed the tremendous benefit ofwater fluoridation in Chula Vista. When I pointed out that Chula Vista was a nonfluoridated community, he

appeared disoriented and mumbled, "It had to be the fluoride. Tooth decay is not nearly as prevalent aswhen I began to practice 50 years ago." The above summary is not intended to criticize the dental society, but rather to place the dental tradeorganizations endorsements in their proper perspective.Increasing the fluoride intake of a patient without regard to established risk factors such as age, kidneyfunction, weight, physical condition, water consumption, total fluoride intake, and mitigating dietarycalcium is medical negligence. Although the courts have ruled that the state has the power to do so under

police powers. mandating fluoridation for 25 Million Californians or the entire city of Mountain View is noless negligent.

Dental FluorosisThe first visible sign of this negligence will be a doubling in dental fluorosis. The cells that produce the

collagen matrix, which forms enamel, are poisoned to the point that they can no longer produce

opalescent pearl-like enamel. Fluorotic enamel is irregular in texture, porous, chalky white to brown incolor, and brittle. In severe cases, the enamel forms incompletely and corners easily break off the teeth.All of the organizations promoting water fluoridation agree that dental fluorosis, which is the first visiblesign of systemic poisoning, increases with water fluoride levels. The Legislative Office of Budget

Management acknowledges that drinking water fluoridation would increase disfiguring dental fluorosis, but

since treatment of this disease is not covered for children on welfare, calculated that there would be noadditional. cost to the state. Clearly they are not considering the enormous legal liability for physical andpsychological damage which accompany this disfiguring disease. The fact that the state will not spend money to correct this defect does not alter the basic truth thatfluorosis will have to be treated if the child is to be happy in our image conscious society.Let's be clear about what children will be adversely affected. Bottle fed babies are most likely to develop

dental fluorosis. Mothers milk has virtually no fluoride present. Those children who are deficient in intakeof protein, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and Vitamin C are especially vulnerable to fluoridepoisoning. The accumulation of fluoride is greatly increased if the person has impaired kidney function. In

short, the weakest members of our society, the undernourished, the underfed, the very children that

fluoridation was to allegedly benefit. In some poorer communities as much as 80% of the children havefluorosis[1].The correction of this permanent disfigurement involves crowns, laminates, bonding, and bleaching. Thephysical, psychological, emotional, and financial costs of the repeated trauma necessary to correct this

condition far exceeds any projected benefit that fluoridation can possibly produce. This is truly a case

where the treatment is worse than the problem.The incidence of dental fluorosis has steadily increased since the introduction of fluoride to the drinkingwater in 1945. Since the introduction of fluoride containing toothpaste the amount of fluorosis hasdramatically risen[2]. Fluoride tablets which deliver in prescription form the amount of fluoride alleged to

be beneficial for tooth decay, reduction cause dental fluorosis in 64% of the children (Pebbles 1974).These same tablets if swallowed provide no protection against decay. If they are chewed and dissolved inthe mouth, they do appear to reduce decay[3]. The effect is topical[4].

Hip FractureFluoride has been tested on humans for the purpose of treating osteoporosis. The theory was that fluoride

would strengthen bones. What the researchers found was that it did increase bone mass; however, the


10/12

bone was much more brittle -- leading to a dramatic increase in hip fracture[5]. Numerous studies havelinked long term consumption of fluoridated water to increased risk of hip fracture.[6]This is not a small matter, it is about life and death. The surgical cost of repairing a hip fracture is

$35,000. 25% of the victims die in the first 30 days. Only 11% of the victims ever return to independent

living. 100% of the victims are debilitated and few, if any, of the elderly ever regain their former ability towalk normally. The research clearly shows that water Fluoridation increases the number of people who willsuffer this devastating injury.Nine of thirteen studies show a correlation between hip fracture and fluoridation, including four published

in the Journal of the American Medical Association in the last five years. In matters as serious as thehealth of our nation, no risk is acceptable if it is avoidable.

CancerResearch has shown in numerous studies that fluoride is a mutagen (genetic damage), a carcinogen

(cancer causing), and cancer promoting in laboratory cell studies, animals, and humans. In 1990 theCongress-ordered National Toxicological Program (NTP) found bone cancers in male rats.The test animals, in the words of the board certified pathologists, "were awash with disease." T he highdose animals had kidney failure and cancers of their lips, cheeks, throats, livers, and bones. The highest

rates of cancer were found in the highest dose animals. The lucky rats and mice that drank the distilledfluoride free water had no significant disease. When the actual data indicated a causal relationshipbetween fluoride and bone cancer the NTP down-graded the results to "equivocal."Dr. William Marcus, former senior science advisor at the office of drinking water Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), concluded that the NTP studies proved fluoride was a carcinogen[7]. In July 1997 the

National Federation of Federal Employees. the Union representing all of the scientists, toxicologists and

statisticians at EPA headquarters, also stated that "Our members review of the body of evidence over thelast eleven years, including animal and human epidemiological studies, indicate a causal link betweenfluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of

particular concern are recent epidemiological studies linking fluoride exposure to lower 1.0. in children.[8]Political protection for fluoride is not new. The Spin Doctors of fluoridation routinely minimize the peer-

reviewed documented scientific research by setting up biased review committees, which then publish theirown opinion claiming that fluoridation is safe, without regard to the original findings. The US Public Health

Service has been accused of scientific fraud by the National Federation of Federal Employees over thecover-up of the cancer/fluoride link.After the NJ Department of Health documented a dramatic increase in bone cancers in young men who

resided in their fluoridated cities, New Jersey Assemblyman John V. Kelly asked the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) for the evidence they relied upon in approving prescription fluoride drops andtablets.The FDA responded that no application for approval, or studies of safety or effectiveness, had ever beensubmitted and that they were not in possession of any such evidence. Ask yourself for another example of

a prescription drug on the United States market (30 plus years) for which no FDA Application has everbeen submitted.When pressured as to why he did not remove the drops and tablets from the market Frank R. Fazzari,

Chief of Prescription Drug Compliance reportedly expressed concern for his position and recommendedAssemblyman Kelly sue him in order to have a Federal Judge make him comply with congressional law. The new Food and Drug required warning should provide some clarification as to the safety of fluoride.The FDA now requires all toothpaste containing fluoride to have the following warning attached,

"WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. In case of accidental ingestion, seek

professional assistance or contact a Poison Control Center immediately." The amount to be used inbrushing is a pea sized amount or about 1 milligram. One liter of water in a fluoridated community will

contain one milligram.


11/12

Tooth Decay Costs SavingsAll of the recent large scale studies have found no relationship to tooth decay and water fluoride levels.Earlier studies that are often cited by fluoridation promoters are transparently flawed. The examiners were

not standardized or blinded. There are no randomized controlled blinded studies of animals or humans

that have ever found a reduction in decay from ingesting fluoride. On the contrary, all of the recent large-scale studies have failed to show any significant reduction. Studies of fluoride have confirmed that the effect it has on tooth decay reduction is not systemic. The

effect is not produced by swallowing the toxic substance, but is in fact a topical effect upon the bacteria

that live in the mouth and cause tooth decay. It poisons them. The design of the experiment leaves littledoubt -as to the results. Cavity-prone rats were given fluoride in two ways. One group got fluoride in themouth from a time release tablet bonded to the outer surface of the tooth. The other group got the same

amount administered in a slow pump under the skin. The oral dose of fluoride produced some reduction in

decay over controls, but the systemic exposure did not reduce tooth decay at all. However, the poisonousnature of fluoride does not change when ingested.Animals fed sugar-water and fluoride fare no better in terms of tooth decay than animals fed sugar-wateralone. Human tooth decay is linked to diet, sugar intake, tooth brushing technique, hours of sunlight,

parental education, and family income. These variables must be considered in order to produce accurateresults.In the largest study of tooth decay in America, there was no significant difference in the decay rates of

39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in that 84city study. The decayed missing or filled rate in non-fluoridated Los Angeles was not significantly differentthan fluoridated San Francisco. In fact, the lowest decay rate was found in non-fluoridated Buhler, KS. Comparing the State of California 1994 non-weighted dental costs for the 14 largest counties reveals thatcounties 90% fluoridated spent on average $121.93 per eligible recipient for treatment of tooth decay,and counties with less than 10% fluoridation spent only $118.33 per eligible recipient.

Weighted 1995 California per Eligible Welfare Recipient Dental CostsCA Counties 90 -100 % Fluoridated $125.27

CA Counties 0.5- 10% Fluoridated $107.26With less than 17% of the state fluoridated, California children have fewer cavities than the nation as awhole. Where is the alleged proof of safety and effectiveness? Why are the costs of dental care higher influoridated areas?This public health fraud will result only in increased misery-- kidney disease, hip fractures, cancers and

even death to its many unfortunate victims. Not only will fluoridation not reduce the dental care costs, itwill exponentially increase the fluorotic damage to underprivileged children.Sincerely,David C. Kennedy, D.D.S.DCK/hsEnclosed: Fluoride Fact SheetAmerica OverdosedP.S. The attached Fluoride Fact sheet has the scientific documentation to back up each of the 6 proveneffects of fluoride.Upon request the actual studies to support each statement will be happily provided.


12/12

References

[1] Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, National Research Council, pg 37, (1993)

[2] D. Christopher Clark. DDS, MPH Appropriate use of fluorides for children: guidelines from the CanadianWorkshop on the Evaluation of Current Recommendations Concerning Fluorides. J. Canadian Medical

Association Vol. 149 #12 (1993)[3] J.M. ten Cate & J. D.B. Featherstone Mechanistic Aspects of the Interactions Between Fluoride andDental Enamel Critical Reviews in Oral Biology and Medicine 2(2.):283-296 (1991)

[4] J. D. Featherstone. The Mechanism of Dental Decay Nutrition Today May 1987

[5] Riggs BL, Hodson SF, O'fallon WM, et al. Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. NEJM 1990: 322:802-809[6] References for Fact #6

[7] Marcus Memo May 1 1990 (enclosed)[8] Letter dated July 2, 1997 to Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (enclosed)1) Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Miles TP. Brody JA, et al. Regional variation in the incidence ofhip fractures: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. JAMA Vol. 264, pp. 500-502 (1990)2) Cooper C, Wickham CAC, Barker DJR, and Jacobsen SJ. Water fluoridation and hip

fracture (letter]. JAMA Vol. 266. pp. 513-514, 19913) Danielson C, Lyon IL, Egger M, and Goodenough GK. Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah's elderlypopulation. JAMA Vol. 268, pp. 746-748 (1992)

4) journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 273, pp. 775-776 (1995)

5) Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Cooper C, and Lockwood SA. The association between water fluoridation andhip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: A national ecologic study. Ann

Epidemiol 1992: 2:617-226

6) Sowers MFR. Clark MK, Jannausch ML and Wallce RB. A prospective study of bone mineral content andfracture in communities with differential fluoride exposure. Am J Epidemiol 1991:133:649-607) Keller C. Fluorides in Drinking Water. Paper presented at the Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride

influence on Hip Fractures and Bone Health. April 10, 1991 1, Bethesda, Md.

8) May, DS and Wilson MG. Hip fractures in relation to water fluoridation: an ecologic analysis. Presentedat the Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fractures and Bone Health. April 10, 1991,Bethesda, Md.

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	case-against-fluoride
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Kennedy, DDS Presentations to Officials

Documents