Slott’s continued shilling for the AFS


Steven D. Slott, DDS, is ‘Information Director’ (LOL!) for the American Fluoridation Society, a notorious pro-fluoridation extremist group. His latest attempt to discredit anti-fluoridation arguments and concerns – via a letter in the Portland Press Herald – parrots the usual garbage. Let’s have a closer look at Slott’s letter:

Slott: “This is a health care issue, not one of water treatment.”

Well Mr. Slott, if that is so, then apply the principle of informed consent to treatment. You can’t ethically force people to be exposed to a treatment who may not want that treatment. Surely they taught you this in dental school? Slott is correct, however, that fluoridation is not a water treatment measure – it is most definitely a systemic human treatment and is not put in place to treat water in the normal sense.

“Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment. All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do” (1).

Slott: “The “mounting body of evidence” of adverse effects is a common argument of fluoridation opponents. It has no support in credible, peer-reviewed science. When challenged to produce such evidence, opponents invariably cannot do so.”

Actually, opponents make extensive reference to the scientific literature (2) (3).

Slott: “Optimal-level fluoride is no more neurotoxic than are any of these substances at proper use levels.”

Mr. Slott talks about “proper use levels,” which is absurd when one considers that once fluoridation chemicals are added to drinking water, they are consumed at uncontrolled and unmonitored levels (see: concentration vs. dose) and also contaminate an extensive variety of products (4) (5). Furthermore, the NRC has recommend that, “analysis of fluoride in blood and urine samples” be conducted to make up for the current lack of population-wide biomonitoring.

So for Mr. Slott to spout garbage phrases like “proper use levels,” is highly irresponsible and dishonest, especially given that, “we know that fluoride interferes with many other biochemical molecules and processes in addition to interfering with enzymes” (6), and “in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses” (7). A margin of safety therefore cannot be established with certainty.

Slott: “As stated by Dr. John Doull, toxicologist and chair of the 2006 National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water: “I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level.”

It is interesting that Mr. Slott fails to mention another quote from Dr. John Doull, which paints a different picture:

“What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant” (8).

In summary: Nice try, Slott. But we are onto you, mate.


Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

37 thoughts on “Slott’s continued shilling for the AFS

  1. Pingback: Ken requests more information on thyroid |

  2. When people resort to calling their discussion partners “psychopaths and sociopaths” and childishly making fun of their names then this just shows the weakness of their arguments.

    Mind you, just loom back on the comments and you can see why they resort to such childish diversions.

  3. The slott machine was put in its place in the 2013 vote in Portland, Oregon. The people of Portland were obviously not impressed by the forced-fluoridation shills because they voted against 61% to 39%, despite big spending by the fluoridationists on advertising and bribery. That hasn’t stopped the slott machine from continuing to spit out lies, though. You won’t find anything more close minded or dishonest anywhere. For example, after being told many times by the slott machine about his very low opinion of the Fluoride Action Network and its website, I asked it if it had ever actually visited the Fluoride Action Network website. The answer was no it hadn’t, because it already knew what it would find there. That sums up the fluoridationist psychopaths’ attitude to knowledge. They think they already know everything, when in reality they know nothing.

    It’s ironic that the slott machine refers to challenging fluoridation opponents to produce evidence, because I have challenged the slott machine and many other fluoridationist freaks many, many times to cite a single good quality original research study which indicates that taking fluoride in water is anything but harmful and useless, and they can never come up with anything. Fluoridationists are the world’s ultimate hypocrites. The slott machine is also a big fan of mercury fillings, by the way. Maybe excessive mercury exposure explains its insanity.

    TABLE 1: Hæmodialysis Risks associated with Water Contamination; my comment: we should all be getting safe water.

    The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for safe water pre-treatment for patients receiving hæmodialysis therapy. This includes the design, operation and maintenance for water pre-treatment systems.
    Appropriate water quality is one of the most important aspects of ensuring safe and effective delivery of haemodialysis. Haemodialysis may expose the patient to more than 300 lt of water per week across the semipermeable membrane of the haemodialyser. Healthy individuals seldom have a weekly oral intake of water above 12 lt. The near 30 times increase in water exposure to dialysis patients requires control and monitoring of water quality to avoid excesses of known or suspected harmful elements being carried in the water and transmitted to the patient.
    The water to be used for the preparation of haemodialysis fluids needs treatment to achieve the appropriate quality. The water treatment is provided by a water pre-treatment system which may include various components such as sediment filters, water softeners, carbon tanks, micro-filters, ultraviolet disinfection units, reverse osmosis units, ultrafilters and storage tanks. The components of the system will be determined by the quality of feed water and the ability of the overall system to produce and maintain appropriate water quality.
    Failure to ensure adequate water quality may have dire consequences to patient safety and welfare.
    Patients undergoing haemodialysis may show signs and symptoms caused by water contamination, which can lead to patient injury or death. Some of the important possible signs and symptoms due to water contamination are listed below in Table 1.
    TABLE 1: Hæmodialysis Risks associated with Water Contamination1
    Symptoms Possible Water Contaminants
    Anaemia Aluminium, chloramine, copper, zinc
    Bone Disease Aluminium, fluoride
    Hæmolysis Copper, nitrates, chloramine
    Hypertension Calcium, sodium
    Hypotension Bacteria, endotoxin, nitrates
    Metabolic acidosis Low pH, sulfates
    Muscle weakness Calcium, magnesium
    Neurological deterioration Aluminium
    Nausea and vomiting Bacteria, calcium, copper, endotoxin, low pH,
    magnesium, nitrates, sulfates, zinc
    Death Aluminium, fluoride, endotoxin, bacteria, chloramine
    The guidelines in this document are based on the AAMI standards, as the minimum acceptable
    standard for the pre-treatment of water for hæmodialysis.
    Use of more rigorous standards is acceptable for systems in NSW – and is strongly recommended.

    NOTE: They again have since /changed removed this link of this information from their website (are they not wanting the public to see this truth of how dangerous fluoride/aluminium etc. is? ) but I kept the complete document on just how dangerous fluoride/aluminium etc are.,%20A%20Set%20of%20Guidelines.pdf

    See Fluoride Action Network

    Drinking, eating & bathing in hazardous waste aka water fluoridation
    Hydrofluoric Acid – Acutely toxic chemical

    These water fluoridation chemicals are potent neurotoxins (and carcinogens)

    Violence & Crime -Silicoflorides/Water Fluoridation Chemicals – Neurotoxicity
    More >

  5. The last quote from Dr Doull has a link to the anti fluoride website 8 That is hardly a source. Can you provide the source paper please

    • It is a quote from the article “Second Thoughts About Fluoride,” published in Scientific American by award winning investigative journalist, Dan Fagin who is also a New York University science journalist professor

      • But can you give the original source so we can check the context and full argument?

        We are so used to antifluoridationists misrepresenting the science and scientists it is only natural to ask for the context. If you can not provide it then you are asking us to accept a cherry-picked out of context quote.

        Then that is what antifluoridationists do all the time.

        • As we’ve all told you, numerous times, the original source is Sci Am. 2008 Jan;298(1):74-81. You know the article title. You know the author. You even have a link to the full text article, which we provided. Now stop squirming. You’re just embarrassing yourself.

          • That is the source of the quote – selected by the author of the article, not by Doull. It is out of context. I am simply attempting to find the original article by Doull. Perfectly normal for a scientific enquiry.

            Out of context and unreferenced quotes are of little value and can be misleading.

            But, obviously no one here is aware of the original article or statement by Doull – nor really interested. My search only finds the quote being used by anti-fluoridationists – no indication of its original use. It’s almost as if it was never written by Doull.

            • Dan Fagin is a highly respected, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist ( ). Are you actually suggesting that he took Doull out of context in an article published in Scientific American? If Doull was taken out of context maliciously, he would have been the first to protest.

            • Ken, surely you are aware that journalists interview people. If you can’t find a source for the Doull quote, it probably means he was interviewed by the journalist, Dan Fagin, and Fagin then quoted Doull within the Scientific American article. The fact you can only find the quote in this context simply means that the SciAm article IS THE SOURCE. Duh.

              Regardless, you obviously have no interest in REALLY getting to the bottom of the quote, because if you did, you would write to Dan Fagin and request the context of the quote from him. His public email address is: — go for it. But you won’t, because you are simply here to put up red herrings and waste time.

              • Yes, I am aware that journalists interview people – although in this case, nothing was said about an interview.

                The article remains the source of Fagin’s quotation of Doull – and I do not think there is anything else. And this is a general problem with popular articles like this – they are unreliable.

                I think we have established that no one here has a better source – that satisfies my query. I usually am on top of the literature on this subject so probably would have been aware of any better source anyway. But it doesn’t harm to check.

                No, I do not think it worth making deeper inquiries. I don’t think there is an article to hunt down.

                But, boy, are you guys sensitive. One makes a simple query and gets called a psychopath and sociopath and get’s one’s name treated childishly.

                Hilarious. 🙂

    • Dan Fagin “Second thoughts about fluoride”. Scientific American January 2008, 74–81. This verbatim quote from Doull is on page 80. On the same page Doull is also quoted: “The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored.”

    • The source is provided within the link we provided. You could have clicked on it, if you looked more closely. But as Henry said, the source is “Second thoughts about fluoride”. Scientific American January 2008, 74–81.

      • This is not a source paper, as requested. It is an unattributed quote in a media article – without context or explanation.

        Can you provide a link to the original source so that the essence of Doull’s quotes can be determined?

        Unfortunately. anti-fluoride propagandists are well known for distorting the meaning of such quotes. And they do tend to hide behind such unattributed quotes.

        • Ken, you’re funny. The quote appeared in Sci Am. 2008 Jan;298(1):74-81. The author was Dan Fagin. If you want to nitpick about the quote and context, why don’t you just contact Mr. Fagin and bitch to him about it. If that’s too difficult for you, then here is a point-by-point summary so you can take things in baby steps.

        • Ken appears confused. Chris asked for the source. The quotes are not, as Ken claims, unattributed but are verbatim statements of personal opinion unequivocally attributed to John Doull. They are put in context by the interviewer Dan Fagin, a well respected environmental science journalist ( and published in Scientific American. As opinions they are neither abstruse nor particularly controversial, but if Ken wants their “essence” explained to him he probably needs to read the 1985 report of the NRC Committee that Doull chaired.

          It’s not surprising if fluoridation opponents quote Doull’s remarks. He’s a toxicologist of repute and they’d be stupid not to.

          Slott also quotes Doull for his own opposite purposes in his letter to Portland Press Herald, but without any source or authentication at all. Anyone know where that comes from?

          • AFA Matilda – yes, of course, I could contact Fagin – just checking if you already had an article from which the quote was taken. My point about unreferenced quotes still stands – in this case you have attempted to reference points in your post (to be recommended) but could not produce primary references for Doull’s statements. I had suspected this to be the case – so am not surprised. I am afraid that I am not convinced by secondary references like this.

            Henry, perhaps you are the one confused. It is normal to use referenced quotes as attribution in scientific articles and more credible journalism.

            Yes, I have read the NRC 2006 (not 2005) report (NRC [2006]. Fluoride in drinking water. A scientific review of EPA’s standards). This found that the only relevant problem for fluoride in drinking water at the considered level was dental fluorosis – and hence the recommendation to lower the recommended maximum level (natural) from 4 mg/litre to 2 mg/litre. Please note that the recommended level for community water fluoridation in the US is 0.75 mg/litre.

            I agree Doull’s comment was hardly controversial or very relevant. But was simply wanting to know the context and possible expansion of his comment in the article from which it was taken.

            But, crikey, you guys are sensitive. I must have touched a sensitive point. 🙂

            • Ken is demonstrating yet again that he is a braindead parrot who can’t even parrot properly. He claims to have read the 2006 NRC report, which I actually have read, but can’t even get the conclusions correct. The fact that a fluoride concentration of 4 mg/L in drinking water results in skeletal fluorosis, not just dental fluorosis, was also given as a reason for lowering the maximum contaminant level goal (there is no such thing as a “recommended maximum level”). Other potential adverse health effects were also mentioned in the context of lowering the MCLG. There was no recommendation to lower the MCLG to 2 mg/L or any other particular level, because the committee which produced the report had no authorisation to make any such recommendation. That is the job of the US EPA, and after more than 10 years it has still not acted because it is corrupt. 2 mg/L is the secondary maximum contaminant level for fluoride in drinking water in the US, and relates to the cosmetic effect of dental fluorosis. It has nothing to do with the maximum contaminant level goal. The current officially recommended level for artificial water fluoridation in the US is 0.7 mg/L, not 0.75 mg/L, which was recently changed from a range of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L, with the most common level being 1.0 mg/L. Crikey, fluoridationists are stupid.

              • Dan, from the NRC findings and recommendations in their report:

                “Maximum-Contaminant-Level Goal
                In light of the collective evidence on various health end points and
                total exposure to fluoride, the committee concludes that EPA’s MCLG of 4
                mg/L should be lowered. Lowering the MCLG will prevent children from
                developing severe enamel fluorosis and will reduce the lifetime accumulation
                of fluoride into bone that the majority of the committee concluded is likely
                to put individuals at increased risk of bone fracture and possibly skeletal
                fluorosis, which are particular concerns for subpopulations that are prone
                to accumulating fluoride in their bone.”


                “Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
                The prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is very low (near zero) at fluoride
                concentrations below 2 mg/L. However, from a cosmetic standpoint,
                the SMCL does not completely prevent the occurrence of moderate enamel
                fluorosis. EPA has indicated that the SMCL was intended to reduce the severity
                and occurrence of the condition to 15% or less of the exposed population.
                The available data indicates that fewer than 15% of children would
                experience moderate enamel fluorosis of aesthetic concern (discoloration of
                the front teeth). However, the degree to which moderate enamel fluorosis
                might go beyond a cosmetic effect to create an adverse psychological effect
                or an adverse effect on social functioning is not known.”

                This figure from the report is pretty convincing regarding dental fluorosis of cosmetic concern –

                And, again, crikey. What a fuss over 0.75 – 0.7 = 0.0r mg/litre. In reality, control is not that precise.

                it is telling that despite all the speculative research considered the criteria were set on the basis of dental fluorosis (and yes the risk of skeletal fluorosis) – not IQ, thyroid problems, or any of the other issues considered. The lack of any reliable information indicating these other possible health effects meant no findings or recommendations could be made – except for further research.

                I must note that despite the inevitable abuse from you, this comment of yours was remarkably polite. 🙂

                Don’t say you are mellowing in your old age.

                • As usual, Ken has not successfully countered anything. Here is a quote from the 2006 NRC report.

                  p 8 “To develop an MCLG that is protective against severe enamel fluorosis, clinical stage II skeletal fluorosis, and bone fractures, EPA should update the risk assessment of fluoride to include new data on health risks and better estimates of total exposure (relative source contribution) for individuals. EPA should use current approaches for quantifying risk, considering susceptible subpopulations, and characterising uncertainties and variability.”

                  It isn’t difficult to find more quotes from the report which blow the fluoridationist psychopaths’ lies about it, and about the supposed safety of forced-fluoridation, out of the water.

                  • Yes, there is not doubt, Dan. These people continually prove themselves to be psychopaths and sociopaths. I love how they squirm when we expose them for what they are.

                    • Yes for sure, they are indeed psychopaths and sociopaths. Sadly the world is run by these kind!

                      It is interesting to note, that they also don’t like health conscious & informed people, who oppose forced vaccinations!

                      It is obvious that these criminals & lunatics, are promoting ‘Corporate Interests’, that’s for sure!

            • “AFA Matilda” LOL nice one, “Mr. Parrot.” You’re a funny guy.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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