Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
575
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

575 Views
Message 1301 of 1,425

Invoking “religion” again, I see, Bill.  I fail to understand the constant attempt of antifluoridationists to mingle religion into water fluoridation, however, to each his own, I guess.

 

1.  Your personal opinion of what constitutes “unprofessional and unscientific” is obviously irrelevant and meaningless.

 

2.  Again, as I have clearly demonstrated, the cost savings and safety of water fluoridation are without question.  Constant  attempts by antifluoridationists to create “controversy” and “question” with unsubstantiated claims, false assertions, misrepresented science, and misinformation, does not constitute “good scientists”.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
575
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
573
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

573 Views
Message 1302 of 1,425

Stop your childish whining, Bill.  Attempting to divert attention from exposure of your false claims and misinformation, with groundless, kindergarten complaints of “bullying” is a transparent tactic frequently employed by antifluoridationists who become frustrated with the facts and evidence, having nothing with which to counter them.  Now, please refrain from such tactics and stay with facts and evidence you can provide.

 

1.  “Stick with” whatever you please.  You asked for scientific evidence to support my claim that a zero level of arsenic is undesirable.  I provided it.  Live with it.

 

2.  Fear-mongering about arsenic is yet another diversionary tactic which has no merit.  The amount of arsenic in water at the tap which has been fluoridated with HFA is not even detectable unless 10 times the manufacturer’s recommended single use amount of HFA is utilized in order to get some sort of reading. 

 

Neither arsenic, nor any other contaminant in fluoridated water at the tap is in an amount to be of any concern, whatsoever.

 

http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals

 

3.  Yes, as I have been stating, your constant speculation and unsubstantiated personal opinions are valid evidence of nothing.    At some point you need to understand that science is evidence-based, not Bill Omunson personal opinion-based.

 

4.  The precautionary principle applies when there is no scientific consensus of the safety of an initiative.  Water fluoridation has been in effect for 73 years, hundreds of millions having ingested optimally fluoridated water during this time, with no proven adverse effects.  The public health benefits of fluoridation are publicly recognized by the US CDC, the US National Academy of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world.  There is not one credible organization in the world which opposes fluoridation. Clearly there is scientific consensus of the safety of this initiative.

 

Obviously, the precautionary principle does not apply to fluoridation.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
573
Views
Highlighted
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
580
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

580 Views
Message 1303 of 1,425

Bill

 

1.  Apparently unbeknownst to you, the cause and preventive factors involved in dental decay are myriad.  Attempts to assess the overall and cost-effectiveness of but one preventive measure, fluoridation, based on nothing but comparison of raw data on dental decay incidence which controls for none of the myriad other variables involved in this process....is obviously ludicrous.

 

2.  Your obsession with RCTs is indeed bizarre, however, as  I have explained previously, randomized controlled trials are not necessary to assess the effectiveness of broad public health initiatives such as water fluoridation.  

 

Your unsubstantiated personal opinion of what constitutes valid evidence of cost-savings, is unqualified and irrelevant.

 

Peer-reviewed science demonstrating cost-effectiveness:

 

a.  “On the basis of the most current data available on the effectiveness and cost of fluoridation, caries increment, and the cost and longevity of dental restorations, we find that water fluoridation offers significant cost savings.”

 

J Public Health Dent. 2001 Spring;61(2):78-86.

An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation.

Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL.

 

b.  “These results clearly indicate that there is an association between

adequacy of water fluoridation and hospitalization due to dental infections
among children and adolescents. This effect is more prominent in populations of
lower socioeconomic status.”

 

Hospitalizations for dental infections
Optimally versus nonoptimally fluoridated areas in Israel

Amir Klivitsky, MD; Diana Tasher, MD;
Michal Stein, MD; Etan Gavron, BSc;
Eli Somekh, MD

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2015.01.014

 

c.  “Compared with the predominantly fluoridated counties, the mean number of restorative, endodontic, and extraction procedures per recipient was 33.4% higher in less fluoridated counties. The mean number of claims per child for caries-related services was inversely correlated with the extent of fluoridation in a county (Spearman's correlation coefficient = -0.54, p < 0.0001), but claims for non-caries related services were not.”

 

Kumar J.V., Adekugbe O., Melnik T.A., “Geographic Variation in Medicaid Claims for Dental Procedures in New York State: Role of Fluoridation Under Contemporary Conditions,”

Public Health Reports, (September-October 2010) Vol. 125, No. 5, 647-54.

 

d.  “We estimated that Colorado CWFPs [community Water Fluoridation Programs] were associated with annual savings of $148.9 million (credible range, $115.1 million to $187.2 million) in 2003, or an average of $60.78 per person (credible range, $46.97 to $76.41).”

 

Brunson D, O’Connell JM, Anselmo T, Sullivan PW. Costs and Savings Associated With Community Water Fluoridation Programs in Colorado. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2005;2(Spec No):A06.

 

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
580
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
577
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

577 Views
Message 1304 of 1,425

Steve,

 

I would like to look at some research which is powerful questioning support of fluoride ingestion.  The Figure 1 reproduced from the CDC Oral Health Division web page is an example of cherry picked evidence.  In dental school I was shown the early renditions which were used to convince me fluoridation caused caries to decline.  

Evidence settled, some might say.  However, look and think about the evidence.  Caries declined from 4 DMFT to just over 1 DMFT.  Very impressive, 75% reduction in caries.  The graph seems to claim the huge decrease resulted from an increase in about 17% of the ENTIRE USA population fluoridated.   Not possible.  Even a halo from heaven could not do that.  Fluoride would have to have been targeted on the 17% of the population most at risk, not randomly added to public water in various cities.  The CDC knows their evidence is bogus, an exageration and simply cherry picked science.  But they persist in telling lies.

00001.jpgCDC Web Page 2017

Now lets look at a longer time frame as presented in the graph below which includes the CDC timeline with the same decline.  However, a longer timeline helps put perspective on fluoridation.  Caries declined from over 11 cavities for a 12 year old in 1930, to about half by the time fluoridation became significant.  

 

What cause the huge decline in caries prior to fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste?   Please answer Steve?   

 

Once you know what caused the decline, based on research, then explain how that huge caries crushing cause all of a sudden stopped when fluoridation started and the credit for caries reduction can be given to fluoridation.

 

Any benefit from fluoridation, based on the population at large is simply pipe smoke speculation and assumptions.  

 

Yes, two events happened but the evidence does not show common cause.  Any study comparing two groups may simply be comparing the random decline which we could say is a natural ebb and flow of all diseases.   

 

00001.jpgColquhoun 1997 ISFRAnd please, stick to the evidence.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
577
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
574
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

574 Views
Message 1305 of 1,425

"Nations who are using fluoridation should feel ashamed.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson 

 

July 1, 2018 New York Times Obituary:

Arvid Carlsson, Who Discovered a Treatment for Parkinson’s, Dies at 95

Dr. Arvid Carlsson, a Swedish scientist whose discoveries about the brain led to the development of drugs for Parkinson’s disease and earned him a Nobel Prize, died on Friday. He was 95...... 

 

... Dr. Carlsson was an outspoken critic of fluoridating water supplies to prevent cavities. He said that fluoride produces side effects, such as mottled teeth, and that fluoridation was contrary to the principles of modern pharmacology because there was no way to regulate the amount of fluoride individuals received. He argued that individualized preventive care was a better approach.

 

Note: Dr. Carlsson was a world-renowned scientist who specialized in neurodegenerative diseases that primarily affect senior citizens. He was one of thousands of scientists who oppose fluoridation based on evidence of harm. His country of Sweden, like most of Europe & the world, is unfluoridated because of his integrity & courage

 

 

 

 
 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
574
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
576
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

576 Views
Message 1306 of 1,425

Steve,

 

Your response to CarryAnne does not really make "judgment" sense.

 

You say skeletal fluorosis is "not a conern."  

 

Yet provide research saying skeletal fluorosis in the USA is "extremely rare."

 

I consider rare cases of disease still a concern.  Many diseases are extremely rare and a serious concern for the person with the disease.

 

I agree overt severe crippling skeletal fluorosis is extremely rare.   Early cases are difficult to diagnose because they resemble arthritis like symptoms.   Science has much to learn.  With huge increases in dental fluorosis, I am concerned for skeletal fluorosis.

 

The lack of benefit and lack of cost effectiveness of adding more fluoride to the diet is a serious concern.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
576
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
553
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

553 Views
Message 1307 of 1,425

Last year, the European Union adopted a regulation banning amalgam use for children under age 15, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers beginning 1 July 2018.  Now that day is here!  

 

The amalgam manufacturer had a warning on its label with essentially the same warning 20 years ago.  

 

Steve,  scientists are more and more concerned about the mercury coming off of fillings and harming people.  You have suggested fluoride ingestion evidence is "settled" and many thought the same for amalgams.  But we are learning more and obviously the evidence on both is not settled.

 

Camping on speculation is risky.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
553
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
449
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

449 Views
Message 1308 of 1,425

Some good scientists on fluoridation policy which should be of special interest to seniors

 

Expert in Risk Assessment: “One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” -  Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Committee panelist (2017)

 

Expert in Medical Chemistry: “Community water fluoridation is a malignant medical myth!”  - Professor Joel Kauffman, chemistry innovator and multi-patent holder (2006)

 

Expert in Environmental Toxins: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water. These new insights raise concerns that the prenatal period may be highly vulnerable and may require additional reconsideration," - Dr. Leonardo Trasande MD, New York University Langone Health on 2017 NIH sponsored longitudinal study on IQ and prenatal exposure to fluoride by Bashash et al. (2017)

 

Expert in Chemical Analysis of Water: “Fluoride has a very short life in blood, is quickly sequestered in bones and excreted through the urine. This is a biological clue that the body regards fluoride as highly dangerous.”  - Susan Kanen, biochemist formerly with Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Aqueduct, water treatment plant for Washington, DC, whistleblower on lead in drinking water (2016)

 

Expert in Medical Journalism: “In large measure, those marred by dementia are showing the results of toxicity from mercury, aluminum, lead, cadmium, arsenic and other heavy metals. Their neurons have been poisoned. They are turned into Alzheimer’s victims directly through the efforts of dentists who blindly follow the party line of their trade union organization, the ADA.” - Dr. Morton Walker, DPM (1994)

 

Expert in biochemistry with a particular interest in toxicology: “When I tried to raise the issue with the Australian Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and in integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers….” - Dr.  Andrew Harms, BDS, former fluoridation promoter and former President of the South Australian division of the Australian Dental Association (2013)

 

And excerpts from recent studies.

Quotes2017.jpgStudy Excerpts

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
449
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
448
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

448 Views
Message 1309 of 1,425

Steve, 

 

Please cut the derogatory comments.  Attacking the messanger rather than the message is a bully tactic used by Trump.  Or did you go to the University of Trump to learn how to be a bully?  If so, you must have a PhD in bully.

 

Speculation arsenic is an essential nutrient.  As long as you agree the quality of speculation evidence is just speculation, lets go more to the facts on fluoride and not speculate.  Don't get me wrong, speculation can lead to some great inovation, but speculation is not a strong scientific reason to eat arsenic.

 

I'll stick with EPA's "zero MCLG" until the evidence is stronger than speculation.     

 

And even if someday a physiologic function for arsenic is found, the beneficial and harmful dosage will need to be determined.   A great deal more research on arsenic needs to be done.

 

SPECULATION:  The need for fluoridation is stronger than the need for arsenic in the diet.  However, the same flawed logic that arsenic is essential is used to claim fluoride is essential.  

 

Speculation is low quality evidence, along with conspiracy theories.  I reject both and so should you.  

 

For efficacy, stick with RCT studies like the FDA does.

 

For risk, the precautionary principle and freedom of choice MUST be seriously considered.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
448
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
466
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

466 Views
Message 1310 of 1,425

There are no flaws in my posts, as evidenced by your inability to to provide any valid evidence to demonstrate any such “flaws”.  Your unsubstantiated personal opinion obviously does not qualify as such.

 

The EPA, as a matter of policy, sets the MCLG at zero for substances  which can be carcinogenic, regardless the level at which carcinogenicity may occur.  Arsenic at high levels can be carcinogenic.  

 

In regard to the undesirability of a zero level of arsenic:

 

“Definition of specific biochemical functions in higher animals (including humans) for the ultratrace elements boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic still has not been achieved although all of these elements have been described as being essential nutrients. Recently, many new findings from studies using molecular biology techniques, sophisticated equipment, unusual organisms, and newly defined enzymes have revealed possible sites of essential action for these five elements.”

 

—Nutritional requirements for boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic: current knowledge and speculation.

 Nielsen FH.

FASEB J. 1991 Sep;5(12):2661-7

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
466
Views