Getty Images and AARP present the Disrupt Aging Collection, a searchable photo collection that redefines what it means to get older. Take a look.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
666
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

666 Views
Message 1301 of 1,448

Johnny Johnson,

 

You said, "as optimally fluoridated water has never been indicated as a cause of allergic dermatitis."  The word "never" is not a word which is used very often in science, and then it is a red flag.

 

Yes, there are some people who are chemically sensitive who develop a rash taking a shower or bath in fluoridated water.  I know of three.  

 

The cases are rather interesting.  One keeps moving when fluoridation is started in her community.

 

Another has a child who develops allergic dermatitis.  The teenager is in sports and they travel to different communities and stay in hotels.  Mom has made it a habit to look at her teenager's skin after a shower.   Whether or not there is a rash, mom calls the water department to confirm the hotel is or is not getting fluoridated water.  So far the results have been consistent.  No rash with no fluoridated water and a rash with floridated water.  

 

More common is a rash from topical use.  I do have patients who have been advised not to use fluoride toothpaste and their rashes have stopped.  

 

Perhaps more common than we know, but we must be careful in science when someone uses the word "never."   

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
666
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
677
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

677 Views
Message 1302 of 1,448

Steve,

 

Before you start calling me dishonest, please read what I have written.  I carefully said the "data" is from Iida.  We all make mistakes, but you are not reading things carefully and then disparage me publicly.  Slander is not professional.  Stick with the message, not the messanger.

 

  K Thiessen compiled the graph of data from Iida and my memory is Iida got the data from the 2000 NHANES.

 

You say the study is misrepresented, but again you misread my post.  I am not representing the study, I am representing the data from the study.  Just because Iida et al and reviewers and editor chose to spin the data to promote fluoridation, and omit the problems the data presents, is not the point of the discussion.

 

The point of the data is that most of us agree that with an increase in fluoride water concentration, indeed we see an increase in dental fluorosis.  If you dispute that fact, please provide your evidence.

 

The second point is that dental caries does not appreciably change regardless of fluoride concentration in water within those ranges unless a gee whiz graph is made.  If you dispute the NHANES data or Iida data, please explain.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
677
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
680
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

680 Views
Message 1303 of 1,448

 Fluoride is capable of producing any number of symptoms. They include drowsiness, profound desire to sleep, dizziness, nasal congestion, sneezing, runny nose, sore throat, coughing, wheezing (asthma), chest pain, hives, and various intestinal symptoms. Most of the information concerning specific reactions to fluoride, as seen in private practice, never reach publication.” - Hobart Feldman, MD, American Board of Allergy and Immunology (1979)

 

How dare you! You are crossing a whole other line in offering me off the cuff medical advice and  diagnosis without a consultation that derisively dismisses me on a public forum, JJ.  

 

My children and I did see allergists and other MDs. Our rashes were diagnosed as eczema, psoriasis, allergic urticaria odd 'lesions' in allergic hive variety, IBS, etc. and I was advised by my doctors to only consume spring or filtered water because 'some people are sensitive to the chemicals in the water.' Also, to watch my diet in order to avoid things that set me off.  Everything set me off, because water is in everything.  15% of the population is like my family, misdiagnosed & dismisssed. 

 

At least a couple of those doctors were deceptive  - they knew. Their choice of language and odd treatment gave them away, although it took me a long time to figure it all out. The literature as you well know documents rashes including the odd lesions as a very distintive type of hive specific to fluoride sensitivity that a minority of women and children get in the preclinical stage of fluoride poisoning called Chizzola maculae - a symptom that the fluoridation lobby has successfully succeeded in hiding from most medical practioners. 

 

CHECKLISTS

1978: http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/flier_waldbott_symptoms_ftgd.pdf

2015: 

http://fluorideandfluorosis.com/Reprints/pdf/IJPP%2017(2)%202015.pdf 

 

20th Century Science: 

Feltman R. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - A Progress Report. Dental Digest. August 1956. pp 353-357. 

 

Feltman R,  Kosel G. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report. R Journal of Dental Medicine. October 1961; 16(4):190-198. 

 

Fluoride dentrifice and stomatitis. Douglas TE. Northwest Medicine. Sept 1957, 56:1037-1039. 

 

Waldbott GL, Zacks MN. Blood Clotting in Patients with Chizzola Maculae. Fluoride. 1977; Vol.10, No. 1.  

 

G. L. Waldbott & V. A. Cecilioni (1969) “Neighborhood” Fluorosis, Clinical Toxicology, 2:4, 387-396,

 

Allergy to Fluoride. Shea JJ,  Gillespie SM, Waldbott GL. Annals of Allergy, Volume 25, July, 1967. 

 

Spittle B. (1993) “Allergy and Hypersensitivity to Fluoride.” Fluoride. Volume 26. 

 

Gibson S. (1999) “Effects of fluoride on immune system function.” Complementary Medical Research. Vol 6: 111-113.

 

Case Studies

http://www.fluoridation.com/waldbot.htm 

 

21st Century Science 

See database for recent science tagged by topic: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/ 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (3)
2
Kudos
680
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
668
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

668 Views
Message 1304 of 1,448

Fluoridation promoters argue that it does not matter that dental fluorosis increases in incidence in every city that fluoridates its people and that there are no exceptions.  Their idea is that white spots are not pathologic.  But fluorosis is properly named because it is an abnormal condition of deficient enamel layered at the fluorosed location. A surface cut which eventually heals is still labeled a pathologic trauma that requires inflammation to occur to repair. But fluorosis is permanent damage that cannot be repaired and is thus worse than simple pathology. it is a permanent abnormality. Many are affected with reduced employment oportunites because of it. And no one actually goes out and seeks for or desires it because it is an abnormality.

It is downplayed by fluoridiaotnists becuase it is the chief visible outcome of the fluoridation of people that is a recognized side effect. It is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. The Kumar chart is in agreeement with many other studies that show as water fluoride increases, dental fluorosis incidence increaes progressivley while dental caries are not affected outside experimental error (as in Ziegelvecker and by Teotia and others).

Second, although the NRC estimated a half life of bone fluoride at 20 years, note that it is only marrow and otehr soft tissue regions in bone that are able to have fluoride removed upon transfer to fresh clean drinking water. Fluoride removal from compact bone is not a biochemically reversible process. Fluoride is a poisonous insult to bone and has of course no function there.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
668
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
659
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

659 Views
Message 1305 of 1,448

Yes, “Conversationalist”, antifluoridationists constantly do wish fluoridation advocates would cease correcting the  misinformation supporting  the confirmation bias against fluoridation, of these antifluoridationists.  Exposing the misinformation posted by  those such as Osmunson and Spencer, holding them  accountable to provide valid evidence to support their claims, does indeed make it far more difficult for them to impose their personal ideology unto entire populations.  It would be decidedly simpler if they didn’t have to deal with such annoyances as facts and evidence.

 

However, as long as antifluoridationists keep posting their unsubstantiated claims and misinformation here, I, for one, will continue to correct it.  The readers of this forum deserve no less than truth and accuracy.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
659
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
656
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

656 Views
Message 1306 of 1,448

As a senior citizen, member of AARP, and a Pediatric Dentist, you should apologize to those that may still be reading this thread.

 

You are misrepresenting the findings of credibly conducted science.  You are also in need of a definitive diagnosis of your "rash", as optimally fluoridated water has never been indicated as a cause of allergic dermatitis.   You should see a Board Certified Allergist.  You would be an interesting case report in their journal.

 

Additionally, with >3 decades of clinical private practice in pediatric dentistry, your pictures and snippets of articles does not represent in what is seen in practice.  Having seen thousands and thousands of patients over my career, from birth to mid-20's, there has never been one that required treatment for the mild to very mild dental fluorosis that is slightly higher in fluoridated communities than those which aren't.  None has EVER required dental veneers costing thousands of dollars as you state.

 

It is very easy to pull information from the internet and claim that it supports your perspective.  If those reading your posts are clicking on your hyperlinks, they will readily see that many do not apply to community water fluoridation as practiced in the U.S.  Additionally, many are misquoted.

 

Leave this to the dental and medical professionals to discuss.  Writing confusing pieces to mislead my families here is unforgivable.

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit group of medical and dental health professionals formed to disseminate the credible evidence-based science on community water fluoridation

www.americanfluoridationsociety.org

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
656
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
667
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

667 Views
Message 1307 of 1,448

Thank you for your comments.  Please spread the word,

 

TOO MANY ARE INGESTING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE

 

Over a hundred million Americans are ingesting too much fluoride and promoters of fluoridation mistakenly want governments to continue giving us more fluoride without our consent, without an honest review of science, and knowing too much fluoride causes harm.  

 

The graph below based on Iida's data, peer reviewed by the Journal of American Dental Association, 2009, is powerful.  The data is not from the more recent NHANES 2011-2012 survey which reports 60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis.  This older survey reported 40% had dental fluorosis.

 

Iida's data shows an increase in dental fluorosis with increased fluoride concentration in the water.  Remember, when water fluoridation first started, the public was assured maybe 10-15% of the public would get dental fluorosis because such a small amount of fluoride was being added to the water.  In order to get dental fluorosis down to about 15%, the fluoride concentration in the water would need to be less than 0.3 ppm, the natural fluoride concentration for many in the USA.   Without question, increased fluoride exposure causes increased dental fluorosis in the population at large.

 

Iida-page-001.jpg

Now to the second major point in this data.  Note how the caries rate changes with increased fluoride exposure.  The amount of caries decrease is hardly detectable.   Governments are mass medicating (supplementing, administering without consent) the diet of everyone, young, unborn, old, those with kidney problems, those with cancer, those without teeth, everyone, with little or no evidence from this data of benefit.    Those most harmed are the very children promoters are trying to help, the poor.

 

Reasonable people looking at both sides of the fluoridation controversy would stop fluoridation simply because too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  Add the lack of benefit, the cost, the loss of freedom of choice and the known risks and we realize fluoridation is one of public health's greatest blunders.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
667
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
629
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

629 Views
Message 1308 of 1,448

Bill,

 

”change the subject and twist the concepts”?  Hmmmm......your graph and your words, Bill.  All I do is respond to your claims point-by-point. The subject changes are all yours, not mine.   If you are having trouble keeping up with all your claims then perhaps you should consider reducing them to a number which you can manage.

 

1.  Seems that it’s fine with you that FAN “interprets”  NHANES data then claims it to be “what NHANES data shows”, yet when some other entity interprets the data contrary to your desires, you lash out deeming  that to be “cherry-picking”, and making a groundless accusation that the CDC is lying.  Again, there seems to a good bit of confirmation bias occurring on your part

 

3.  Mild dental fluorosis is not pathology.  It is simply a barely detectable cosmetic effect which requires no treatment.  “Diagnosing” a non-existent pathology, then recommending expensive, invasive treatment to the patient for such “pathology” is unethical at the very least.  In addition, given that mildly fluorosed teeth have been demonstrated by peer-reviewed science to be more decay resistant, by performing an unecessary, invasive treatment on such teeth you are making them weaker, more susceptible to decay, and subject to a lifetime of replacement restorations and treatments.  Regardless of how pure you’ve convinced yourself are your motives, such treatment of patients is a detriment to their their health and fosters a justifiable lack of trust in the profession of dentistry. 

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
629
Views
Conversationalist
2
Kudos
630
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

630 Views
Message 1309 of 1,448
WOW This is very interesting...I wish the pro-fluoridation people in this conversation...would just Stop and lay down their bias and look at the information in your posts. Thank you Dr Osmundson for taking the time to post these and other findings that shine light on the fact that drinking fluoride is a 20th century idea that needs to end!
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
630
Views
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
617
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

617 Views
Message 1310 of 1,448
Thank you for this informative post.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
617
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera