Get a newer and safer vehicle while saving money! Check out the AARP auto buying program.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1036
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,036 Views
Message 1061 of 1,248

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” - Dr. Wm. Marcus (1998)

         "Follow the money." - Deep Throat (1972)

 

Part 1

“Children with dental fluorosis were burdened more by dental disease and had more treatment needs (dental caries, fluorosis, periodontal disease and gingivitis) when compared to those without dental fluorosis.” 

  • Mildred ndoti Mavindu, Gladys N Opinya, Richard Owino and Edith Ngatia. Oral Hygiene Habits and Dental Treatment Needs of Children with Dental Fluorosis and Those Without .... Mod. Approach to Dental Oral Hygiene. 2(2)-2018. 
    • Study of 248 teens in Kenya, matched for age and gender with 1:1 ratio for with:without dental fluorosis. Most children were consuming 1 ppm concentration in water, some less and some more. All children had similar brushing patterns of twice a day.
  • Over half of American teens have dental fluorosis and one in five has moderate to severe fluorosis (Wiener et al. 2018). Children & the elderly are among the 'vulnerable subpopulations' for fluoride intoxication (chronic posioning).

 

Part 2

Since lawsuits are expensive and given the way fluoridation is set up (there are no deep pockets to sue), they typically have other complicating issues. Elite whistleblower attornies Stephen & Michael Kohn won a lawsuit against the EPA in the 1990s on the wrongful termination of senior EPA scientist and toxicologist Dr. Wm. Marcus who wrote a memo about management interference for manipulation of cancer data in order to disappear the evidence of carcinogenicity in a fluoride study. 

 

The ADA and friends who have no liability for fluoridation even though they aggressively promote it, frequently threaten and sometimes bring lawsuits against vocal opponents. I especially like the story told by medical correspondant and NYC celebrity dentist, Dr. Gerry Curatola. Apparently, he made a comment against fluoridation as ineffective and unsafe and the ADA got it into its head to either threaten or to actually bring a lawsuit against him in order to shut him up. Well, Dr. Curatola has money and wasn't going to be intimidated. He stood up to the fluoridationist bullies. He paid his legal fees and provided science to document that fluoridation was ineffective and harmful and demanded the ADA provide science to document their claims against him. The ADA backed down. I don't know if that particular story is in any of Dr. Curatola's many recordings on YouTube, but he tells it in various venues. 

 

Sample videos: 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1036
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1036
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,036 Views
Message 1062 of 1,248

Dr. Saueheber - - you make a number of allegations which if true, surely would have actionable legal consequences.

The current EPA is clearly "mindful of the public health significance of reducing the incidence of dental caries in the U.S. population."  This quotation is from the EPA rejection of the FAN petition to apply section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to "prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies."

The undeniable fact is that in 2014 74.7% of US citizens on community water supplies drink fluoridated water.  Quite obviously none of your points have ever successfully challenged this very important public health program in any court room.  No state mandated fluoridation obligation has ever been withdrawn for these reasons.

Since you believe fluoridation to be illegal, my advise is for you to bring suit against New York City.  If you were to prevail, one action would cease fluoridation in our largest city.  Isn't it a bit inappropriate to argue legal views which, to the extent they have been formally contested, have always been rejected by US courts?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1036
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
1029
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,029 Views
Message 1063 of 1,248

Charles,

 

Thank you for your suggestion to attend a dental public health Conference.

 

I have.   They had a class on fluoridation and I had previously asked to participate.  They refused.

 

At the end they had question/answer and I asked one question, "Please provide one study of MEASURED evidence reporting significant cost savings in the public at large from water fluoridation."

 

Yes, many claim fluoridation is cost effective, but the dental speakers looked at the back wall and did not respond.  Finally an insurance speaker said something like, "this is the type of question we need the experts." and he looked at the dental  speakers at the table and they sat silent looking at the back wall.  Finally someone in the audience (a student) shouted Maupome.  I responded, "yes indeed, measured evidence of cost effectiveness of fluoridation in the community at large.  And did you note the cost savings was enough to pay for equipment repairs?  Not enough to pay for chemicals or equipment installation, dental fluorosis treatment, promotions, or operations.  Just enough to pay for equipment repairs.  And did you note that comparing the children in the two largest groups, those without fluoridation actually had lower dental treatment costs?"   The speakers were silence.  And then they took the next question.

 

Yes, there are a great deal of public health professionals who promote fluoridation, but they don't look at the research which does not support their position.

 

Charles, I took my MPH prior to dental school.  I almost walked out of my MPH program during the last week of school, I was so disgusted with Public Health.  The professor told us it was not our job as pubic health professionals to evaluate the science.  We were to promote policy, not review science.  I raised my hand and asked, "what if my boss tells me to promote tobacco smoking?"  The professor paused, several students turned around and glared at me.  The professor said, "you are to promote tobacco smoking, but don't do it to the best of your ability."   At that point I knew public health was not a profession I could be comfortable with.

 

30 years later, the Dean of my public health school visited Portland and we had alumni meet him and come to support the school.  I told him about my experience and he said he recognized the problem and they were trying to change that practice of being blind obedient servants of policy.

 

I was speaking with a public health dentist on the phone about 10 years ago regarding fluoridation.  He said, "we will promote fluoridation until a judge tells us otherwise."  I asked about scientific evidence.  He responded, "I don't care about science and I don't care if it is right or wrong, I only care if a judge tells me the policy is wrong."

 

Obviously, I do not have much respect for that type of blind obedience, unquestioned loyalty to policy, because sometimes policy is flawed.  And if a policy is flawed, it may take generations to change, or a judge to order a change.

 

My other profession, dentistry, is only marginally better.  Dentistry at least claims to go with science and promotes science.  Indeed, tradition and policy rule, but as individual clinicians, we can step out and protect patients even if our profession refuses to change their flawed policy and recommendations.

 

Now to your second point on purity of chemicals.  Most of the chemicals added to make fluoridated water are industrial waste products of the phosphate mining industry, not pharmaceutical grade.  Many are concerned with the contaminants. Personally, I do not think the contaminants pose the greatest risk.  They are a problem, but not the big problem.  Fluoride is the big problem.

 

So I called up the National Sanitation Foundation after reading their criteria for chemical safety.  They require chemicals to not have contaminants in them which will increase the concentration of the contaminant more than 10% of the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level.  My question to the NSF was, "the MCL for the contaminant fluoride is 4 ppm.   10% of 4 ppm (the MCL) is 0.4 ppm.  However, fluoridation is at 0.7 ppm  

 

Why does NSF permit fluoride to be added to public water in greater concentration than 10% of the MCL?  The person I talked to said they would get back to me.  And to their credit they did.  The response was, "NSF regulates the contaminants in the contaminant added to water, but they don't regulate the contaminant itself."  I responded, so if we called the hydrofluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride by any other name, NSF would pull their approval because the concentration of contaminant would be above 10% of EPA's MCL.  But since the name is fluoride, then more than 10% can be added.  The NSF person said, "yes, that's about right."   Since then, my understanding NSF has rewritten their guidelines to give fluoride an exemption.

 

And do you know how the the statement came to be that fluoridation was one of public health's greatest achievements of the 20th Century?  I've heard it was by three people at the Oral Health Division.  Good marketing, but lacks facts, evidence and science.  

 

I consider fluoridation to be one of dentistry's darkest hours and one of public health's greatest blunders of the 20th Century.   Fluoridation started about the same time as the Tuskegee study of syphilis on black men and their families.  The ethics of public health back then was not good and if the idea of fluoridation were to come up today, I'm proud to say the policy would be blocked for lack of ethics.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH 

Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
1029
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
938
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

938 Views
Message 1064 of 1,248

The U.S. FDA has opposed water fluoridation since its first incepton in 1945 under the direction of officials from the U.S. military. U.S. Sugeons General in the CDC have historically recommended the practice since that time. The original material used was industrial waste sodium fluoride but the starting material since 1985 has been fertilizer industry waste fluosilicic acid, after Rebecca Hamner of the EPA wrote that this use in public water supplies would be an ideal solution to dilute the waste material, assuming it would have dental benefit to consumers.

Again, the FDA will not approve the oral ingestion of fluoride, ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrlled use of an unapporve drug, forbids the use of fluoridated water in kidney dialysis wards, and banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended for ingestion by pregnant women. The FDA requires Good Manufacturing Practices for all consumed materials used to treat human tissue, but GMP rules are not followed by fertilizer production faciltiies that generate the waste used to fluoridate consumers through water supplies.  Please read the Journal of Enviornmental and Public Health 439490 for details: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

Fluoridationists at the CDC rely on the EPA MCL to claim the intentional infusions are somehow legal, but the EPA only regulates contaminants, not nutrients or drugs purposely added into water to treat humans. The EPA consistently states that fluoridation is the legal responsibility of the FDA since it it is added intentionally to treat humans, rather than its presence in a chemical spill or when present naturally as a contaminant in water.  The current FDA staff has no understanding how to enforce FDA rulings on fluoridation of water supplies. Critics argue that the FDA has no "rights" to regulate water supplies, but the FDA is the only Federal agency approved by Congress to regulate any substance intended for ingestion to treat humans, regardless of how the ingestible substance is disseminated. Fluoride promoters will not voluntarily follow the law and, as seen here, have no interest in following GMP regulations or existing FDA rulings.

 

R. Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
938
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
964
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

964 Views
Message 1065 of 1,248

Sirpac . .

It is sad that someone so utterly unaware of the subspecialty of oral public health can make claims like this. Even more tragically some will be persuaded..

You should attend a National Oral Health Conference
http://www.nationaloralhealthconference.com/

or the American Public Health Association annual meeting
https://www.apha.org/events-and-meetings/annual

so you could understand who the advocating professionals are and why they are credible and legitimate sources of information.

Clearly you have no idea the exact nature of the "chemicals."   They are water additives that are highly regulated for purity and physical characteristics.  They have more specifically stringent criteria for purity from heavy metal contamination that do medications.   National Sanitation Foundation water testing shows that the actual arsenic from water additives is less than 0.1% of that which EPA deems protective of human health.
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/wfadditives.htm#NSF

Here's a graphic representation of how utterly unimportant fluoridation water additive contaminants are -
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ugef563p4m8bzto/Arsenic%20Intake%20Compared%20to%20fluoridation%20v4.jpg?d...

The daily arsenic intake from fluoridation is 0.14 micrograms a day, the daily intake from normal, healthy food is 56.3 micrograms per day.  The truth about these claims that somehow the drinking water is contaminated from fluoridation is illustrative of the abysmal falsehoods so often used to oppose what the CDC considers one of the great public health accomplishments of the 20th Century.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
964
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
2
Kudos
980
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

980 Views
Message 1066 of 1,248

It is truly horrific that these noted governmental agencies and some doctors, who are not research scientists and who have no time to truly study fluoridation, are enforcing this practice of dumping industrial waste into the public water supply. Here are the CDC links to NIOSH specifications of hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodiumhexafluorosilicate, which are the most commonly used fluoridation compounds in the United States: 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1233.html

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1243.html

 

If any of these ‘enforcing’ doctors actually understood what these chemicals are, then this crime against the masses is on them! 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
980
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
950
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

950 Views
Message 1067 of 1,248

The difference between FAN and the Campaign for Dental Health (CDH) could not be starker.

 

CDH is the organization behind ilikemyteeth.org and is part of the American Academy of Pediatrics which in turn is composed of many thousands of practicing pediatricians. The mission of CDH and their web site is to promote dental health, especially children's.

 

The EPA suit is reminiscent of the action FAN and collaborators brought to the California Carcinogen Identification Committee claiming this would be the end of fluoridation. In fact a unanimous vote found that fluoride is not related to cancer at any concentration.

 

FAN predicted and promoted the National Toxicology Programs planned animal studies as "finally" showing low fluoride exposures to harm developing brains. No effect at all was found. The promotion before the fact of the EPA suit seems similar.

 

The EPA suit decisions thus far have been strictly on procedural grounds. The merits of the suit have not been considered. The monograph the EPA published in the Congressional Record contains core arguments and issues which will be judged if the case proceeds to full trial. I'm betting that if FAN et al loose in Federal Court they will just look for the next set of claims. Courts are hesitant to over-rule scientific decisions made by venerable and responsible bureaucracies. While I am reasonably confident, we will just have to wait and see how it turns out.

 

Your picture of pounding on the table is incredibly out of step with reality of Federal Court proceedings.

 

To return to the point of these many posts, it is not reasonable for AARP to oppose well established and widely supported public health programs for any the points in your last message.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
950
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
941
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

941 Views
Message 1068 of 1,248

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell!” - Carl Sandburg

 

It makes little difference if a group is an advocacy group like the AFS and "I Like My Teeth" or an activist group like FAN. What matters are the facts of the matter, not opinions, endorsement of policy or well-funded marketing campaigns.  What also matters are integrity and good behavior. 

 

FAN provides a database of ALL fluoride science mostly listed in PubMed for ease of use by those not familiar with scientific research, while AFS and friends specialize in loudly singing the praises of endorsements most of which originated in the 1950s as part of organizational policy statements and have been rubber stamped for decades. The fluoride advocates also simultaneously and aggressively denigrate any who disagree with them. They also offer questionable selections of science and politics pretending to be science. 

 

For example, AFS member Chuck Haynie just pointed to the EPA 2017 response to a citizen's petition from six organizations including FAN. That EPA response was so poor that a judge in a federal lawsuit brought against the EPA threw it out. The judge essentially said that the EPA arguments lacked common sense, were contrary with their agency mission and regulations, and were internally inconsistent. The TSCA lawsuit will be heard in federal court in August 2019. Like the petition, the lawsuit is specific to neurotoxicity science.  

 

I expect the EPA will pound the table and yell like crazy in defense of their fluoride MCL, while the plaintiffs who include FAN will argue the facts. Much like what has been happening on this thread the past few days. 

 

Lawsuit

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/04/21/document_gw_02.pdf 

Timeline

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Food__Water_Watch_Inc_et_al_v_Environmental_Pro...

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
941
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
954
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

954 Views
Message 1069 of 1,248

Dr. Osmunson lists "information" sources which have been specifically created to politically oppose fluoridation.

Legitimate scientists are only committed to being true to the available objective information.  If fluoridation were either dangerous or worthlessly effective America's Pediatricians and their medical, dental and scientific colleagues would speak out and fluoridation would cease.

The truth is that there is overwhelming support these legitimate professionals and scientists advocating community water fluoridation.

Here is an editorial from the Portland, Oregonian which speaks to the many arguments brought against community water fluoridation the Oregonian said:

"To believe such crackpottery is implicitly to believe the following: That state and federal health agencies are, for some mysterious reason, hiding the truth and helping to poison more than 200 million citizens, aided by the American Dental Association and, we guess, credulous editorial boards like The Oregonian's. While we don't consider any of these groups infallible, or even close, it's far more likely that fluoridation receives so much mainstream support because it does exactly what it's supposed to. It reduces the incidence of cavities."



Here is a convenient place to read what the many organizations supporting fluoridation have to say, in their own words

http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

And here are systematic reviews, which are the highest quality of scientific evidence, supporting fluoridation as beneficial and safe.

2017 Systematic Review of the effects of Fluoride on Learning and Memory in Animal Studies - National Toxicology Program
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/results/pubs/rr/reports/rr01_508.pdf

2017 Information Paper:  Effects of water fluoridation on dental and other health outcomes.  Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-topics/health-effects-water-fluoridation

2017 Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water Response to TSCA Section 21 Petition, Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/27/2017-03829/fluoride-chemicals-in-drinking-water...

2016 (update) Best Practice Approach - Community Water Fluoridation -  Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors
https://www.astdd.org/bestpractices/BPAFluoridation.pdf

2015 U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries (2015)
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0823-0003&contentType=pdf

2015  Health Effects of water Fluoridation - An Evidence Review.  Ireland Health Research Board
http://www.hrb.ie/fileadmin/publications_files/Health_Effects_of_Water_Fluoridation.pdf

2013 Systematic Evidence review of Community Water Fluoridation - American Academy of Family Physicians
https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/fluoride.html  (full access limited to AAFP members)

2013 Community Preventive Services Task Force.  Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation (2013)
https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Oral-Health-Caries-Community-Water-Fluo...

2011 California Carcinogen Identification Committee (2011)
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/presentation/fluoride_dmcs101211.pdf

2010 Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality - Fluoride.  Health Canada:  Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality:  Guideline Technical Document - Fluoride (2010)
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidelines-canadian-drin...

2007 Findings and Recommendations of Fluoride Expert Panel.  Health Canada
http://www.simcoemuskokahealth.org/docs/default-source/topic-oralhealth/2008_HealthCan-expert_panel

2007 A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation.  National Health and Research Council, Australia
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chuen_Yeung/publication/5272139_A_systematic_review_of_the_effi...

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
954
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
977
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

977 Views
Message 1070 of 1,248

To All,

 

The Fluoride Action Network has the largest compilation of fluoride research available and I can highly recommend reviewing for your consideration.https://iaomt.org/iaomt-fluoride-position-paper-2/

 

Another significant source of research is the IAOMT at https://iaomt.org/iaomt-fluoride-position-paper-2/

 

Of the many pages of research and topics raising concerns with fluoride use, here are a sampling:

 

“The recommended Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water should be zero.”  Carton RJ. Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water. Fluoride. 2006 Jul 1;39(3):163-72.  

 

Carton worked at the EPA for many years.

 

“The ‘optimal’ intake of fluoride has been widely accepted for decades as between 0.05 and 0.07 mg fluoride per kilogram of body weight but is based on limited scientific evidence.”
“These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.”  Warren JJ, Levy SM, Broffitt B, Cavanaugh JE, Kanellis MJ, Weber‐Gasparoni K. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 2009 Mar 1;69(2):111-5. 

 

Many know these authors who are strong promoters of fluoridation.  Even the dosage of fluoride is based on limited scientific evidence.  EPA has also chosen 0.06 mg/kg as their RfD or reference dose. 

 

Consider a 5 kg or 12 pound infant.  At 0.06 mg/kg the "optimal" intake would be about 0.3 mg of fluoride a day.  Infant formula made with public water would be less than 2 cups of milk for the infant.. . not enough.  Mother's milk contains no detectible fluoride in most samples.

 

Knowing infants on fluoridated water get too much fluoride, the EPA does not even include infants in their Dose Response Analysis or Relative Source Contribution.   I disagree.  If governments send out fluoride to everyone without their consent, the EPA needs to include everyone in their determination of what is safe.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
977
Views