Take the AARP Smart Driver course and you could save on auto insurance! Sign up today.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
968
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

968 Views
Message 1101 of 1,302
The FDA has never approved any fluoride compound for ingestion. For example toothpaste boxes have warning signs not to swallow.
But on the other hand the FDA has not entered into the practice of ordering a ban on fluoride ingestion, and hence do not ban bottled water that may contain it at 1 ppm or less.
FDA officials in 1945 were poised to oppose water fluoridation trials in grand Rapids but were afraid that such opposition might impede the war effort (Bryson, The Fluoride Deception).
The FDA over the years has written that fluoride ingestion is not FDA approved (with the full endorsement to do so that is implied with such approval). No controlled human clinical trials have ever been completed or submitted to the FDA to solicit approval.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
968
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1028
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,028 Views
Message 1102 of 1,302

“The evidence of adverse health effects is of such magnitude and human being so varied in their individual constitution state of health at any moment, eating and drinking habits, etc., that it is inappropriate to say that fluoridation is a totally healthful and safe practice for all.” - Dr. Brian A. Dementi, toxicologist Dept of Health, VA (1980)

 

"We know fluoridation harms some people. That doesn't matter, they are collatoral damage for the greater good. That decision was made decades ago."  - chair of a Board of Health (2014) 

 

Another one of the well known fluoride trolls has joined AARP and posted "somebody would have sued already and won" as a denial of scientific evidence documenting harm which has become even more compelling with studies published since 2015. In a previous life, some of these folks may have been part of the Pope's court of scientists who condemed Galileo.

 

Several lawsuits have found fluoridation harmful, but legal under the law of the land - legal to condem Baby Boomers and their descendents to accumulate fluoride in bones where it causes or worsens arthritis and increases brittleness, to accumulate in brains where it disrupt brain function on a cellular level and calcifies the pineal gland contributing to sleeplessness, and to contribute to age related diabetes in service of a dental myth that it might reduce cavities in some children with lousy diets who don't brush their teeth. 

 

Here is a collection of 23 scientific affidavits from credentialed experts condemming fluoridation as harmful that were filed in one such 1993 lawsuit in Wisconsin:  

Safe Water Association Incorporated (Plaintiff) vs Fond du Lac County (Defendant)

 

Also see the legal memo and attached scientific affidavit from a Canadian lawsuit filed in 2014 that is being held up by all sorts of political machinations. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1028
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1026
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,026 Views
Message 1103 of 1,302

Carrie Anne has presented a quote by Dr. Wm Marcus: 

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” 

 

The standard that I use for a carcinogen is:  Does the substance cause cancer.  The World Health Organization, and The American Cancer Society both have presented lists of known and probable cancer causers.  Over 100 substances are listed.  Nowhere on either list is fluoride mentioned.  If indeed Dr. Marcus actually said that he is wrong, according to both the WHO & the American Cancer Society.  https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

Carrie Anne then attempts to answer a question posed by Charles H595927, “Dr. Saueheber - - you make a number of allegations which if true, surely would have actionable legal consequences.”

 

Carrie Anne says, “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.”

Nonsense.  Any good attorney with financial motivation would take a case of “poisoning via water fluoridation” pro bono – for free.  After all, if anything merits a lawsuit it would be the intentional poisoning of citizens by a local government through its water system.  No deep pockets to sue?  I wonder why lawsuits are flying throughout the city of Flint, Michigan, where the City actually is being sued because local citizens were poisoned through the water system.

Carrie Anne is trying to defend comments by Dr. Richard Sauerheber, who also said, “The U.S. FDA has opposed water fluoridation since its first incepton . . “  Not true.  The FDA has never opposed community water fluoridation.  Show me anything from the FDA to prove me wrong.

 

Dr. Sauerheber also says, “Again, the FDA will not approve the oral ingestion of fluoride,”  Not true.  While the FDA has no regulatory jurisdiction over community water fluoridation (the EPA does), the FDA does have regulatory authority over Bottled Water.  The FDA does allow the sale of Fluoridated Bottled Water.  (For example, Dannon’s “Fluoride to Go” bottled water is regulated by the FDA which allows Dannon to sell it.)

 

The list of untruths goes on and on.  Time and space limit a proper response, but these examples illustrate the accuracy of these anti-fluoride arguments, and the lengths that people will go to in order to generate paranoia about safe drinking water.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1026
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1064
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,064 Views
Message 1104 of 1,302

Johnny and All,

 

Sorry for the typos.  Written in haste while multitasking.  If you want to quote me, please correct spelling or ask me for a corrected copy.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1064
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1119
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,119 Views
Message 1105 of 1,302

Hello Johnny,

 

In response to your statement: "Not a single, credibly recognized health or scientific organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation.  NOT ONE."

 

I disagree.

 

First, I would agree that most USA science and health organizations endorse fluoridation.  But not all.  

 

And, I do not put much scientific weight on endorsements.  Most endorsements are not backed by a good scientific review of all sides of the literature, rather they reference each other.  CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.  For that matter, you could reference me, but you would need to date it prior to 2000.  To put weight on an endorsement, review their scientifically referenced position papers (if they have one) and consider the date.  The IAOMT's position paper is more scientific than the ADA or AAP's.  I can assure you, I have not personnally reviewed every organization's and country's position on fluoridation.  

 

Second:  Which of the scientific organizations promoting a range of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm fluoride in water, reviewed the total exposure and high prevelance of over exposure, recommended lowering the concentration of fluoride in water before HHS's recommendation.   They were silent because they never looked at the science.  When HHS finally lowered their recommendations, ALL the scientific and health organizations were wrong until they obediently fell in line with 0.7 ppm.   But NONE, NOT ONE, reviewed the NRC, EPA DRA and EPA RSC, NHANES and recommended reducing fluoride exposure before HHS recommendation.    

 

All the so called "scientific" organizations were all pupets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science.  Finally HHS did, and I am told the decision was very controversial, but finally pushed through at 0.7 ppm.    I do not think any of them, NOT ONE, are credible scientific organizations because NOT ONE reviewed the science.   Even the ADA waited for HHS.  And HHS does not fluoridate, but they were more on top of fluoridation than any so called scientific organization. 

 

Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust.

 

Those allegidly "credible" scientific organizations promoting fluoridation at 1 ppm have not and did not review the science and follow the science.  They all waited for someone else to stand out from the herd and protect the public. 

 

I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation.  Just because a person is an expert in one area of science, does not make them an expert in all scientific areas.  A Pedodontist is the best of the best for my grandchildren's oral health, but I am not taking my daughter to one to deliver her baby or do open heart surgery.  And how many bicuspids did I take out  on the recommendation of Orthodontists, before we began to consider airway?  We all have made mistakes, following the herd is the most common.  Daily I see the adverse effects of closing down the size of the mouth and airway.   

 

 Third:  In my 41st year as a practicing dental clinician and public health, I have seen times when the "herd of organizations" have made mistakes because they protected their professions rather than the public.  Change is very slow when following the herd.  Change is faster when following science. 

 

Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion.  Apparently some have interest in endorsements, here are some health and scientific organiztions opposed to fluoridation, and I have not read all their position papers:



International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology.  https://iaomt.org/iaomt-fluoride-position-paper-2/
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
International College of Integrative Medicine
International Academy of Biological Dentists and Medicine
Holistic Dental Association
Environmental Working Group
Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Sierra Club

International Chiropractors Association
Organic Consumers Association
Food & Water Watch
The National Whistleblower Center

 

Austria REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added

Belgium REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves.

Finland STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of       caries....“

Germany STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing trend of caries

Denmark REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark.“

Norway REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated“

Sweden BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!

Netherlands REJECTED: Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgment overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.

Hungary STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.

Japan REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.

Israel SUSPENDED mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects.: June 21, 2006 “The labor, welfare and health Knesset committee”

China BANNED: "not allowed“

France Was 50%  now 30% fluoridated Salt, but no food service salt.

Ireland 74% Fluoridated

UK 9% Fluoridated

 

Canada had about two thirds fluoridated and now about one third, from what I hear.  British Columbia has almost no fluoridation and their caries rates are lower than Oregon with 19% fluoridated and Oregon is lower (in most surveys) than Washington State with about 2/3rds fluoridated.  

 

 

Bill

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1119
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1221
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,221 Views
Message 1106 of 1,302

"If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc." - Michael Taras, DMD,  Fellow in the Academy of General Dentistry (2015)

 

“Fluoridation advocates talk BS (bad science.)” - Dr. Stan Litras, BDS, BSc, Past President NZDA  Wellington Chapter (2013)

 

This thread was begun to share both personal stories and modern scientific evidence of harm from fluoridation policy in order to collect data for AARP. Between Feb 2015 and Feb 2018, this thread proceeded unmolested gathering about 60 comments. Since June 27th, the thread has been overwhelmed by three members of a fluoridation advocacy group.

 

Contrary to what the president of this group would have you believe, it is they, the fluoridationists, who are the fear mongers. They insist there will be a dental Armageddon if we stop fluoridation. They are masters of deception and denigration who deny scientific and historical facts that contradict their agenda and who demand obedience to dental dogma. They also are experts at logical fallacies and are willfully blind to ethics. (Gesser-Edelsburg & Shir-Raz 2016; Barnett-Rose 2014)

 

The facts are anyone who does not feel fluoridated dental products are sufficient for his needs can buy a gallon of fluoridated drinking water for a buck. However, seniors with medical reason to avoid fluoride cannot when it is in municipal water because fluoride cannot be cheaply removed from water and fluoridated water permeates everything. Fluoride even inflames rashes during bathing. Consequently, AARP should act as advocates for seniors. AARP should issue a policy statement in opposition to fluoridation policy. 

 

My Story: 

  • As a pregnant woman, I almost lost my child when my city began fluoridation.

  • As a young woman, I experienced rashes, arthritis and gastrointestinal conditions that were untreatable.

  • As a senior, I experienced chronic kidney pain and a liver crisis that scared me into abandoning my water filter in favor of no-low fluoride bottled water.

  • As a researcher, I then belatedly did my homework on fluoride.

Bottom Line: Now in my 60s, my arthritis of decades duration, as well as my chronic allergic cough, dry gums, IBS, nerve pain, etc., have all disappeared - and they did so in less than two weeks of my switch to no-low fluoride water. No more kidney pain and no more liver episodes, either - and I've found the scientific and medical documentation validating my experiences. 

 

“When studying any matter, ask yourself two things: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, or what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. Look only and solely at what are the facts.” -  Bertrand Arthur William Russell, logician and Nobel Laureate 

 

 P.S. Most countries do not fluoridate. Over a dozen credible professional organizations oppose fluoridation in the 21st century. The IAOMT published a Position Paper Against Any Fluoride Use in 2017, downloadable here: https://iaomt.org/resources/fluoride-facts/ 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1221
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1204
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,204 Views
Message 1107 of 1,302

Hi Bill,

 

You have continued with the stock questions that are constantly asked by those who oppose community water fluoridation.

 

Bill, as the past Executive Director of the anti-fluoridation group, FAN, you know full well that these questions are widely distributed by the opposition as claims to pose, and pose, and pose.  And you know the answers to them.  Then you pose additional claims, and more, and more. It is a game of whack-a-mole.

 

THE FACTS:

Leading heatlh and scientific organiztions around the world back community water fluoridation as safe and effective.  Just a few examples of these are:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics

2. American Dental Association

3. CDC

4. Mayo Clinic

5. World Health Organization

 

Not a single, credibly recognized health or scientific organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation.  NOT ONE.

 

TRUST:

Who should our families in the U.S. and around the world trust?  Do we trust the pediatricians who care for our most precious possessions, our children, or do we place our faith in a group of opponents who use the internet to promote doubt and fear?  We choose to trust our respected and credibly recognized health and scientific organizations who do the research on this and all other topics.

 

THE BOTTOM LINE:

You and CarryAnne can continue to work to scare our families here with fear tactics.  No matter how many claims that you make, you both know that the effort to give scientifically accurate answers is time consuming.  Even the post below by CarryAnne is a group of references to attempt to fool our families. Dr. Hardy Limeback was on the 2006 National Research Council that she is referring to.  Dr. Limeback signed off on the final document that there are absolutely no health harms from fluoride in our water at 2 mg/L.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_bri...

 

That is 3 times the level of fluoride at which community water fluoridation is fluoridated at, 0.7mg/L.

 

Summary:

Like vaccination oppenents, the opponents to water fluoridation throw out a plethora of claims that are not supported by credibly conducted research that has been peer reviewed and published in credibly recogniized scientific journals.  

 

As best said by a past U.S. Senator:

 

 

Have a great weekend Bill and CarryAnne.  I will be busy again for several days working to unscare communities where you and your groups have scared families with unsubstantiated claims.  It is more difficult to unscare people than it is to scare them.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Johnny

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
President, American Fluoridation Society
Web: www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.org
Twitter: @afs_Fluoride

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1204
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1276
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,276 Views
Message 1108 of 1,302

When scientific sunshine hits fluoridaiton, proponents go silent.

 

Another day without response from proponents of fluoridation.

 

Two questions were asked and proponents fell silent without fully answering.

 

What do you consider to be the upper limits of fluoride ingestion for infants and children?  (SAFE)  Although Steven responded 10 mg/kg/bw, each new scientific study usually finds harm at ever lower dosages.  10 mg/kg/bw is historical and we now know that dosage is not safe, especially for the unborn and infants.  In the not too distant future, fluoride will be in the same category of lead and arsenic with zero ingested is best.

 

What dosage of fluoride is required or recommended to prevent dental caries? (EFFECTIVE)  As a dentist with public health training, I am disappointed my professions have promoted fluoride ingestion without knowing how much fluoride is beneficial.  The focus has been on water fluoride instead of tooth fluoride concentrations.  

 

If the only source of fluoride were water fluoridation, proponents would have a much stronger case.  

 

If proponents encouraged open discussion, academic freedom and sincere scientific discovery, we could all learn and improve the health of the public.  Instead, proponents work using one side of the evidence, cherry picking the evidence, using endorsements and in the dark, behind the scenes, convincing city councils and water districts to add fluoride.  Once the elected leaders are on board, the proponents railroad policy.  

 

Portland, Oregon, has been used as an example with one paper's Editor in support of fluoride.  Working behind the scenes and without public input, proponents convinced the city to fuoridate the water.  The short hearings did not permit science to be discussed in depth.  It became an emotions and power struggle rather than a candid evaluation of science and laws.  Fluoridation passed in spite of the tremendous push back.   However, a great deal of money was spent on both sides to go to the public and 2 out of 3 of the public voted no fluoridation.  

 

Give people the time to contemplate medicating their neighbors and most chose freedom.   It would be wonderful to be able to trust my dental and public health professions on their position of fluoridation, but the evidence has been growing that the fluoridation policy is flawed and rather change, proponents dig in deeper.  HHS recommended lower fluoride concentration, but lowering is not enough.  A complete cessation of fluoridation is required.  Even that will not reduce fluoride intake to safe levels.  But it will give people more freedom to choose.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1276
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1249
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,249 Views
Message 1109 of 1,302

Steve Slott and Johnny Johnson,

 

It has been three days since I've heard from you and I trust you had a good 4th of July.  I'm in Eastern Washington working on a farm for a couple days.  Good exercise, dry and hot.  

 

We were discussing total fluoride exposure and a desired exposure or total dosage to prevent dental caries.  How much fluoride do you want a person to ingest.  What is the "optimal dosage" for a person, not the water, but an individual?

 

Without an "optimal individual dosage," we can't determine if that dosage is "safe" for each individual.   FDA determines efficacy first, then safety at that dosage, so should we.

 

I was amazed and shocked when Dr. Limeback told me both teeth with caries and teeth without caries have similar tooth fluoride concentrations (except on the outer few microns).  

 

In other words, we don't know a desired or "optimal" concentration of fluoride for the tooth which reduces dental caries.

 

And we don't know how much fluoride should be in the blood to achieve the "optimal" tooth fluoride concentration.

 

And we don't know how much fluoride a person should ingest to achieve the unknown blood fluoride concentration, for the "optimal" tooth concentration.

 

And we don't know how much an individual is ingesting from non-water sources

so that we can supplement the unknown individual exposure with fluoridated water, to achieve the unknown total fluoride exposure, for the unknown blood fluoride concentration, and then the unknown tooth fluoride concentration.

 

Instead, public health scientists treat the water to achieve 0.7 ppm, they talk about water like we are treating water rather than humans who drink an unknown amount of fluoride.  

 

It is time to stop adding fluoride to water.  So much we don't know.  Avoid fluoride and reduce sugar intake.  Brush and floss, eat healthy foods.

 

If a person chooses to ingest more fluoride they can get a prescription, or swallow a small pea size of fluoride toothpaste, drink a couple cups of tea or wine, eat non-organic foods

 

Adding more to water makes no sense and is harming people.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1249
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1245
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,245 Views
Message 1110 of 1,302

Sirpac,

 

I agree.  A review of both sides is compelling and many health organizations agree.  

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

Many researchers write in their research that fluoride is a KNOWN carcinogen.  

 

One study explained how they induced cancer in the animals with fluoride so they could test the cancer treatment drugs.  Anyone who claims fluoride is not a carcinogen has not read the research.

 

As scientists learn where the potential risks from fluoride are found, more detailed and higher quality studies will be done.  The new studies will be focused more on how much fluoride causes harm and to which sub-populations.  

 

Are children, infants, or the fetus harmed most?

 

Which gender is harmed more?

 

Which race is harmed more?

 

What synergistic chemicals are confounding risks?

 

On the "efficacy" side of the problem, the quality of research is unacceptable.  We have data on costs for dental treatment and Delta Dental assured me 10 years ago they were going to publish data showing reduced costs with fluoridation, but they have not.  Clearly, their evidence would not support fluoridation.

 

Here are a few concerns with the fluoride research on efficacy:

 

A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors (for example, what reduced dental caries from 11 cavities to 5 cavities before fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste were introduced?)

B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial  (They can be done and maybe have been done, but none published.) 

C.   Socioeconomic status usually not controlled (Wealth and health are related and must be controlled)

D.   Inadequate size 

E.   Difficulty in diagnosing decay (Not every dentist diagnoses a cavity at the same degree of damage.)

F.   Delay in tooth eruption not controlled 

G.   Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year round
vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled. 

H.   Total exposure of Fluoride not determined (Urine fluoride concentration is not difficult to measure and not invasive)

I.     Oral hygiene not determined 

J.     Not evaluating Life Time benefit (How do those without teeth benefit?)

K.    Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.  (Many drink bottled water, very little water and some drink over 10 liters/day.)

L.     Dental treatment expenses not considered with measured evidence 

M.    Breast feeding and infant formula excluded (Mother's milk usually has no detectable fluoride)

N.    Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.  

O.    Genetics not considered

P.     Synergistic effects not considered

 

No wonder the FDA has not approved the ingestion of fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries.  The evidence, as they generously say, is "incomplete."

 

Based on incomplete evidence of benefit, no water purveyor should add fluoride to public water until we have confidence of efficacy and safety.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1245
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet