Credit freezes are free under a federal law that just went into effect. Learn how to protect your credit.

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
282
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

282 Views
Message 381 of 598

Dr. Sauerheber

 

 You say, “I listed the evidence against fluoride causing human bone cancer already, that prompted the insertion into Group 3. But it is not strong or conclusive.”

 

No, . . . that is not what prompted its insertion into Group 3.  Let’s take a look at the definition of Group 3 which you have already used.  Your quote, copy/pasted from your comment: 

 

“"agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans." 

 

Nowhere in that definition is there any mention of any evidence of cancer in humans.  To the contrary.  Read it.  The definition of a Group 3 carcinogen is that there is “inadequate” evidence of cancer in humans.  It doesn’t say there is “weak or inconclusive” evidence.  It also says there is Strong Evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity does Not operate in humans.  In other words, there is strong evidence against the possibility of cancer being caused by the substance.  These are two distinctly different things.

 

Caffeine is listed as a Group 3 carcinogen.

 

I would think that a true scientist would look at the facts as they are and objectively draw a conclusion instead of twisting and distorting definitions in order to fit an agenda.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
282
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
287
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

287 Views
Message 382 of 598

“We too often bind ourselves by authorities rather than by the truth.” -  Lucretia Mott (1793-1880)

 

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” —Albert Einstein

 

Truth doesn’t change. What changes is how people, including doctors and scientists, see the truth - how they interpret the data. We've several scientists on this forum thread and thousands of scientists across the country who are definitive in their professional and scientific evaluation of the evidence, that fluoridation is a harmful policy - and that includes scientists in essentially every organization supporting fluoridation. Two dentists and a doctor in my town have privately encouraged me to keep up the fight because they know the truth  is fluoride is harmful to health and does not provide any dental benefit, but none of them will say so publicly. 

 

However, forget about the scientific evidence for a moment. Consider the morality - what right does anyone or any group have to add a drug to my water that is medically contraindicated for me and my grandchildren because they believe it might prevent a cavity in some neighbor's kid who doesn't brush his teeth! 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
287
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
292
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

292 Views
Message 383 of 598

I listed the evidence against fluoride causing human bone cancer already, that prompted the insertion into Group 3. But it is not strong or conclusive. Bone cancer prior to water fluoridation was essentially non-existent in the U.S. Now we have cases of it. In 1989 there were 1,300 lethal cases. I don't know if fluoride was involved, I can't prove it veyonod doubt of course, but I also cannot use the fact that over 99% of the population don't get it proves that no one has or will. In mammals it takes fluoride exposure for typically 1/3 of its entire lifespan to induce it significantly. These are well controlled experiments with caged creatures, only possible with lab animals.

Yes, fluoride in toothpaste is over 2,000 times more concentrated than that in fluoridated water, which demonstrates why fluoride in water is useless in preventing caries. But it is not an argument that fluoride cannot cause bone cancer. First of all, enamel is a covering that efficiently protects underlying bony dentin, and fluoride ion is unable to pass through enamel into dentin. Topical fluoride through oral surfaces can enter the bloodstream of course, but only ingested systemic fluoride substantially accumulates into bone (i.e. from swallowing toothpaste or drinking/eating fluoridated water and foods). Of all the fluoride in the blood of a consumer living on 1 ppm fluoridated water, only 15% comes from toothpaste use (NRC, 2006).

The reasons to denounce water fluoridation are massive, and cancer is not one that necessarily needs to be argued. For example, fluoride ingestion does not significantly affect dental decay (Teotia;Ziegelbecker;Sutton;Yiamouyiannis, etc), but does efficiently cause bone quality deterioration from lifelong ingestion. Why would anyone marginilize bone health when there are excellent simple methods to maintain dental health without fluoride ingestion? (brushing after eating sugar or avoiding sugar, etc.). Normal enamel is calcium phosphate and does not contain fluoride as a necessary ingredient. Same with bone- - fluoride is a contaminant, not a nutrient.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
292
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
322
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

322 Views
Message 384 of 598

Your point is taken, Dr. Sauerheber.  However, substances are placed into Group 3 when “there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans.

 

You are quite right when you say that, “intentional exposures in intact live humans would be unethical.” 

 

Nevertheless, strong evidence does exist that using tobacco causes cancer.  Where does this evidence come from?  No one is intentionally, unethically exposing people to tobacco to come up with an answer.  The evidence comes from stats like this:  As of 2014, 16.8% of the population of the United States used tobacco.  A lot of people use this stuff.  That’s how we know.

 

But what about fluoride?

 

In the U.S., 69% of the population (224,733,000 people) expose themselves to a substance which has about 2000 times more of a concentration of fluoride in it than optimally fluoridated water (which is what we are talking about here).  This substance, toothpaste, is brushed up against and into the teeth and into the thin membrane of the gums, in proximity to the upper and lower jaw bones.

 

Many of these people use electric toothbrushes which serve to more efficiently grind this substance into the thin lining of the gums.    

 

Now think about that.  About a quarter of a billion people (in this country alone) are brushing 2000 times the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water directly into their teeth and gums twice a day, every day, for their entire lives, against the mandible and maxilla, simply by brushing their teeth.

 

We know that chewing tobacco will cause bone loss simply because users place it into their mouths.  So we know that the mandible is injured by tobacco via the thin lining of the gums.  In light of that fact, I have to wonder why toothpaste doesn’t cause this bone cancer, in the same area that chewing tobacco injures bone, that you are so worried about. 

 

With a Quarter Billion people who grind toothpaste into their teeth & gums every day, why don’t we know that toothpaste (with 2000 x the concentration of fluoride as fluoridated water) causes bone cancer in the upper & lower jaw bones?  We don’t know it because it doesn’t happen.  This is why hospitals aren’t over-run with bone-cancer victims who brush their teeth every day.  And I would consider a Quarter Billion people unharmed, who use a high concentration of fluoride every day, twice a day, “strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity does not operate in humans from the use of fluoride. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
322
Views
Info Seeker
1
Kudos
331
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

331 Views
Message 385 of 598

There will always be a few cranks in any organization who will take contrarian positions.  The simple facts are these:

1. The vast majority of peer-reviewed studies in quality journals support the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of fluoridation in preventing dental decay.  This includes the prevention of root-surface decay in older individuals.

2. Every major health-care organization with a position on fluoridation of drinking water supports the practice, as did every U.S. Surgeon General for decades.

3. The U.S. Centers for Diease Control and Prevention hailed community water fluoridation as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 20th Century.

Don't let the fear-mongers fool you.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
331
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
360
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

360 Views
Message 386 of 598
The point is that taken as a whole the literature on fluoride and cancer is held by expert panel reviews to be unrelated.

Because hydrofluorosilicic acid and its salts completely and irreversibly dissociate in water, there is no need to study that because fluoridated water has only fluoride ions. It has been conclusively proven by the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance work of Finney et al (2006) (Reexamination of hydrofluorosilicic hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement) that there is complete decomposition of fluorosilicate species at neutral pH values on dilution in water. They also showed the presence of surviving fluorosilicate species at low pH values (3 and below) which is irrelevant for water treatment which by quality regulation is neutral pH..

It is disappointing that fluoridation opponents continually demand specific study of hydrofluorosilicic acid in drinking water when the complete decomposition and Finney's NMR study has been explained many many times. HFSA components are simply not in a simple equilibrium relationship following hydrolysis. One cannot study something that doesn't exist.

C. Haynie, M.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
360
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
358
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

358 Views
Message 387 of 598

Yes. And notice that fluoride is listed as a Group 3 carcinogen. This is because the cancer causation demonstrated in animals is not necessarily adequately known to occur in humans. Note the recognized description for group 3:

 

"agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans." 

 

Why ask me to contact the WHO? I didn't do the research work with fluoride on animal cancers. And intentional exposures in intact live humans would be unethical. There is no method of growing bone cells in culture to do fluoride cancer caausing screening assays, so one can put all their eggs in one basket and rely on standard tissue culture tests and hope that bone cells would also follow the same result, but I wouldn't. Bone tissue is far different than other tissues and accumulates fluoride like a sponge compared to other tisssues.

So the WHO leaves it listed as a group 3 carcinogen but this is because everyone wants to have the full answer immediately, even when the full answer may never be known.

As for me, I do not accept that fluoride had absolutely no involvement in any way with Ted Kennedy's son getting bone cancer in Boston after fluoridation began there when he was a young child . Yes lethal bone cancer is extremely rare (thank God), but the most efficient way to generate it in animals is with chronic fluoride exposure for years. I don't rely on organizations to make a final decree for any issue that is technically nearly impossible to fully prove beyond doubt.

 

Fluoride is not a nutrient and is only a contaminant in the human body. It is in bone where it does not belong and causes formation of poor qualty bone structure.  I choose not to ingest it, but certainly wish the water district would leave my kitchen sink alone, with sterile water that is otherwise clean and devoid of added chemicals, rather than what they insist on me buying, or else I get no tap water at all because fluoridationists insist (unlawfully) it be fluloridated.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
358
Views
Highlighted
Gold Conversationalist
2
Kudos
391
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

391 Views
Message 388 of 598

Bill O & Dr. Sauerheber,

 

The World Health Organization and the IARC have presented lists of known and possible carcinogens, categorized into 5 groups.   The lists are comprehensive and exhaustive.  The IARC list includes 1006 substances, and the WHO list includes 983 substances.  https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/26/the-carcinogens-identified-world-health-organization/Ad...

 

Group 1 includes substances that are known to cause cancer.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens

 

Group 2A includes materials in which the Agency is less certain about cancer.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinogens

 

Group 2B includes substances in which there is even less certainty.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens

 

Group 3 includes materials which are “non classifiable.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_3_carcinogens

 

And there is one material listed in Group 4 which is considered “probably not carcinogenic.”  It is Caprolactam.  

 

You will not find Fluoride on any of these all-inclusive, far reaching lists.  I suggest you take your spin to the IARC, the World Health Organization, or the American Cancer Society and try to convince them.  They all disagree with you, as do all experts in the field of Cancer Research.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
391
Views
Gold Conversationalist
2
Kudos
410
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

410 Views
Message 389 of 598

 

Charles and David,

 

Lets look briefly at SCHER and cancer.  Several places in the SCHER report report no effect, I will only bring out the point that SCHER did find some evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride.  Dose was not determined.  For both sides, read the report.  I'm only showing one side to refute the idea that there is not evidence of fluoride causing cancer.

 

Genotoxicity studies

In general, fluoride induced mutations in cultured cells at concentrations that were slightly cytotoxic and reduced growth rate.

no significant increase in frequency was observed in human fibroblasts at concentrations below 4.52 mg F/L and for Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells below 226 mg F/L.

Positive genotoxicity findings in vivo were only observed at doses that were highly toxic to animals, . Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in bone marrow cells were observed

Fluoride has only been reported to be positive in genotoxicity tests at high concentrations (above 10 mg/L), 

 An increase in sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) and micronuclei has been reported in peripheral lymphocytes from patients with skeletal fluorosis or residents in fluorosis-endemic areas in China and India, 

 

Carcinogenicity studies

Carcinogenesis studies have been conducted by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP).  The studies SCHER used have been strongly disputed.  Rats and mice can tolerate much more fluoride than humans mg/kg bw.  

 

 

 

"On the basis of the results from the most adequate long-term carcinogenicity studies, there is only equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride in male rats and no consistent evidence of carcinogenicity in mice (ATSDR 2003)."   

 

SCHER requires unequivocal evidence.    

 

"No carcinogenicity studies have been conducted using (hydro)fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, disodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid."   Are we to suggest the lack of studies is proof of safety?  No.

 

Epidemiological studies

"Early epidemiological studies did not find a consistent relationship between mortality from all types of cancer and exposure for fluoride, including the consumption of fluoride- containing drinking water."

 

That doesn't sound convincing that fluoride exposure is safe.  We need more study.  Do we keep medicating while we decide whether smoking or fluoride or lead or thalidomide is really harmful?

 

 

Two studies from the US found a higher incidence of osteosarcoma among males less than 20 years of age living in fluoridated communities compared with non-fluoridated communities (Cohn 1992, Hoover 1991). 

 

One case-control study found an association between fluoride exposure during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males, but not among females (Bassin 2006).

 

The Harvard Fluoride Osteosarcoma study was conducted as a hospital based case- control study in 11 hospitals in the USA and was limited to subjects below the age of 20. 

 

 

"Conclusion

SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general." 

 

The weight of evidence needs to get to an almost impossible level.   Scientists force everyone to ingest more fluoride because scientists need to do more research to have absolute certainty.    

 

That is an unreasonable standard.

 

Bill 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
410
Views
Gold Conversationalist
2
Kudos
420
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

420 Views
Message 390 of 598

Charles and Joe,

 

I do appreciate and respect your comments; however, based on my education and experience, I have strong reservations about "trusting" those chosen to support policy when they have unrealistic paramaters set on them.  

 

Bias in some reviews is serious.  For example, SCHER 2011 accepted cariostatic benefit weight of evidence of "less convincing" and exposure based on "estimates" but required "unequivocally substantiated" evidence of harm.

 

The duplicity of these reviews is unscientific and unethical.  They did not ask knowledgeable opponents to be on the committees.  Like minded people supported like minded conclusions.

 

For example, the NRC 2006 members were instructed to have confidence of harm strong enough that they would "bet the farm" on.  The SCHER 2011 uses the term "unequivocally"  meaning leaving no doubt, unambiguous.  The abstract, "Limited evidence from epidemiological studies points towards other adverse health effects following systemic fluoride exposure, e.g. carcinogenicity, developmental neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity; however the application of the general rules of the weight-of-evidence approach indicates that these observations cannot be unequivocally substantiated."

 

Until we have absolute certainty of harm, fluoride is considered safe?  Makes no sense.   

 

EPA uses the 90th percentile of water drinkers, obviously the 10% of the population drinking the most water are crazy to drink that much water, we don't include them in determining "safety."

 

And EPA omits all fetuses and those under six months.  Why?

 

And EPA proposes to raise their RfD to 0.08 mg/kg bw from 0.06 mg/kg, a 33% increase.  Why? (RSC 2010)

 

Why? to not make things looks so bad.  The EPA still shows a quarter to almost all children are ingesting too much fluoride.  But EPA has not changed their MCLG even though they report many are ingesting too much with their MCLG. 

 

The terms "bet the farm" and "unequivocally" are absolutes such as "never" and "always."    Those absolutes are not scientific terms.  What happened to the EU's precautionary principle?    I would suggest there is nothing in science that has absolute confidence and if there is, we need to look again.  

 

When scientists consider "benefit" we can do prospective RCT studies and intentionally cause benefit.  When scientists consider "harm" we can not intentionally cause harm and RCT studies are unethical.    Our confidence in the weight of evidence of benefit should be higher than the evidence of harm.  Yet SCHER 2011 had the opposite.  

 

SCHER 2011 based exposure on estimates.  Come on guys, we measure fluoride in urine and blood.  SCHER 2011 wanted the members to accept estimates of exposure and unequivocally substantiated risk.   

 

EFSA was trusted.  One scientist trusts the next.  Few question and dig into the evidence.  SCHER 2011 abstract: "The upper tolerable intake level (UL), as established by EFSA, was exceeded only in the worst case scenario for adults and children older than 15 years of age at a daily consumption of 2.8 L of drinking water, and for children (6-15 years of age) consuming more than 1.5 L of drinking water when the level of fluoride in the water is above 3 mg/L.  For younger children (1-6 years of age) the UL was exceeded when consuming more than 1 L of water at 0.8 mg fluoride/L (mandatory fluoridation level in Ireland) and assuming the worst case scenario for other sources. For infants up to 6 months old receiving infant formula, if the water fluoride level is higher than 0.8 mg/L, the intake of fluoride exceeds 0.1 mg/kg/day, and this level is 100 times higher than the level found in breast milk (less than 0.001 mg/kg/day)"

 

Clearly, younger children and infants on fluoridated water can easily get too much fluoride, 700 times more fluoride for infants on formula made with fluoridated water than breast milk. . . WOW.  

 

Weight of evidence.  Is that not heavy enough weight?  But proponents still keep pushing ever more fluoride, regardless of peoples' desires and total exposure.  Simply makes no sense.

 

Topical benefit is strong, systemic is "less convincing."   What about the "weight of evidence" for benefit?  

 

Did the SCHER committee bet the farm on systemic benefit?  No way.  

 

Did the SCHER committee use the term unequivocally beneficial?   No.  

 

The same standard of evidence for benefit and risks were not used.  Benefits slid in with less convincing but risk had to have unequivocal evidence.

 

Sorry, but I don't have blind "TRUST" for those kinds of reviews of science.

 

I find the evidence that scientists/pharmacologists testing new cancer treatment drugs, cause cancer in animals with fluoride, so the researchers have cancer animals to treat.  

 

I'm out of space for this post.  More later.

 

Hang in there, I'll get to the cancer part in just a bit.

 

Bill

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
420
Views