You Can Double the Difference You Make for Vulnerable Seniors — Donate Today, and Your Gift Will Be Matched! Find Out More

Reply
Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

179 Views
Message 41 of 264

Hello CarryAnn - I don't think Einstein was arguing that scientific consensus should be ignored, he was arguing against unthinking acceptance of unsupported opinions from those in authority.

 

In the case of water fluoridation, the scientific consensus from very many major reviews by experts is that water fluoridation is beneficial and does not cause harm. 

 

It seems to me that we should need very good reasons not to accept the consensus of the scientific community, particularly in public health.

Report Inappropriate Content
Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

169 Views
Message 42 of 264

Richard - It is clear that the international scientific consensus is that fluoride is not a carcinogen. It is also clear that the strong consensus is that fluoridated water is beneficial to oral health. 

 

It is also clear that the benefits of fluoridation extend into older age, with greater numbers of retained teeth and lower levels of root caries. Epidemiological studies of dental health consistently report improved dental health for residents of fluoridated areas, regardless of toothbrushing.

 

If either of these points was untrue, public health authorities would not be promoting water fluoridation.

Report Inappropriate Content
Social Butterfly

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

162 Views
Message 43 of 264

Where did you get your medical degree, David? And remind me, when did I see you for a medical consultation? Or is your degree in bioethics? 

 

  • My allergist told me to avoid municipal water because of my rashes and other symptoms, based on skin and blood tests, as well as clinical examination. He had a packet of information that he handed to many of his patients on this topic. He mentioned there are 'many different chemicals' used to treat water that can set some one off. This in 1983. 
  • My MD told me to 'watch what I ate' for my gastrointestinal complaints and to learn to live with the arthritis. This in the 1990s. 

 

When it's in water, it's in everything. It took me decades to find out exactly what the problem was. Once I knew and could take more comprehensive steps to avoid fluoride, after decades of misery - my 'allergies,' IBS and arthritis are gone. Also gone are my more recent kidney and liver problems - all of which are documented as being indicative of  fluoride posioning.

 

Fluoride is not added to water to treat water - it is added to treat people. Although they allow a limited amount in bottled water, fluoride is characterized by the FDA as an 'unapproved drug.'  The FDA assumes no authority for 'water additives' and the EPA leaves fluoridations decision to states and municipalities where the issue becomes politicized - because the SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people. Fluoride is the only substance ever added to treat people. 

 

Neither my city nor you, David, have the right to use municipal water to dose me with a drug that worsens my health! 

“In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)

 

1978 Checklist

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

2015 Report w/checklist

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

SkeletalFluorosis.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

152 Views
Message 44 of 264

Dr. Sauerheber, you say, “in 1966 the FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intendced for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S.”

 

That is interesting.  All bottled water falls under the regulatory jurisdiction of the FDA.  Isn’t that right?  This is a label from Dannon’s fluoridated water:  http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2

 

If what you said was correct, then I would expect the FDA to have put some kind of warning that this product is not intended to be consumed by pregnant women.  Could you please point out that warning on this FDA regulated product, fluoridated water, which is intended for ingestion? 

 

Of course you can’t.  The FDA doesn’t warn pregnant women not to drink fluoridated water. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Silver Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

154 Views
Message 45 of 264

Yes, wouldn't it be great if every scientist were only good, unbiased, and exclusively truth-seeking?

The evidence that fluoride does NOT cause any bone cancer in humans is incomplete and in fact is in disagreeemnt with other data suggesting it might. The term "strong" is a weighted opinion or educated guess in cases such as this because, again, there are no such things as bone cultures with which one can directly and scientifically attempt to address the question of whether it is causative or not. No mortal human on earth, no matter how good a scientist he thinks he is, understands how bone cells cause the orchestrated formation of bone with the precisly proper shape necessary to serve the purpose it has at any particular bodily location. No one understands.

To say that fluoride does not cause bone cancer would be over-the-top speculation, being in the face of a complete lack of such experimentation even being possible with human tissue that grows during formative years in youth. The idea that there is strong evidence to support such a claim is a group consensus opinion that led to its placement in group 3, and it remains an opinion, in particular since it opposes the animal results that are scientifically demonstrated.

The FDA goes the proper extra mile. When a substance is known to cause adverse health effecs in anmals, the agency assigns that substance into Category X. This category forbids the use of that substance by pregnant women In this group is where fluoride belongs, and indeed in 1966 the FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intendced for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. This is because of the known harm to animals at blood levels comarable to that in a fluoride water consumer, coupled with the absolute fact that newborn offspring have zero benefit from beilng fluoridated in the womb. Yes, the CDC and WHO are not the only organizations that make decisions based on group think and consensus. It is a part of life, and frequently wrong and harmful decisions have been made especially in the case of a low level chronic poisonous substance affecting overall health and longevity.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

152 Views
Message 46 of 264

Carrie Anne,

 

You say, “ what right does anyone or any group have to add a drug to my water.”

 

To that I would say, if you believe a minute amount of fluoride in your drinking water is somehow “drugging” you, then you will have to take your argument up with either God of Nature, depending on what you believe, since all drinking water on Earth has some degree of fluoride in it already, and they have been “drugging” you for your entire life. 

 

This is a nonsensical argument you make, Carrie.  You are not being “drugged” when you eat breakfast cereal fortified with vitamins & minerals, when you eat bread with folic acid, or when you drink milk fortified with Vitamin D.  But I understand it’s easy to frighten people by telling them they are being “drugged.”

Report Inappropriate Content
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

161 Views
Message 47 of 264

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
Social Butterfly

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

155 Views
Message 48 of 264

“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
Silver Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

154 Views
Message 49 of 264

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
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

181 Views
Message 50 of 264

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