Is your 'stuff' stressing you out? TV personality Matt Paxton has tips for downsizing and decluttering in our free, two-part webinar! Register now.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
581
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

581 Views
Message 1081 of 1,312

Most all countries of the world reject fluoridation. In India, Dr. Susheela, a scientist who has studeid the effecs of fluoride on the people of India here entire career, cannot believe that the U.S. intentionally adds this non-physiologic substance into water, when India spends vast sums to remove it from contaminated water. In Ireland, the South followed U.S. dentists and fluoridated their country while the North does not. The health disparities between the two countries are atrocious there. Australia fluoridates, and that is about it. Most of Canada is canceling fluoridation and the rest of the world has rejected it.

The reason I mentioned the Teotia study (a 30 year examination) and the  Ziegelbecker and Yiamouyiannis studies is that they are so much more thorough and comprehensive than studies published widely iln dental journals.  Moreoever, there is no mechanism by which fluoride from drinking water can decreases caries in the first place. Fluoride cannot penetrate into the enamel matrix. it is simply too hard and a different structure than the hydroxyapatite in bone which readily accumulates fluoride. The level in saliva from drinking fluoridated water that continuously bathes teeth is only 0.016 ppm (NRC, 2006)  This is 93,750 times less concentrated than fluoride in toothpaste (1,500 ppm).  And the CDC already realizes and published that systemic fluoride does not affect caries. So people are scrambling to invent a new mechanism to explain what they have long accepted, that somehow drinking fluoride in water decereases decay. But it does not, which is consistent with the above facts.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
581
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
548
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

548 Views
Message 1082 of 1,312

Joe -

 

While I agree your response to me was a more subtle put down, I suggest you read what Chuck, David, Steven & Johnny have been writing about Dr. Bill Osmunson, Dr. Sauerheber, SIRPAC and me since 6/27. Their choice of language is trully abusive. 

 

But yes - I feel and expressed some righteous indignation that the AFS  imported an Irishman to weigh in on this American website whose membership is supposed to be American, not international. I've already had plenty of dealings with abusive trolls from the southern hemisphere on my small town newspaper, but I only found out they weren't local by digging into their online identities - so I now dig into everyone who seems not to belong. Other AARP members might not have been tipped off by the referenc to SCHER and the BDS post-nomial, but I knew it meant you might not be an American. 

 

Joe, read my posts about my experience which has nothing to do with cancer - a distraction from the purpose of this thread which chugged along unmolested for three years with about 60 posts until 6/27. Chuck and David jumped on the passing reference to cancer to derail the conversation, which it has with your help, while he and company denigrate me and belittle my testimony of harm. 

 

For the record: Einstein wasn't hailed as a brilliant hero from the get go. He up ended lots of 'consensus' - which is a political construct without scientific basis. See what a former fluoridationist had to say about so called fluoridation consensus;   

 “I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.”  - Dr. John Colquhoun BDS, PhD, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand and leading proponent turned opponent (1998)

 

Speaking about consensus, here are just a few professional American organizations who are on record opposing fluoridation in teh 21st century. I'm sure there are a few in Ireland, too: 

 

  1. IAOMT 2017 Position Paper with 500+ citations AGAINST any fluoride use:  https://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Fluoride-Position-Paper.pdf  

  2. AAEM 2015 cosigner of letter with Erin Brockovich et alhttps://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/LetterIOM_2015.04.27.pdf 

  3. CHEJ 2015 Position of Lois Gibbs, Nobel Prize nominee and environmentalist: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/gibbs-2015.pdf 

  4. Sierra Club 2008 on damage to environment: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water

  5. EWG in 2011 to HHS on evidence of harm: https://www.ewg.org/news/testimony-official-correspondence/proposed-federal-fluoride-cap-too-high   

  6. LULAC 2011 Resolution on Medical Consent & Environmental Justice: http://lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2011/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation_Regarding_Forced_Medica...

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
548
Views
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
560
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

560 Views
Message 1083 of 1,312

Richard - I don’t work in the area of fluoridation any longer but I did spend the best part of 20 years in this area, particularly in regards to dental public health. I did take the time to read every text I could access which opposed fluoridation because I felt that this public health policy did require justification and needed to be questioned constantly. While I came to disagree with them, I have always recognized that anti-fluoride advocates were utterly sincere in their opposition. What was obvious is that there are an enormous number of relevant studies out there - I think the York Review identified over 3000 as far back as 2000. In such a situation we have to rely on a synthesis of all the evidence by competent experts rather than selecting bits and pieces of individual studies. This has been carried out now on many occasions in many countries. Thus, I accept this consensus.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
560
Views
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
560
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

560 Views
Message 1084 of 1,312

CarryAnn - that’s a bit abusive isn’t it? You do realize that this discussion is online and can be viewed from anywhere? If you simply resort to insulting people who have a different view to yours it tends to devalue your own arguments.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
560
Views
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
503
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

503 Views
Message 1085 of 1,312

CarryAnn - that’s a bit abusive isn’t it? You do realize that this discussion is online and can be viewed from anywhere? If you simply resort to insulting people who have a different view to yours it tends to lessen your own arguments, don’t you think?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
503
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
502
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

502 Views
Message 1086 of 1,312

It is necessary to read and understand accurate well-collected scientific data, not articles written by those with biases.  How many in the government have taken the time to read the Teotia and Teotia 30 year study showing that caries incidence is highest in populations that have high fluoride and low calcium in their diets?

Or the Ziegelbecker study demonstrating that the original correlation by Trendley Dean with natural fluoride water was mistakenly taken from a limited data set, where considering all data there is no caries efffect of flouride in water over a broad concentration range to 6 ppm.

Or the Yiamouyiannis study of U.S. fluoridated cities showing zero effect on dental caries in massive population sets as a function of age. 

Or the Sutton textbooks demonstrating how the false conclusions were made in the original Grand Rapids and Newburgh fluoridation trials?

How many have read the Fluoride Deception that traces the actual reasons why fluoridation trials were begun in the first place without FDA approval and with FDA opposition?

Dean confessed in court under oath that the evidence correlating water fluoride with caries incidence had no basis in fact.

Why does the government continue it?  I don't know. You seem to suggest that you know they would stop if they knew the truth.  When a government program starts, who can stop it? I can't.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
502
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
489
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

489 Views
Message 1087 of 1,312

Joe - Tell me, why did an Irish dental fluoridationist join and begin commenting on the website of the American Academy of Retired Persons, which is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age?  

 

Cancer was a red herring that Chuck Haynie threw in to disrupt the conversation. If you, Chuck and others want to argue cancer - get a room. I hear Sligo-Leitrim is only a train ride away from Dublin, yes? 

 

Myself, I prefer to limit my activities to my side of the Atlantic and let environmental scientist Declan Waugh and biologist Doug Cross deal with the trolls in the UK. 

Screen Shot 2018-07-12 at 3.49.30 PM.png

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
489
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
488
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

488 Views
Message 1088 of 1,312

You again make an incorrect extrapolation.  

I've informed the FDA several times that allowing fluoride in bottled water contradicts their own ruling to ban the sale of fluorides intended to be ingested by pregnant women. Their response is that they don't authorize adding the fluoride ilnto bottled water and in most cases it is naturally there and not intentionally added. Furthermore, fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water. 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
488
Views
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
446
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

446 Views
Message 1089 of 1,312

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
1
Kudos
446
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
444
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

444 Views
Message 1090 of 1,312

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
1
Kudos
444
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark