It’s Brain Health Awareness Month! Check out Staying Sharp and its new features designed to support brain health.

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist
3
Kudos
964
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

964 Views
Message 951 of 1,248

It is truly very interesting how the 'official' fluoride story is so distorted and does not take into account all the historical facts that were known about fluorides prior to Colorado Brown Stain. Also, please note there is a difference between artificial silicofluorides, sodium fluoride, and naturally occurring calcium fluoride. Talking about these Fluorine (F) compounds as one single subject (i.e. fluoride) is also somewhat deceptive, unless it is made clear all fluorides are the same, which of course is not the case. However, all fluorides are highly toxic, where the true issue is the addition of artificial fluorides into the public water supplies, which is reckless disregard of any informed consent and mass medication with no margin of safety.

 

1855 Smelters in Freiburg, Germany first paid damages to neighbors injured by fluoride emissions. (See 1893) 

1893 The smelters in Freiburg, Germany paid out 80,000 marks in damages for fluorine contamination injuries and 644,000 marks for permanent relief. (See 1855, 1900, 1907). 

1900 The existence of the smelting industry in Germany and Great Britain is threatened by successful lawsuits for fluorine damage and by budensome laws and regulations. 

1907 The smelters in Freiburg, Germany (see 1893) are identified as the cause of cripplied cattle in the area since 1877, and fluorides are identified as the culprit. 

1916 The first evidence of brown mottling of teeth is reported in the United States, and would be eventually found to be caused by fluorides in water. 

1922 Aluminum production (along with production of toxic by-product sodium fluoride) increases. Aluminum cookware is mass introduced in the US, beginning the gradual accumulation of aluminum in the brains of Americans. Additional aluminum is injected into society in "antacids" and toothpaste tubes, which aggrevate the action of toxic fluorides. 

1928 The equivalent of the U.S. Public Health Service is under the jurisdiction of Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of ALCOA aluminum, a major producer of toxic fluoride wastes. Mellon would step down from control of the Public Health in 1931. 

1928 Edward L.Bernays, nephew to Sigmund Freud, writes the book Propaganda, in which he explains the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and how it is manipulated by those who wish to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. Says Bernays, "those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. Our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, largely by men we have never heard of." Bernays represents another connection to Germany and would be essential in the fluoride campaign in the United States. Wrote Bernay's, "if you can influence group leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway." (See Bernay's, 1947, and the fluoride campaign). 

1930 Kettering Laboratory is founded from gifts from Ethyl Corporation, General Electric and DuPont (all who have interlocking relationships with I.G. Farben in Germany) to "investigate chemical hazards in American industrial operations" under contract, with provision that research "shall not be released to the public without the consent of the contracting company." During the mid-20th century, Kettering dominated the medical literature on the toxicology of fluorides, but information was not released into the public domain. 

1931 A considerable portion of Kettering Laboratory's facilities are dedicated to the study of fluorides. Under contract, the studies are not releasable to the public. (See also 1939, Mellon Institute) 

1931 Three independent groups of scientists determine that fluoride in the water is the cause of dental mottling. Research teams from ALCOA Aluminum (who have fluorides as a hazardous by-product of aluminum manufacture) and the University of Arizona. Also shown by North African investigators and others. Dr. Gerald Cox of the Mellon Institute, owners of ALCOA, would later solve the expensive disposal problem with toxic fluorides by convincing others that it could be dumped in the public water supply as a "preventative" for tooth decay. 

1931 Under an agreement with I.G. Farben, ALCOA accepts a restriction on the production of magnesium in the U.S, hampering the war effort, while Germany itself stepped up production. Most of the U.S. production was shipped out of the country to Germany. 

1931 Public Health Service dentist H. Trendley Dean is dispatched by ALCOA founder Andrew Mellon to certain remote towns in the Western U.S. where water wells have a naturally high concentration of calcium fluorides. Dean's mission would be to find out how much fluoride people could physically tolerate before obvious visible damage to their teeth. Dean publishes a purposely skewed and deceptive study which purports to show that at 1ppm, flourides result in the "reduction of tooth decay". (See Gerald Cox, 1939) 

1931 The Mellon Institute is ALCOA's Pittsburgh research lab. 

1931 From 1931 to 1939, the U.S. Public Health Service seeks to remove fluorides from water supplies because of endemic mottled teeth. ALCOA's fluoride proposals have not been bought into by the public or government yet. 

1931 I.G. Farben and Alcoa Aluminum sign Alted Agreement pooling patents, which would continue through 1939 and beyond. I.G. Farben complex begins large contributions to fund Nazi cause. 

1933 A study is published in which it is shown that fluorides inhibit the action relative to lipase on ethyl acetate in vivo 50 percent at a concentration of one part in 15 million. (McClure, F.J., "A Review of Fluorine and its physiological effects", Physiological Review, 13: 295-297, July 1933). 

1933 According to a study by Freni in 1994 (71), in 1933 and again in 1984 that fluorides produce cumulative generational effects on biological organisms. 

1937 U.S. Public Health Service publishes material indicating that fluoride concentrations in many U.S. cities varied between 0.6 ppm to 8.0 ppm. A concentration of 0.9 ppm means that over 10% of children have mottled teeth and tooth deformities. 

1937 A clinical hygienic study by K. Roholm in 1937, Fluoride Intoxication, published by H.K. Lewis, London. Roholm is convinced that fluorides cross the placental barrier into the fetus. (70). This realization is echoed in 1951 by an M.D. and chemist from the University of Oregon Medical School. 

1938 Dr. Wallace Armstrong and P.J.Brekhus at the University of Minnesota Department of Biochemistry publish a study in which they claim that the enamel of sound teeth had a significantly greater fluoride content than the enamel of teeth with cavities. Armstrong was to admit that these results were false. In a followup study in 1963, Dr. Armstrong found no difference in the fluoride contents of the enamal of sound or decayed teeth. 

1938 The University of Mexico Bulletin, August 1, 1938, in an article entitled "Menace of Fluorine to Health", states "Solutions of sodium fluoride with a fluoride content as low as one part in 15 million may inhibit the action of the lipase (pancreatic juice) as much as 50 percent." 

1939 The ALCOA company, the world's largest producer of sodium fluoride,transfers it technology under the Alted Agreement to Germany. Dow Chemical follows suit. 

1939 ALCOA-sponsored bochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridates rats in his lab and mysteriously concludes that "fluoride reduces cavities". He makes a public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies. Cox begins to tour the United States, stumping for fluoridation. 

1939 Scientists at I.G. Farben prepare the first sample of fluorinated nerve gas Sarin. 

1939 On September 29, 1939, Mellon Institute scientist Gerald J. Cox plays a major role in the promotion of fluoridation by saying "the present trend toward removal of fluorides from food and water may need reversal. Water engineers had been recommending a maximum allowable fluoride contaminant level of 0.1 part per million (ppm), maintaining a tenfold margin of safety. (When fluorides were eventually added to water through corporate pressure, that safety factor would be thrown out and the level raised tenfold beyond the engineering recommendations in 1939, when fluoride was properly recognized as a toxic contaminant. Note: Mellon Institute was founded by Andrew and Richard Mellon, former owners of ALCOA Aluminum, plagued by disposal problems of toxic fluoride by products. ALCOA also had a relationship with I.G. Farben in Germany) 

1939 U.S. Public Health Service regulations state "the presence of fluorides in excess of 1 ppm shall constitute rejection of the water supply." (Yet, when water fluoridation is instituted, levels are set at a minumum of 1 ppm) 

1939 Volume 9 Report to the House Un-American Activities Committee delves deeply into the alleged use of fluoridation to keep the American people docile, so they would accept the changing of their system of government to a socialist state. 

1940 "Fluoride inhibits neuromuscular activity". Ref: Russo, G. Att.Acad. Sci. Nat.., 1940. 

1940 Soviet concentration camps maintained by fluoride administration to inmates to decrease resistance to authority and induce physical deteriorization. 

1942 "Fluorine may cause anoxia in the newborn and shorten the period of their survival" Ref: Himwich, H.E., et al., American Journal of Physiology, 1942. 

1942 Germany becomes worlds largest producer of aluminum (and Sodium Fluoride). Fluoride is used in the concentration camps to render the prisoners docile and inhibit the questioning of authority. 

1943 Researchers from the US Public Health Service examine the health of residents of Bartlett, Texas to see if the 8ppm fluoride in the drinking water was affecting their health. It was checked again in 1953. They find that the death rate in Bartlett was three times higher than a neighboring town which contained 0.4 ppm fluoride. 

1943 A special New York State Health Department Committee is appointed to study the advisability of adding fluoride to Newburg's drinking water, chaired by Dr. Hodge, then chief of fluoride toxicity studies for the Manhattan Project. 

1943 The Journal of the American Medical Association on September 18, 1943, contains an article, "Chronic Fluorine Intoxication", which states, "fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanism of such actions, it was said, are obscure. The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine, fluorine compounds used as insecticidal sprays for fruits and vegatables (cryolite and barium fluoro- silicate) and the mining and conversion of phosphate rock to superphosphate, which is used as a fertilizer. That process alone releases approximately 25,000 tons of pure fluorine into the atmosphere annually. Other sources of fluorine intoxication is from the fluorides used in the smelting of many metals, such as steel and aluminum, and in the production of glass, enamel and brick." 

1943 Environmental pollution by toxic metals, including fluorides, affects forests, livestock, and urban residents, but coverage remains on local levels. 

1944 "Even at 1ppm, fluoride in drinking water poisons cattle, horses and sheep" (Moules, G.R., Water Pollution Research and Summary of Current Literature, 1944. 

1944 The city manger of Grand Rapids, Michigan announces that the Michigan State Department of Health is planning a long range experiment with fluoridated water and that Grand Rapids was selected as the location for the experiment. The city commission approves a motion to fluoridate on July 31, and decides it is to begin in January 1945, despite the warning issued three months earlier, ironically, by the American Dental Association. Grand Rapids becomes the first city in the United States to conduct this experiment. It was to serve as the test city to be compared against un-fluoridated Muskegon for a period of ten years relative to tooth decay, "at which time it would be determined whether or not fluoride was "safe and effectiv." Dr. H. Trendley Dean was put in charge of the project. The experiment was terminated early, after the control city was fluoridated, ruining the validity of the experiment, with the pronouncement that fluorides in public water supplies was "safe".See 1945. 

1944 The Pentagon Scientific Research and Development Group further pursued the project to fluoridate the drinking water of Newburg, New York. Members included Henry L. Barnett, a captain in the Manhattan Project medical section, John W. Fertig, SRDG, Dr. Hodge, and David Ast, chief dental officer of the New York State Health Department, who was placed in charge of the Newburg Project. The group sought information on cumulative effects, which was also a goal of the Manhattan Project. (See below) 

1944 Through 1948. Previously classified documents from Manhattan Project which indicate the government knew the physiological and psycho-behavioral effects of fluorides, as a result of studies connected with determining the effect of uranium hexafluoride processing on workers, as well as studies in defense of litigation against the project by tree growers who experienced fluoride damage from airborne pollutants connected with the project. Ref: Declassified documents from the National Archives published in 1997. 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
964
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
949
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

949 Views
Message 952 of 1,248

Thanks Bill. We appreciate the correct information. Also it is good to read Johnsons heartfelt arguments that have correct parts Iin the reference, namely the brief description of some of the events leading to fluoridation, and the fact that even mild fluorosis is a devopmental abnormality. Fluorosed teeth however are not more resistant to decay and do not incorporate F into the enamel matrix as occurs in fluorotic bone. Teeth instead are deficient in enamel that leads to more crumbly dentin interiors throughout life as written by dentist George Heard who treated the kids in Texas and Colorado and apologized for going along with with the McKay theory for the PHS.

I am not deceiving anyone on this site. F ingestion is not FDA approved. Systemic F in the blood has zero ability to fight decay but is indeed efficiently incorporated into bone. The ziegelbecker data are complete and demonstrate the McKay correlation of F with decay was mere scatter that is not causative even up to 6 ppm in water, while the effect on fluorosis is indeed causative. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
949
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
906
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

906 Views
Message 953 of 1,248

Hi Johnny,

 

FDA has approved Asprin but not fluoride.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=BasicSearch.process

 

Essential review are Guidance documents of the FDA.  For example, unapproved drugs : https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm070290.pdf

 

And a must review is FDA explaination and definition of a drug.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/healthprofessionals/ucm553116.htm

 

There is no exemption from drug approval due to dilution or dilution in water.  A drug is defined based on intent of use.  Certainly we agree fluoride supplements are drugs.  Taking the NaF or any substance and diluting in water, marketed with intent to prevent disease, does not exempt FDA approval, regardless of whether any other Federal or State Agency also has jurisdiction.

 

Quote from FDA:

 

"LCDR Wagner: Whether a product is regulated as a drug, a cosmetic, or both under the law is determined by a product's intended use. Drugs are defined as articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and as articles intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals. Cosmetics on the other hand, are defined as articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.  Some examples of cosmetic products include skin lotions, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and face makeup, cleansing shampoos, hair dyes, and deodorants. . . . 

LCDR Wagner:  To establish a product’s intended use, FDA may consider a variety of direct and circumstantial evidence. This includes any claim or statement made by or on behalf of a manufacturer that explicitly or implicitly promotes a product for a particular use and any circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product or the context in which it is sold.  For example, FDA may consider the following to establish intended use: 

  • Claims stated on the product labeling, in advertising, on the Internet, or in other promotional materials.  Certain claims may cause a product to be considered a drug, even if the product is marketed as if it were a cosmetic. Some claims establish the product as a drug because the intended use is to treat or prevent disease or otherwise affect the structure or any function of the human body. For example, claims that products restore hair growth, reduce cellulite, treat varicose veins, or regenerate cells are generally drug claims.
  • Consumer perception, which may be established through the product's reputation. In other words, asking why the consumer is buying it and what the consumer expects it to do.
  • Inclusion of ingredients that have a well-known therapeutic use. An example of this is fluoride in toothpaste."

The FDA is quite clear, fluoride is a drug based on intent of use.  FDA has approved fluoride in toothpaste.  For example, FDA Orange Book lists fluoride:

OTCSODIUM FLUORIDE; TRICLOSANCOLGATE TOTALN020231PASTEDENTAL0.24%; 0.3% RLDRSCOLGATE PALMOLIVE

 

I am unable to find any NDA for fluoride supplements with the intent to prevent dental caries.  I asked FDA and FDA responded fluoride supplements are not approved.  

 

Dilution of a drug does not exempt the drug.  Even a placebo needs FDA approval.  A brief excellent vido by the FDA is https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/HealthProfessionals/ucm553114.htm

 

Please watch at least the last half.  Even public perception without manufacturer's claim, puts the substance as a drug.   Certainly we would agree that public perception of ingesting fluoride is with the intent to prevent dental caries.  

 

If the ingestion of fluoride were effective, the FDA would approve ingestion of fluoride.  However, the scientific evidence, the facts, are not strong enough to pass FDA approval.  In fact, FDA reviewed the evidence available at the time and said the evidence was incomplete.  

 

The first step for those wanting to promote fluoride ingestion is to gain FDA approval.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
906
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
884
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

884 Views
Message 954 of 1,248

Oh Richard.  The fluoride content and other contents used to be listed on bottled water.  I recall.  I stocked that aisle when I was working my way through college at a large Florida grocery chain, Publix.

 

Secondly, your comment about fluoride supplements not being approved by the FDA is partially accurate.  The same is true about aspirin.  The reason?  Both pre-date the FDA's testing criteria that is now in place.  Fluoride supplements and aspirin are grandfathered in.  

 

If aspirin or fluoride supplements were unsafe, they would be pulled from the shelves immediately.  The anti-fluoridationists have tried to get the FDA to change this in writing many times, but to no avail.  

 

I'm glad that you and the other anti-fluoridationists continue to post here.  At the ripe old age of 62, like my fellow readers here, we grew up without the benefits of water fluoridation.  And they, like me, continue to pay the price for not having had the benefits of water fluoridation.  Fillings, crowns, root canals, tooth removal, bridges, dentures, implants, and decreased quality of life are all attributable to not having had the benefits of water fluoridation, along with fluoridated toothpaste, perhaps not a well balanced meal, regular dental care, and a myriad of other factors that lead to tooth decay.

 

As a Pediatric Dentist, I have seen the children and grandchildren of folks who are reading your thinly veiled attempts to mislead them.  Every generation that has grown up with water fluoridation has better oral health than the one before them.  Even in the face of bad diets, poor oral hygiene, and lack of routine dental care, these kids are growing up with less cavities, and less severe cavities because of fluoridated water.  Fluoride toothpaste is a must.  Fluoridated water plus fluoride toothpaste work together.  It's like air bags and seat belts.  One does not replace the other.  They work in tandum to protect us from harms.

 

I won't have the time to go back and forth with you and the other antis, as I have work to do.  Suffice it to say that if there was a single health ill caused by fluoride in water at the levels in water fluoridation, or at levels much greater, we would have known it by now.  The benefits of fluoride were discovered in 1901.  The natural levels of fluoride in the water was found to be from 2-12 parts per million (ppm).  These folks did not have a single health issue associated with them.  Read about it here on a reputable website:

https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/fluoride/the-story-of-fluoridation

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
884
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
834
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

834 Views
Message 955 of 1,248

“Fluoride is a drug and any drug is dose dependent. Human susceptibility to dosage of drugs is different for each individual, depending on the state of their immune system, age and weight.” - John A. Rothchild, DDS, MAGD, DAAPM, IMD, NMD (2016)

 

Dentists who are members of ADA have privately told me that they know fluoridation does no good for teeth and is harmful to some consumers including causing dental fluorosis which results in veneers and crowns, but that they will not speak publicly because they fear repercussions, not least of which is loosing the financial benefits they are afforded by ADA membership. Dr. Bob Evans and the ADA mutually agreed to part ways when he confronted them about the fluoridation fraud. Since only about half of the dentists in the US belong to the ADA and many are intimidated into silence, well.... CBS has a new TV show on Friday nights called "Whistleblowers" - hopefully someone in the ADA will eventually get a conscience and speak up. That's an episode I'd like to see! 

 

In the meantime, read the December 2017 testimony of Dr. Bob Evans. 

2017.12.11_BobEvans.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
834
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
813
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

813 Views
Message 956 of 1,248

Bill, you say,

"You suggest 4,500 professionals opposed vs 7 million in favor of fluoridation as though quantity makes right.

 

First, please send me a list of the 7 million professionals and their signatures that they support fluoridation.  You assume they support fluoridation."

 

Response:  I assume they don't oppose water fluoridation.  As you know, the Fluoride Action Network has a list, "Professionals Opposed to Water Fluoridation."  It has between 4500 - 5000 signatories, isn't that correct?  These are people who are opposed to water fluoridation.  It's that simple.  

 

Now slow down and take a look at my comment.  Here it is:  " a proven health initiave is being hijacked by a fringe (Fringe:  4500 out of roughly 7 million health care and other professionals oppose water fluoridation, about 0.036%, .."  End quote.

 

You are a fringe.  Here's the definition of fringe:  "not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme."  You aren't part of the mainstream.  Moreover, you aren't part of the mainstream in scientific circles.  There is no reputable scientific organization, which is aware of the scientific literature, which opposes community water fluoridation.  (Chiropractors don't count.  Neither does the Aroma Therapy Association of America.)  The Mayo Clinic, the CDC, the FDA, the EPA, the US Department of Health . . over 100 in all support water fluoridation.  You are a fringe.  There is no other way to spin it . . but I'm sure you'll try.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
813
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
792
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

792 Views
Message 957 of 1,248

Bill,

 

First of all, while you were the director of the Fluoride Action Network, how much money did Mercola fund your organization?

 

To your two points in your first comment.

 

First, the 2006 FDA Health Notification for fluoridated bottled water.

 

I know exactly what the FDA Health Notification is. If you will be so kind as to review your own comment, you said, “proponents have failed to provide one prospective double blind study on efficacy and the FDA is not convinced.” ‎07-19-2018 05:33 PM

 

The fact is that the FDA is convinced. You may not like the criteria that the FDA uses, (in fact it seems to annoy you that you can’t get away with bringing the FDA into a discussion about optimally fluoridated water any more). The fact is that the FDA will accept a health claim “based on an authoritative statement from an appropriate scientific body of the United States Government or the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or any of its subdivisions.“ End quote. That is a fact.

 

Slow down and read the Health Claim. The FDA accepts the health claim that optimally fluoridated water helps to reduce dental decay. The FDA allows that wording on its fluoridated bottled water. End of story. The FDA accepts and takes responsibility for this wording.  There is no spinning it despite your desperate attempt at drawing attention away from what it is.

 

Your second point is that you want to undertake a double blind randomized trial for Community Water Fluoridation. First of all, your comments about going to the moon and splitting the atom are irrelevant . . but let’s look at your ideas for undertaking such a study:

 

Your quote: “There are places in Canada and Alaska and other places in the world where water is shipped in by truck. Simply find two similar communities and fluoridate one.”

 

Response: A double blind study between two similar communities would be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act which states that an annual Water Report must be supplied to all water consumers, (sometimes called a “Consumer Confidence Report”) so that water customers are aware of the contents of the drinking water they are paying for. Your suggestion is unethical and illegal.  In other words, it is illegal to supply water to consumers without informing them of analysis results undertaken on their water. 

 

However, one idea, you could run a study for under a year, between reports, but a study under one year in length wouldn’t be much of a study would it.

 

Your second suggestion: “Another is to use fluoride supplements in RCT studies. Again, simple, inexpensive and done for other pills all the time.”

 

Response: You must be joking. Fluoride pills in place of optimally fluoridated water? When you are trying to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of Community water fluoridation? First of all, and most obvious, these two substances, pills & drinking water, are not the same thing. Nothing would be proven and such a study would be ridiculed.

 

Moreover, it seems to me that this goes back to a common tactic that you anti water fluoridation fanatics use. You blur different degrees of fluorosis, and you blur different concentrations of fluoride. . as if bottled oxygen, which requires a prescription, is the same thing as optimally oxygenated air, which does not.

 

I hope this answers your nonsensical points.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
792
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
756
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

756 Views
Message 958 of 1,248

David,

You suggest 4,500 professionals opposed vs 7 million in favor of fluoridation as though quantity makes right.

 

First, please send me a list of the 7 million professionals and their signatures that they support fluoridation.  You assume they support fluoridation.  I can give you the list of those opposed, but you assume everyone else is in favor.

 

Second, how many of those alleged 7 million have read the primary research?

 

Rather than speaking about trust, assumptions and a faith based health care, may I suggest you read the primary research and start looking at the factual evidence.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
756
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
710
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

710 Views
Message 959 of 1,248

David,

 

Several points, but lets first look at your link to fluoridated bottled water.    Slow down and listen and read carefully.  

 

The title is, "Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries"

 

Read the title carefully, it is a "NOTIFICATION" to the FDA by the manufacturer of a health claim which is being made based, not on the FDA's review of the science, or any other treatment chemical regulatory body, but on "authoritative statement from an appropriate scientific body of the United States Government or the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or any of its subdivisions."  

 

The "notification" is under a new law which does not require the FDA review process.  The claim is based on other agencies.   Although those other agencies are scientific, they are not chemical regulatory agencies with protocol and policies, procedures and experts to determine safety and efficacy AND dosage of any substance used with the intent to prevent disease in humans.

 

David, you have mistakenly attributed the FDA approval review process for a notification process.  FDA never reviewed the scientific evidence.  

 

On your second point, you again read so fast you did not read it correctly.  I was very precise that proponents have failed to provide one prospective double blind study on efficacy.   Where is one?  Just one?  You have not provided one.  And you fail to understand the FDA regulatory process which reviews the studies but does very little testing of its own (that I'm aware of.).

 

The excuse that a prospective randomized controlled trial is nearly impossible is bogus and a cop out.  For heavens sake, we have gone to the moon, we have split the atom, we have cures for many diseases and we have RCT studies on all chemicals used with the intent to prevent or treat disease in humans.   To say an RCT study is nearly impossible is unscientific and seriously blinded.

 

There are places in Canada and Alaska and other places in the world where water is shipped in by truck.  Simply find two similar communities and fluoridate one.

 

Another is to use fluoride supplements in RCT studies.  Again, simple, inexpensive and done for other pills all the time.

 

I smile when I hear people say, "it can't be done."  Watch out, stand back, because others are or will do it.  So why not fluoride?  Simple.  It does not significantly reduce dental caries.  

 

I gave you a list of items often missing in fluoride studies.  You did not comment that I have seen?  Why? Because studies on fluoridation are miserably lacking in rigor, quality, strength, etc.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
710
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
718
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

718 Views
Message 960 of 1,248

 

Carrie Anne says, well actually that's not her real name, allow me to correct   . . . 

 

Karen Spencer, anti-fluoride fanatic/troll says, 

 

"This thread is supposed to facilitate  discussion among seniors who have found fluoridation causes illness or worsens their health, not to facilitate online harrassment.

 

I suggest new vistors read the oldest 60 comments posted between Feb 2015 - Feb 2018, before the fluoride-trolls descended and overwhelmed the thread with their vindictive rhetoric."

 

Response:  This thread, entitled, "Re:  Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action," is another attempt to bully/harrass/"Demand" that a reputable, distinguished, and highly respected organization, the AARP, submit to the dangerous agenda of a fringe group.  

 

Karen doesn't like it when her views are questioned.  Here she's attempting censorship by (in her mind) exposing the enemy.  I wouldn't be surprised if she has a dossier on me and other people who have openly contradicted her with facts.  She would do well in countries where freedom of speech is illegal . . as long as her views were the "official" views of the State.  

 

I say dangerous because a proven health initiave is being hijacked by a fringe (Fringe:  4500 out of roughly 7 million health care and other professionals oppose water fluoridation, about 0.036%, and Karen calls it a concensus) anti-science, alternative medicine group.

 

Much, if not all, of the misinformation about water fluoridation ultimately has its roots in the Fluoride Action Network, which is part of Mercola's Health Liberty conglomeration.  According to Wikipedia, Joseph Mercola brought in nearly $7 million in 2010 with his online business, selling such things as water filters, fluoride-free toothpaste, fluoride de-tox.  All of which fit in nicely with the anti-fluoride propaganda, because the paranoia that Karen, and people like her spread, help Mercola sell his stuff.  

 

Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales practices.  Meanwhile, he spreads fear & paranoia about vaccines, micro waves & wi fi, and of course fluoridated water (You think Wi Fi is dangerous too, don't you Karen?) . . all which is designed to sell stuff.

 

Thank you Karen for your consistancy.  Your words speak for themselves.

 

By the way, there has never been one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
718
Views