Getting ready to enroll in Medicare? AARP’s Medicare Made Easy has the resources you need to help you make the right choices.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1140
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,140 Views
Message 1121 of 1,417

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
1140
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1100
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,100 Views
Message 1122 of 1,417

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
1100
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1075
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,075 Views
Message 1123 of 1,417

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
1075
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1023
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,023 Views
Message 1124 of 1,417

“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
1023
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1003
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,003 Views
Message 1125 of 1,417

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
1003
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
975
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

975 Views
Message 1126 of 1,417

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
975
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
921
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

921 Views
Message 1127 of 1,417

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
921
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
877
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

877 Views
Message 1128 of 1,417

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
877
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
883
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

883 Views
Message 1129 of 1,417

 

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
883
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
712
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

712 Views
Message 1130 of 1,417

Excellent idea. 

And stopping drinking F water and using natural toothpaste without F would eliminate 85% of the F in the bloodstream (about 15% comes from food in a fluoridated city.) Smiley SadNRC)  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
712
Views