Getty Images and AARP present the Disrupt Aging Collection, a searchable photo collection that redefines what it means to get older. Take a look.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1377
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,377 Views
Message 1141 of 1,448

David, 

 

I asked you for the names of  reputable scientific organizations you accept.

 

You provided Wikipedia.  Wikipedia never crossed my mind as either scientific or reputable.  Thanks for letting me know your opinion.  I need say no more. . . . .    But I will.  Wikipedia is based on people's opinions and not primary research.  I don't know of any scientists who accept Wikipedia as reputable science.

 

Any other organizations you accept as "scientifically reputable?"    Are there any other scientists in the world, besides you, who accept Wikipedia as scientifically reputable?

 

May I suggest you review the primary evidence for yourself.  Trust encourages a person to be gullible.

 

By the way, more and more of main stream dentistry are using holistic dental procedures.  Often called other terms such as cosmetics, but the holistic procedures are grounded in the leading edge of science.  Tradition changes with a few brave people stepping out from the herd and trying to improve the system.  The least expensive alternative is not one size which fits all humans.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1377
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1357
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,357 Views
Message 1142 of 1,448

David, 

 

I asked you for the names of who YOU think are reputable scientific organizations.

 

You have listed Wikipedia.  That organization never even crossed my mind as either scientific or reputable.  Thanks for letting me know.    

 

Any other organizations you accept as "scientifically reputable?"    Are there any other scientists in the world, besides you, who accept Wikipedia as scientifically reputable?

 

May I suggest you review the primary evidence for yourself.

 

By the way, more and more of main stream dentistry are using holistic dental proceedures.  Often called other terms, but the holistic proceedures are grounded in the leading edge of science.  Tradition changes with a few brave people stepping out from the hurd and trying to improve the system.  The least expensive alternative is not one size which fits all humans.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1357
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1381
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,381 Views
Message 1143 of 1,448

BillO

By the way, for anyone interested in what you consider to be a "reputable organization," here is a Wikipedia article on Holistic Dentistry:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic_dentistry

 

From the article:  "Some critics of holistic dentistry practice also note that the fees charged by such practitioners are generally several times higher than those of mainstream dentists. Some claim that alternative dentistry is merely the exploitation of niche health beliefs and gimmicks to justify higher fees."

 

"A significant part of the critique of holistic dentistry is related to the unsubstantiated use of certain services and treatments, many of which have either been investigated and found ineffective, or have not been researched enough to be declared safe and effective for practice."

 

So, when I say that there is not one reputable scientific or health organization in the world which opposes Community Water Fluoridation, and you give me the IABDM, holistic dentists, which you claim is a reputable health organization which does oppose water fluoridation . . . 

 

Well, any intelligent reader can see your comment for what it was.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1381
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1375
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,375 Views
Message 1144 of 1,448

Bill O says, "But again you evade science and prefer tabloids."

Response:  Anyone who cares to read through this entire thread can see your defense of cherry-picked and out-of-context conclusions for what it is.  You have gone round and round with Drs. Slott, Hayne, and Johnson.  You have been proven wrong again, and again, and again by them.

 

Dr. Sauerheber and Carrie Anne have been proven wrong countless times by me because of his false claims about the Safe Drinking Water Act, FDA policy, labeling on FDA regulated products, the relationship between the EPA, FDA and water fluoridation. . I mean it never ends with you guys.

 

So I encourage any reader who is curious about your ideas of science to read the back-and-forth between you, Sauerheber, Slott, Johnson, and Hayne, and Dr. Joe Mullen.  We don’t need to do that anymore.

 

Right now I am examining your motives.  You were the Director of the Fluoride Action Network and nobody seems to know how much money Mercola funded to you.  Well, somebody must know. 

 

You ask, “What organizations do you think are reputable?” 

 

Response:  Well, for starters, if I don’t see them listed on Quackwatch that’s a plus.  For example, you won’t see the Mayo Clinic on Quackwatch.  The Mayo Clinic is a reputable organization . . and they endorse water fluoridation.

 

The American Cancer Society isn’t listed on Quackwatch.  That is also a reputable organization, which, by the way, also endorses water fluoridation.   

 

How about the World Health Organization.  I can’t find an article about the WHO on Quackwatch . . and guess what.  They also endorse community water fluoridation.

 

So, when I say there are no reputable scientific or health organizations in the world which oppose water fluoridation, I mean reputable.  Maybe you don’t believe in Western Science (as you plug away on your computer), and maybe that’s why you would cite Holistic Dentistry.  But I like my dentist who believes in Western Science.  It’s working out for me.  I’m 59 years old, still have all my teeth, and have only had one cavity in my entire life.  How’s your Holistic dentist working out for you?

 

I hope this helps answer your question about my standards for what I regard as a reputable organization.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1375
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1477
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,477 Views
Message 1145 of 1,448

David.  

Repeating again.  I dont know how much anyone donates.  That is confidential and I did not ask.  Profluoride organizations get tax and corporate money.  But again you evade science and prefer tabloids.  

 

What organizations do you think are reputable?

 

Quack watch is certainly not reputable.  

 

Bill Osmunson. DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1477
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1435
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,435 Views
Message 1146 of 1,448

Carrie Anne says, “It seems that the American Fluordiation Society (AFS), which is an advocacy group, is much better funded than the activist group Fluoride Action Network (FAN) - not that funding should have anything to do with science or honesty.”

  

I don’t know how much funding the AFS gets . . and I’ve been trying to get a straight answer from Dr. Osmunson about Mercola’s funding of FAN, but I he doesn’t seem to want to answer the question. 

 

Try a little experiment:  Ask Dr. Johnson or Dr. Slott how much Delta Dental Insurance funds them as see if they are as evasive as Dr. Osmunson has been about his funding.  That might go toward that “honesty” thing that you brought up.

 

I guess the difference between the two, is that while FAN is part of Mercola’s “Health Liberty” conglomerate (whose membership also includes an Anti-vaccine group), the paranoia that FAN generates helps Mercola sell his expensive stuff.  You know, like really expensive in home water filter systems . . really expensive fluoride free toothpaste . . really expensive fluoride de tox.  (It’s weird how that “natural” stuff is always way more expensive than normal stuff, isn’t it.)

 

So, FAN gets you paranoid about your strictly regulated, safe tap water, and of course you’re going to want a water filter.  See how that works?

 

In contrast to funding going toward a sales gimmick, Delta Dental is an Insurance Company.  Insurance companies do three things: they make money, they study data and statistics to help them make money, and they pay out claims.  They really like to make money and they really hate to pay out claims. So, what they do, is study all of the available data on any given issue to help them make money and to help them reduce the risk of paying out claims.

 

Delta Dental believes that paying out grants toward community water fluoridation will improve the overall health of a community’s citizens, thus reducing money paid out in claims.  That is why Delta also provides grants to Smoking Cessation Programs.

 

See how that works?

 

Are you going to tell us that Delta paying for Smoking Cessation Programs is also part of some conspiracy Carrie . . I mean Karen?

 

Moreover, Mercola has already received 4 Warning Letters from the FDA for unethical sales practices.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#FDA_warning_letters

 

 Has Delta Dental received any warning letters from the FDA for its unethical behavior Carrie . . . I mean Karen?  (The answer is No.  They have not.)

 

So to your point, Karen, “not that funding should have anything to do with science or honesty,” I think it’s clear that the Source of the funding certainly has a lot to do with not only motive, but the honesty behind that motive. 

 

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1435
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1450
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,450 Views
Message 1147 of 1,448

Expert in Brain Chemistry: ”Fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete.…. Nations who are using fluoridation should feel ashamed.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, neuropharmacologist. 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and official scientific advisor to the Swedish Government (1923 - 2018)

 

It seems that the American Fluordiation Society (AFS), which is an advocacy group, is much better funded than the activist group Fluoride Action Network (FAN) - not that funding should have anything to do with science or honesty.  

 

The honest medical science is that kidney function declines in our senior years, resulting in greater retention of fluoride in our bodies, bones and brains. Considerable science just this decade supports the testimony of countless seniors who have discovered that fluoridated water makes them sick in all sorts of ways - as reported by AARP contributors to this thread. 

 

  • Monica I. Jiménez-Córdova, Mariana Cardenas-Gonzaleza,  Guadalupe Aguilar-Madrid, et al. Evaluation of kidney injury biomarkers in an adult Mexican population environmentally exposed to fluoride and low arsenic levels. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. May 2018.   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X18302382 
    • ”In conclusion, F exposure was related to the urinary excretion of early kidney injury biomarkers, supporting the hypothesis of the nephrotoxic role of F exposure.”

 

  • Perera T. et al. Effect of fluoride on major organs with the different time of exposure in rats. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine (2018) 23:17.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/perera-2018.pdf
    • "...findings indicate that there can be some alterations in liver enzyme activities at early stages of fluoride intoxication followed by renal damage"

 

  • Natalia Ivanovna Agalakova and Gennadii Petrovich Gusev, “Molecular Mechanisms of Cytotoxicity and Apoptosis Induced by Inorganic Fluoride,” ISRN Cell Biology, vol. 2012, Article ID 403835, 16 pages, 2012   https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/403835/ 
    • "(Fluoride) activates virtually all known intracellular signaling pathways... whole cascade of events involved in the development of fluoride-induced cytotoxicity and cell death."

  • Barbier O, Arreola-Mendoza L, Del Razo LM. Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. Chemico-Biological Interactions. 2010 Nov 5;188(2):319-33. 

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20650267

    • "Until the 1990s, the toxicity of fluoride was largely ignored due to its 'good reputation' ... However, in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses."

  • A. Martín-Pardillos et al. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004    

    • "....the WHO's recommended concentrations in drinking water become nephrotoxic to CKD rats, thereby aggravating renal disease and making media vascular calcification significant."

     

    etc. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (3)
4
Kudos
1450
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1413
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,413 Views
Message 1148 of 1,448

Bill Osmunson, again, while you were the director of the anti-fluoride organization, Fluoride Action Network, how much did Mercola fund you?  This is the second time I’ve asked the question.

 

Ok.  I said, “There is No reputable scientific organization in the world which opposes Community Water Fluoridation.  You are a fringe group, even in scientific circles.”

 

Please allow me to respond to the examples you presented which were intended to dismantle my comment:

 

Austria is not a reputable scientific organization.

Belgium is not a reputable scientific organization.

Finland is not a reputable scientific organization.

Germany, Denmark, Finland and Sweden are not reputable scientific organizations.  Nor are the Netherlands, Hungary, Japan or China.  You do know that, don’t you, or were you hoping to pull the wool over some reader’s eyes?

 

You also mentioned the IAOMT.  In case any readers are not familiar with IAMOT, here is an article from Quackwatch dedicated to that organization:  https://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/iaomt.html

 

You also mentioned the IABDM, the International Academy of Biological Dentists . . or Holistic dentistry.  Guess what . . Quackwatch did a report on them too.  “This article responds to this concern and evaluates pseudoscientific practices that many of these dentists use.”  http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html

 

As I said, there is No reputable scientific organization in the world which opposes Community Water Fluoridation. 

 

And how much money did the anti-fluoride organization, Fluoride Action Network get from Mercola, as funding, while you were the director of that fringe organization?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1413
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1429
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,429 Views
Message 1149 of 1,448

David,

 

You keep repeating, "There is no reputable scientific organization, which is aware of the scientific literature, which opposes community water fluoridation."

 

If your definition of "reputable" is everyone who agrees with you, than you must be correct.  And if your definition of "reputable" is limited geographically and in agreement with you, then again you are probably correct.  

 

The IAOMT, IABDM (and other reputable scientific organizations) and most developed countries do not support fluoridation.  \

 

Austria REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added

Belgium REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves.

Finland STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of       caries....“

Germany STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing trend of caries

Denmark REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark.“

Norway REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated“

Sweden BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!

Netherlands REJECTED: Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgment overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.

Hungary STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.

Japan REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.

Israel SUSPENDED mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects.: June 21, 2006 “The labor, welfare and health Knesset committee”

China BANNED: "not allowed“

France Was 50%  now 30% fluoridated Salt

Ireland 74% Fluoridated

UK 9% Fluoridated

 

However, David, we need to look at the primary research rather than other people's opinions.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1429
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1350
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,350 Views
Message 1150 of 1,448

Dear Johnny,

 

Read the primary research.

 

The  NIDCR link you provide to the history of the theory of fuoride and dental caries is interesting and illustrates the lack of scientific rigor which is accepted by fluoridationists.  Not a single reference to primary research.  As a dentist and scientist, those stories are a fun read, but not science.

 

GV Black, the father of modern dentistry, was worshiped in dental school, but that does not mean science will never improve or go past his theories.   And he would be the first to remind us to continue research, question all theories and improve on them or discard them.

 

NIDCR mixes systemic and topical fluoride use.  Topical fluoride has shown better benefit than systemic.

 

Your own opinion and story is certainly of human interest; however, consider scientific evidence, primary research, and a review of all the evidence rather than simply trusting tradition and opinion.  

 

The NIDCR story reminded me of a careful evaluation of national surveys we currently have.  I was very surprised to see dental caries rates change with the concentration of calcium and magnesium water concentrations.  The ratio of all three, fluoride, calcium, and magnesium affect dental caries, but at low concentrations (under 1 mg/L) fluoride has less effect than changes in magnesium and calcium concentrations.  An entire new world of caries prevention few have considered.

 

If magnesium goes up or down plus or minus from about 10 mg/L, caries goes up, depending on calcium and fluoride concentrations.  But over about 20 mg/L magnesium and caries goes down, and that is at 0.7 mg/L fluoride.  Change the fluoride to 0.1 and caries increases over 10 mg/L.   50 mg/L of calcium seems to be a sweet spot, but caries goes up with less calcium.  And at 1 mg/L of fluoride, both calcium and magnesium concentrations affect caries in a different way.   

 

We have been far to simplistic when we have focused exclusively on fluoride and caries prevention.  The ratio of other chemicals in the water need to also be adjusted or considered in order to maximize caries reduction and not have iatrogenic harm.  In fact, adjusting magnesium or calcium could have a greater impact on caries than fluoride concentration.  

 

Obviously, any caries research which does not include the confounding factors of magnesium, calcium, sugar exposure and other diet factors is seriously limited with a high risk of false positives.

 

As long as my professions are camped on the flawed and limited theory of fluoride exposure, we have not been able to move past fluoride to other chemicals which are perhaps more important.    And with careful research, we might find fluoride is beneficial with hard water but not soft water or other chemicals.  So much to learn and discover.  At this point, DMFS appears to be the same whether the fluoride concentration in the water is 0.1 mg/L, 0.7 mg/L or 1.0 mg/L.  

 

Read the primary literature rather than tabloid stories reaffirming tradition and based on tradition.  

 

People promoting or opposed to fluoride exposure are not bad people.  They have experienced and read different literature.  We must get past looking at people, picking teams, trust, and faith.  It is time to look at the primary factual evidence.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1350
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera