From travel insurance to fraud protection, AARP has you covered. Take a closer look at your member benefits.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
895
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

895 Views
Message 981 of 1,337

Dr. Bill,

 

Your analogy of “whack-a-mole,” which I raised, is a little off, although I appreciate your efforts to manipulate the concept so it somehow works for you.  The idea of whack-a-mole is that a mole pops his head out of a hole, someone tries to “whack” the mole before he ducks down and reappears from another hole. 

 

In the original analogy, the issues themselves are the holes.  So, you raise the issue of “Freedom of Choice” not to drink fluoridated water.  I whack your argument with the fact that you never had a freedom of choice because you live on Planet Earth, and on Earth all drinking water has some degree of fluoride in it.  You have been drinking fluoridated water for your entire life.  There is no “Freedom of Choice” on Earth in regards to drinking fluoridated water.  You are a child of the Earth. You will drink water with fluoride in it.

 

The mole gets whacked, but pops his head out from another hole.  You raise the issue of contaminants.  I point out that a person would have to drink 2 liters of water per day for 2451 lifetimes to have a one-in-a-million chance of having an ill health effect from any arsenic, or any other contaminant, as a result of fluoridation.  (You may see my math and comments here): https://www.facebook.com/fluoridewater/posts/915319835173028?__xts__[0]=68.ARD5Cjwr7uOe5lLRT8zSN6qug... ),

and Dr. Ken Perrrott of New Zealand points out that source water often has more background contaminants than the miniscule amount which would be added by fluoridation (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/chemophobic-scaremongering-much-ado-about-absolutely-... )  . . Moreover, he points out the amount added is so infinitesimally, astronomically small . . well, I direct you to my math for that one. 

 

The mole gets whacked again but pops his head up here:  Dr. Bill says, “You know one of my top concerns. . . like the WHO . . . excess exposure.”  I point out that the WHO is indeed concerned about excess exposure, in places like India, where drinking water can have 33 times the optimal level of fluoride, . . or China, where atmospheric fluoride is 100 times the amount in the United States; neither of which has anything to do with community water fluoridation.  Moreover, the World Health Organization supports community water fluoridation.

 

The mole gets whacked but raises his head out of the “harm to animals” hole.  I will discuss Cathy Justus, her claim of fluoridated water killing her horses, and will provide a link to Dr. Perrott’s discussion of the issue in my next comment.  (Well, here are Perrott’s comments on the issue.  More discussion of Cathy Justus in the following comment:  https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/fluoridation-and-horses-another-myth/

 

The mole now pops out of the IQ hole.  You all bring up the Harvard Study, a Review of non-peer reviewed Asian studies study (where environmental fluoride is extremely high), and other studies which had not been undertaken in areas where community water fluoridation is practiced, and therefore I point out these have nothing to do with community water fluoridation.

 

I point out that the Broadbent Study (2015) which concluded “findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic.”    Aggeborn & Ohman (2016) & the Barberio Study (2017) all suggesting that optimally fluoridated water does not have a negative effect on IQ.  But you don’t like those studies.

 

And on and on and on it goes.  It is an endless game of “whack-a-mole” and when it is over I ask the mole to provide one documented case of any human being who was ever harmed in any way from drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.  .  .  .  Silence .  .  .  the mole’s head pops out from the “Freedom of Choice” hole.

 

 And it begins again.  

 

This is baseless scare-mongering, plain and simple.  But what motivation would you have to push a scare-mongering agenda?  Let’s look at some facts.

 

It is a fact that the Fluoride Action Network, the energy behind this scare-mongering, is part of Mercola’s Health Liberty conglomerate.  (And please, correct me if any of these things are wrong.)

 

It is a fact that Mercola makes millions of dollars every year selling expensive Alternative Health products as well as expensive fluoride free toothpaste . . really expensive in home water filter systems . . fluoride de tox, fluoride free oral health care, you know, stuff that people would want to buy if they were afraid of fluoride.

 

It is a fact that Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales behavior.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#FDA_warning_letters

 

It is a fact that Mercola funnels money to the Fluoride Action Network through the nonprofit American Environmental Health Studies Project. https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

 

And it is a fact that the more paranoia the Fluoride Action Network generates about fluoride and strictly regulated safe tap water, the more stuff Mercola sells.

 

Is any of that incorrect?  If not, then please connect the dots.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
895
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
960
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

960 Views
Message 982 of 1,337

David,

 

There are several reasons not to add more fluoride to everyones' diet indiscriminately with uncontrolled dosage (people drink different amounts of F water, F rich food, F rich medication, etc.  

 

Much like whack a mole.   97% of Western Europe does not fluoridate public water, for various reasons depending on who you talk to in that country and not each country agrees on the most powerful issue or "mole" to whack.    

 

Whether one country finds one issue more convincing than another issue is very much like individuals.  My wife finds the contaminants in the fluoridation compounds to be unacceptable.  My mother finds freedom of choice most convincing.  My son-in-law finds the lack of efficacy most convincing, my one daughter finds the harm to animals is most concerning, my other daughter finds the harm to the developing brain as most concerning, a good friend is most concerned with chemically sensitive individuals, another friend is concerned with the adverse effects on the thyroid, and another friend has the most concern for the effects on the mitochondria, while another friend finds the evidence of fluoride causing cancer is of most concern.  

 

You know one of my top concerns. . . like the WHO . . . excess exposure.   Too many people are ingesting too much fluoride as reported by the NHANES 2011-2012, 20% moderate/severe fluorosis.  But the over riding issue for me is combining all streams of evidence. . . all the moles popping their heads up at one time is a huge concern.  

 

Compare fluoride with tobacco.  Not everyone gets lung cancer from smoking tobacco.  Smoking affects different people in different ways.  Some get more periodontal disease, some kidney, some cancer, etc.   Sort of like whack a mole.  Smoking does not cause a single disease, but increases risk for many disesaes.

 

Western science has really just started to get serious researching fluoride's effect on the developing brain.  We are in the infancy of research on the risks of excess fluoride. . .  especially , neurotoxicity; however, 3 to 5 reasonable studies come out every year and the mountain of evidence is crushing.  Most studies have been done in the last few years and, like a snowball, growing and growing.  The smoke is thick and in effect you keep yelling no evidence of fire.  Just give it time and fluoride will be as concerning as excess lead, tobacco, DDT, etc.   

 

Some want to have absolute certainty.  Reminds me of tobacco.  While taking pathology, each disease discussed by the professor mentioned the increased risk from tobacco and second hand tobacco smoke.   Cause is not a simple single effect.  Not everyone has the same sensitivities to fluoride.  A global perspective looking at all the moles is required.  Maybe we should stop whacking moles and find the reasons for so many.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
960
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
953
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

953 Views
Message 983 of 1,337

Dr. Bill, you provided a list of 11 countries which you claimed banned water fluoridation because of scientific evidence produced by scientific organizations within each respective country.

07-21-2018 10:25 PM, & 07-27-2018 11:56 AM 

 

This is your exact quote, copy & pasted here:   “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  

 

You are saying that each of these countries’ scientific agencies have determined that community water fluoridation is neither safe, nor effective, and have rejected water fluoridation for these reasons.  Am I reading your comment correctly?  Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I was curious about that, so I asked you:

 

 “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

I also asked you for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in your list. 

 

In your comment below, you have provided the Dutch Ministry of Health’s statement on water fluoridation.  Correct?  Nothing in the Dutch statement supports your claim that water fluoridation is neither safe, nor effective.  Isn’t that correct?  This organization has rejected CWF based on the philosophical argument of “freedom of choice,” which I would be glad to debate with you after we finish with this. 

 

So, right off the bat, if this is the only example you can provide to support your story, we see that your comment was False.  You weren’t telling the truth.  There is nothing in the Dutch statement which says fluoridation is neither safe nor effective.

 

Hans Moolenburgh, a Dutch quack, convinced his government to end water fluoridation in 1976 using science from the Last Century.  I have seen his video.  In it he tries to prove that optimally fluoridated water causes gastro-intestinal problems in babies.  In it he says, ‘We know that it was the fluoridated water that caused the babies to cry because when we took the bottles away from them they stopped crying.’ (paraphrased), isn’t that correct?  And wasn’t Dutch scientist, Hans Moolenburgh involved in something called chanting cosmic sounds?  Is that correct?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4orQKFrUcsw  I guess he was a quack.

 

Nevertheless, you are correct, I was wrong.  There is One scientific organization in the world which has rejected water fluoridation.  (That still makes you a fringe group in the scientific community.)  The Dutch Ministry of Health was conned in 1976 by Cosmic Sound believer, Dr. Moolenburgh who used science from the last century to make his argument.  But the Dutch Ministry of Health has never stated that community water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective, and they have conducted no studies which suggests this. 

 

Your statement was false.  But I will give you one more opportunity to prove your statement before we end this.  For the last time: 

 

You said, “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  End quote.  07-27-2018 11:56 AM   (BTW, the Dutch Ministry of Health never conducted a study proving CWF was neither safe nor effective.)

 

In response to that, I asked you:  “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

I also asked you for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in your list. 

 

Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that chanting Cosmic Sounds will heal you?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
953
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
936
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

936 Views
Message 984 of 1,337

David,

 

97% of Europe is fluoridation free.  

 

You keep saying, " there is not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposes water fluoridation," and I keep responding the undisputed fact that most of Europe does not fluoridate their water.      

 

For example, take the very reputable Dutch Ministry of Health and Welfare and Courts:  

 

“. . . at present the addition of chemicals to drinking water is prohibited by law in the Netherlands. This law came into effect because it was widely perceived that drinking water should not be used as a vehicle for pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, fluoridation of drinking water would conflict with the freedom to choose for natural drinking water. This principle of freedom of choice is considered as an important basic principle in the Netherlands.”

SOURCE: 2007 – RIVM report 270091004/2007 for the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports

 

The link to the full report is at https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/270091004.pdf. The quote is on p. 59.

 

David. . . you seem to not be able to use judgment and keep saying the same thing.  No evidence appears adequate for you and instead you resort to personal attacks.  Please stop.  

 

Even if a person loves the public health intervention of adding fluoride to water, certainly the person should have concerns when most adolescents in the USA show signs of excess fluoride ingestion.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
936
Views
Moderator
0
Kudos
922
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

922 Views
Message 985 of 1,337

Hey everyone,

AARP welcomes robust debate.

 

This is a gentle reminder to please remember to post according to the AARP community guidelines.

 

https://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
922
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
885
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

885 Views
Message 986 of 1,337

Dr. Bill, either admit that you were not telling the truth or provide evidence of what you said so that we may move on.

 

To recap:  

After I stated, factually, that there is not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposes water fluoridation, you provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations. 

 

In defense of your list, you said, “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  End quote.  07-27-2018 11:56 AM 

 

In response to that, I asked you:  “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

I also asked you for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in your list. 

 

AGAIN: You said, as a statement of FACT, that all of these countries who do not fluoridate their water have scientific agencies who "have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  

 

Well do they or don't they?  If you say they do, you must be aware of these alleged studies conducted by these alleged scientific agencies.  Therefore, it shouldn't be that hard to provide links to these allegted studies which you claim exist.  

 

I'm not asking you to do my homework.  I'm asking you to do your own homework.  It's your story.  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
885
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
882
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

882 Views
Message 987 of 1,337

David,

 

You make no sense.  

 

You promote, support, additional fluoride exposure and require an impossible moving target of evidence on every aspect.  

 

Science does not have absolute proof of gravity, able to explain exactly why.  Although we don't have absolute proof, I can assure you, I believe gravity exists.   Sometimes absolute proof is not possible and judgment is required.

 

Very simple, there are organizations/countries that endorse adding more fluoride to peoples' diet/lives.  And there are many organizations/countries that do not.  You refuse to accept evidence I provide, so you need to search for yourself.   I can't do your homework for you. Go to pubmed and search.  www.fluoridealert.org has the largest fluoride data base that I'm aware of.  CDC and ADA have their side.  Read both sides of the evidence, not just research which supports your bias.

 

I provided you evidence that the NHANES 2011-2012 reported 60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.  20% have moderate/severe.  That, in and of itself must be addressed.    

 

There is no logical, ethical or financial reason to give people fluoride more when they are getting too much.

 

If you want to know more about the various countries which do not support giving people too much fluoride, then contact the countries yourself.  Nothing I provide, quote, reference or say will change your mind.  So do your own investigation.  I have done thousands of hours of investigation and my professional judgment, based on all streams of evidence, is that many are ingesting too much fluoride and the best place to reduce exposure is a cessation of water fluoridation.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
882
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
894
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

894 Views
Message 988 of 1,337

Dr. Bill,

 

Just so we are clear here, I haven’t been making any claims.  If you can find something in my comments which you feel is factually incorrect, please bring it to my attention and I will be more than happy to defend it . . unlike yourself.

 

These people, yourself included, are “Demanding” that the AARP take action against community fluoridation.  In your efforts, you all have made some pretty astonishing claims. 

 

I have simply been asking you to supply evidence of some of your claims, which I find, frankly, unbelievable.  You are the ones making the “Demands” here.  And you’re the ones who are trying to make the case to support your “Demand.”  

 

You are the one who is supposed to be the expert.  You’re the Doctor.  I’m not here to answer your questions.  I’m here ask you for evidence of some things I’m reading from you that I just don’t believe.  Frankly, and this is just my opinion, I believe you have been trying to hood-wink the AARP to get them to support your fringe position. 

 

 You can distract and raise other issues all you want, but the bottom line is, I believe you are making false claims and I am offering you the opportunity to support your stories with evidence. On the other hand, if you can defend some of your odd claims with valid evidence, that would be great. 

 

When we left off:  After I stated, factually, that there is not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposes water fluoridation, you provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations. 

 

In defense of your list, you said, “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  End quote.  07-27-2018 11:56 AM 

 

In response to that, I asked you:  “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

I also asked you for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in your list. 

 

I will have to go back and review other claims you had made which you refused to defend, but for now, let’s stay focused and just concentrate on this one. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
894
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
960
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

960 Views
Message 989 of 1,337

David,

 

Try resonding without personal attacks.  Would be more readable, credible and scientific.

 

I have been busy and not had a chance to read all the postings here.  Would you be so kind as to repost your response to my questions:

 

1.     How do we know when people are ingesting too much fluoride?  With 60% of adolescents showing signs of dental fluorosis, 20% with moderate/severe, when should my public health profession reduce exposure?

 

2.     What concentration of fluoride in the tooth shows lower dental caries?

 

3.    Over 50 human studies, several at low levels of fluoride in water, and over 200 animal studies report developmental neurotoxicity/neurotoxicity of fluoride.  What evidence refutes those studies?

 

When it comes to "safety," prospective randomized controlled trials are not ethical.  For example, there are no high quality studies measuring the effects of jumping off a 10 story building.  Would simply not be ethical.  My point, in case you miss it, safety studies are more complex and judgment must be used.  

 

With so many ingesting too much fluoride, the developmental neurotoxicity studies become alarming.

 

4.  High quality prospective randomized controled trials on efficacy of fluoride ingestion can be done.  What primary high quality studies can you provide which demonstrate efficacy.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
960
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1096
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,096 Views
Message 990 of 1,337

RS:  “I am a chemist, a scientist, not a used car salesman..”

Response:  Good, then you should know how to do math.

 

RS:  “ It is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse that happened after the discharges began.”

Response:  Sure it is.  First determine the flow of the Sacramento River when the salmon industry collapsed.  Then determine effluent discharge per day.  Joe Carroll used a fluoride level of 0.6 ppm F for effluent, and I think that’s fair.  He was quite right that partial removal from solid waste would have lowered the level.  Moreover, he didn’t account for storm water and other run off infiltration, which would have lowered it more.  We know that salmon are sensitive to 0.5 ppm F.  From that, it is a simple math calculation. 

 

So when you say it is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse of the salmon industry, my response would be that Failure of Simple Arithmetic should be an Embarrassment!

 

You’ve got a theory that can be proven or disproven with a simple math calculation.  Math doesn’t lie.  Used car salesmen lie.

 

We don’t see math and science from you, we see excuses:  “It is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse that happened after the discharges began.”  And you say you are a chemist?

  

One more thing:

" Pollution from farms and urban areas took a heavy toll on the river's environment, and heavy irrigation withdrawals sometimes resulted in massive fish kills.  Since 1960, when the big pumps at the head of the California Aquaduct in the Delta began their operation, the pattern of water flow in the Delta has been changed considerably leaving the fish confused as to where to go, resulting in many generations dying off because they have not been able to find their way upstream. In 2004, only 200,000 fish were reported to return to the Sacramento; in 2008, a disastrous low of 39,000.

 

"In 1999, five hydroelectric dams on Battle Creek, a major tributary of the Sacramento River, were removed to allow better passage of the fish. Three other dams along the creek were fitted with fish ladders. The river is considered one of the best salmon habitats in the watershed because of its relatively cold water and the availability of ideal habitat such as gravel bars"

 

“By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the government blamed crashing fish populations on overfishing, especially off the Northern California and Oregon coast, which lie directly adjacent to the migration paths of Sacramento River salmon. This has resulted in a ban on coastal salmon fishing for several years since 2002.  The Red Bluff Diversion Dam, although not a large dam and equipped with fish passage facilities, also presents a major barrier. Because of inadequate design, roughly 25–40% of the incoming fish get blocked by the dam each year. The dam has also become a "favorite spot" for predatory fish to congregate, feasting on the salmon that get trapped both above and below the dam.  As of 2010, the salmon run has shown slight signs of improvement, probably because of that year's greater precipitation.”

 

So, as of 2010, the salmon population began to rebound.  Did fluoridation decrease in 2010?

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1096
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