Take the AARP Smart Driver course and you could save on auto insurance! Sign up today.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1140
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,140 Views
Message 951 of 1,310

David,

I missed an important point in my last post which you raised.  

 

Indeed, this thread demands that AARP take action on fluoride because AARP is a perfect arbitor or facilitator of this controversial issue.   There are many top notch scientists who are members of AARP.  Certainly, some of these scientists would volunteer to evaluate the various issues on fluoridation.  AARP could hold a forum, discussions, evaluation of research, promote a white paper, and carefully have scientists review fluoride exposure, dosage, safety, efficacy and jurisdiction, bringing all sides to the table. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1140
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1121
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,121 Views
Message 952 of 1,310

David,

 

You did an interesting cut and paste.  But you did not carefully examine each item.  Now go back and carefully read the primary research and both sides.  Remember, in a "court" hearing, both sides present their case for the jury to make a judgment decision.  The same holds true for evidence based health care.  Both or all sides need to be carefully evaluated.

 

For about 25 years after dental school, I promoted water fluoridation because I did not spend the time to evaluate both sides.  I even had fluoride added to my bottled water at the office and I spoke up on behalf of fluoridation with cities.  Finally I started to look at the primary research for myself instead of blind belief in the CDC/ADA.  

 

I worked with Port Angeles on their vote to stop fluoridation.  Unfortunately, one or two anonymous people opposed to fluoridation were being harmed and quite hostile.  Although I disagree and we all spread the word to stop that kind of action, one or two spoiled our professional well ballanced presentations.   On the other hand, those promoting fluoridation have done far worse. . . stripping dentists of their licenses to practice dentistry for not following tradition.  But hostile acts are about people, not a way to evaluate facts and scientific evidence. 

 

I don't know about Robert Reeves.  Maybe he was fighting for a client.  Clearly the National Kidney Foundation looked at the science and did not feel they could support fluoridation in a court of law.   Fluoride is hard on fragile kidneys.   Sometimes courts are necessary and I have been told by more than one fluoridationist to take it to court.  We are taking the EPA to court.

 

You bring up another good example of Cathy Justus.  You need to see the video, read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut and paste.  One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.  You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?

 

You gave some other illustrations of unacceptable behavior and I agree with you.  But I have not carefully looked at the facts of each case.  None of those illustrations have anything to do with science.  

 

Does a person doing a bad act prove that fluoridation is safe and effect?  Does a person slamming a door on someone's hand prove that 60% are not getting too much fluoride?  No.   

 

Your comments are about people, not science.    

 

One study I read, and I don't have time to look it up, was explaining a new drug treatment for cancer and a trial for treatment, which looked promising.  In passing, the authors explained they had given the test animals fluoride to cause cancer so they could test the drug on cancer diseased animals.  

 

For someone to suggest fluoride does not cause cancer is seriously flawed because they have not read the studies for themselves.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1121
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
981
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

981 Views
Message 953 of 1,310

We have been commenting under a thread entitled:  “Fluoride – Demand AARP take action.” 

 

“Demand,” that sounds kind of pushy doesn’t it.  But is it?  I don’t think so.  Actually, this “demand” that is being made is quite mild by comparison when placed within the long history anti fluoridation behavior.  Here are a few examples of what I mean:  

 

In the City of Port Angeles, Washington, when a fluoridation vote came up in 2017, local businesses were threatened with being blacklisted if community water fluoridation (CWF) was reinstated.  This is from the news article:

 

“In the letter to Johnson, it (an anonymous flyer) begins with a typed out “Dear” and then has “OWNER H20” in handwriting.

“How much business can you afford to lose?” it asks.

“Are you ready to have your restaurant/hotel/store listed on a handout warning the public that your business serves, makes or treats food items with tainted water?””

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/port-angeles-businesses-get-letter-threatening-blacklisting-o...

 

And again, in a letter dated September 18, 2007, Attorney Robert E. Reeves threatened the National Kidney Foundation with a lawsuit if they did not remove their organization’s name from a list of organizations endorsing and supporting CWF.  The following is an excerpt from that letter: 

 

“NKF and responsible individuals which might include past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are named as defendants in anticipated legal action now in development.” . . . .

“Even if it is ultimately determined that neither NKF or any past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are liable criminally or for any tort such as negligent misrepresentation this could still be a major financial public relations disaster for NKF which is best handled now rather than later.” 

 

In response, the National Kidney Foundation chose to avoid the financial burden of defending itself against a frivolous lawsuit, a threatened “public relations disaster,” and removed its name from the ADA’s list of organizations which support water fluoridation.  However, the National Kidney Foundation in no way Opposes water fluoridation either.

 

And another example of this behavior, Mrs. Cathy Justus, is a Pagosa Springs, Colorado resident who claimed that her expensive horses & four dogs died as a result of drinking optimally fluoridated water.  (Never mind the fact that the water in Louisville, Kentucky is fluoridated, and the owners of very, very expensive racehorses there allow those horses to drink that water with no harm to them.)

 

In Mrs. Justus’ unbelievably long comment under a post by New Zealand scientist, Dr. Ken Perrott, who looked at the science involved in the Justus story, you will find this in her 15th paragraph:

 

Mrs. Justus wrote, “Our sole goal was to cease fluoridation and we told our municipality that if they did that we would not pursue a lawsuit.”

 

Moreover, according to her, “The public was ready to take them to taks (sic.) on this angle of personal choice and medical mal-practice if they didn’t cease fluoridation. Fluoridation was ceased just week later in 2005.”   https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/fluoridation-and-horses-another-myth/#comment-70349

 

Again, never mind that this “angle” has been brought before the Supreme Court 13 times, and 13 times the Supreme Court refused to review the arguments for lack of merit.  But she bullied, buffaloed and intimidated the City of Pagosa Springs, and they caved.

 

The mayor of an Australian city was injured when an anti-fluoridationist slammed a car door on her head.  https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/mayor-shaken-by-alleged-assault-after-fluoride-spa/2680776/

 

And again, the Chief Medical Officer in Lismore, Australia was threatened with Sarin gas by an anti-fluoridation group. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-12/fluoride-threat/4953898

 

And this:  Blogger Peter Tierney wrote an opinion piece about a South Australian anti-fluoridationist who sat as a Member of the Legislative Council, Ann Bressington.  Ms. Bressington used her high position to incite death threats against Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek by posting a Wanted Poster with bullet holes which read “Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.”  https://reasonablehank.com/2013/03/05/bressingtonville-just-like-the-movie-ghost/

 

First let me say that in this era of mass killings, this kind of behavior is not only unacceptable, it is irresponsible and it should be criminally punished. 

 

Let me also say that this particularDemand,” this thread under which I am commenting, that the AARP get on board the anti-fluoride train doesn’t even come close, by comparison, to some of the dangerous examples of unhinged thinking and actions of other anti-fluoridationists, which, I’m guessing have been brought about by extreme paranoia, a tendency toward conspiracy theories, and “Google Research.”   

 

On the other hand, this thread is just another, milder expression of the same mindset.  After all, I have been accused of “stalking” simply because I have had the audacity to question the comments of some of these “experts.”  In my opinion, this sort of paranoia is exacerbated by the blatant scare-mongering which has become a specialty of the Fluoride Action Network, or Fluoridealert.   

 

Apparently, readers of these threads are encouraged to accept everything that is being written by these “experts” without questioning a thing.  Does that really sound like an honest way to Demand the AARP to do anything? 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
981
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
875
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

875 Views
Message 954 of 1,310

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
875
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
939
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

939 Views
Message 955 of 1,310

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
939
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
916
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

916 Views
Message 956 of 1,310

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
916
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
904
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

904 Views
Message 957 of 1,310

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
904
Views
Moderator
0
Kudos
890
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

890 Views
Message 958 of 1,310

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
890
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
853
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

853 Views
Message 959 of 1,310

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
853
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
852
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

852 Views
Message 960 of 1,310

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
852
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet