Get the information you need to help care for your eyes at the AARP Eye Center. Visit it today!

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
628
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

628 Views
Message 781 of 1,248

Moreoever, unlike water fluoridation which has no absolute proof in well-controlled prospective  experiments where diets and brushing habits, etc. are all fully controlled, for salmon we have such proof. The Univ. of Oregon studeis in prospective controlled experiments prove that salmon could not navigate upstream in water containing fluoride near levels used in fluoridation. 

The original correlation (correlation does not prove causation) that some towns with higher fluoride in water had fewer dental caries did not hold up when all towns were investigated as a function of fluoride concentration. The two events, fluoride in water and caries incidence reduction, are not a cause and effect relationship. Ziegelbecker fully disproved causation in the original selected few towns because the complete data demonstrated otherwise. So the best explanation is that people with Colorado brown stained teeth (caused by swallowing fluoride) could have brushed their teeth more than in a town where the teeth were not stained. Teeth brushing reduces dental caries, not swallowing fluoride.

Fluoridating a salmon spawning stream not only impairs salmon function, but it is a violation of the original Water Pollution Control Act first conceived by President John F. Kennedy. The Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act followed the WPCA and were based on its original mission. The mission of the WPCA as conceived by Kennedy is outlined in its section 101A, stating that the purpose of the act is to maintain the natural chemistry of America's water supplies. In other words, don't chemically alter our rivers and lakes. Infusing artificially fluoridated wastewater into the Scramento River completely dishonors and violates this mission of President JFK. 

The criticism that salmon are not harmed in the River because of the discharge pipe is based on misinterpreted graphs. The bar chart submitted contains three sections, and only the center one describes salmon returns fo rthe Sacramento River main channel where the discharge pipe is located and this has not returned to anywhere near full recovery since 2010. The other bars are for salmon returns in tributaries that are not fluoridated and in fact have many salmon hatcheries near them. Using the tributary data to discredit the claim that salmon are affected by the discharge pipe in the Sacramento River is pretty slick. It is just as slick as the claim that it is somehow proven that eating fluoride lowers teeth caries incidence.  It is a widely proclaimed advertisement, since no such proof exists in prospective fully-controlled experiments, such as does exist for fluoride harming salmon. Understand?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
628
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
643
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

643 Views
Message 782 of 1,248

But nothing in the statement ever "evolved".  It is a documented fact that when fluoridation began, the salmon returning population was the lowest in all recorded history in the Sacramento River. I did not discuss the salmon in the tributaries or other central valley rivers that are not fluoridated. So?

The two events occurring together is indisputable.

Of course it is difficult to prove beyond any doubt that one caused the other, rathter than the other causing the one, or rather other variables causign both, or rather the two events occurred only by accident together. 

But the statement itself is a fact--the two occurred together, and when the collapse became so severe that the fishing industry on the Sacramento closed up shop, this was after fluoridation of South Scramento had begun many months before.

These are not "evolving" statements. They are statements of fact that need more thorough explanation and details when a critic challenges them. 

It's amazing how a critic can complain about the fact that it has not been proven that fluoridation was the final straw causing the lowest runs in history to close down the industry, while at the same time buys hook line and sinker the false correlation of fluoride in drinking water reducing dental caries. This coincidence has been fully disproven beyond doubt. Fluoride in water does not reduced dental caries and never has. The original claim was based on selected towns, whereas the complete data set proved that there is no reduction whatsoever as a function of fluoride concentration in water. 

How does a critic recognize the likely true one that has not been disproven as being not possible, while fully accepting and even proclaiming the false one as though it were a fact?  I have no clue why people believe what they believe, but it is certainly a sad situation. . 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
643
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
663
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

663 Views
Message 783 of 1,248

Carry Anne, you say:  “A straw man fallacy is when statements and positions are misrepresented by opponents in order to mount politically biased and invalid rhetorical attacks. Other logical fallacies used by fluoridationists DavidF,”

 

Response:  I don’t get it.  I have been trying to focus on something Dr. Sauerheber said, that water fluoridation caused the salmon collapse in Sacramento.  It would never occur to me to even think that.  But that is what he said.  This is his exact quote:

 

 RS:  the salmon industry was decimated in Sacramento when the city began fluoridation.”  07-27-2018 07:19 PM

 

When I presented evidence from environmental experts who blamed the salmon collapse on drought, the building of dams, and over-fishing, he changed his story to this:

 

RS:  "This does not detract from the claim that fluoride discharges were a final straw that completed the approximately 90% collapse in the first place”   08-27-2018 08:06 PM

 

And then, when we looked at the actual increase in salmon numbers after fluoridation began in Sacramento, which totally debunked his original claim, his story changed again:

 

 RS:  “And as stated before, it may be that salmon can adjust and imprint the chemical conditions that prevail and grow in number again.”    08-28-2018 07:07 PM

 

So, when you say I am misrepresenting him in some way, could you please explain that?  I think his comments speak for themselves.  They seem to "evolve" as more evidence is presented to him.  You would think he would have looked at all the evidence before making the outrageous claim in the first place.

 

Carry Anne, you also say, “The irony is that the fluoridationists claim the fluoride opponents are using 'gish gallop' with our science based and ethical arguments, when it is they who like creationist Duane Gish, PhD (1921-2013) are trying to manipulate public opinion with lengthy rambles filled with flawed reasoning.”

 

Response:  Gish galloping.  I’m glad you brought that up, because while I have been trying to focus on the Doctor’s original claim about salmon, he’s been trying to get off into the SDWA, the FDA, the EPA, and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (and I admit, I did make some comments about that).  Are you sure we are looking at the same comments, or am I making one of those straw man arguments again?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
663
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
678
Views

Re: Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

678 Views
Message 784 of 1,248

So opponent's of fluoridation have legal rights to speak out against it. That is great. And so we do. The Cochrane review found no credible evidence that swallowing fluoride has any ability to affect dental caries. And how could it in the first place? Teeth enamel is a hard crystalline matrix of calcium phosphate and does not contain fluoride in it.

Sadly ablood fluoride is readily incorporated into bone and accumulates there where it dies not belong,, altering the crystal structure of bone and is essentially permanent since ithete is no biochemical mechanism designed to resorb it.

Again, these correct facts are fully legal for me to proclaim. OK? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
678
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
683
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

683 Views
Message 785 of 1,248

Since I didn't remember using the word 'greedy' which RandyJ repeatedly claims I did and which  doesn't sound like me, I searched my comments. This is what I said: 

 

As to who financially gains from fluoridation policy, they are too numerous to list but include fluoridated toothpaste manufacturers and fluoridation marketeers hired to create astroturf materials for social media fluoride-trolls. Then there are the dentists whose big bucks are earned from treating dental fluorosis. I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose. Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks.

 

Here's a link to a 1988 special report issue of Chemical Engineering that speaks to the inconsistencies between policy & scientific data. It includes some financial data: 

http://www.nofluoride.com/Chemical_&_Engr_News.cfm  

EXCERPTIn a similar vein, the economic benefits of fluoridation appear to have been exaggerated. NIDR states that every dollar spent on fluoridation, which costs only 20 to 50 cents per person per year, reduces dental costs $50. NIDR assumes that fluoridation reduces cavities some fixed percent, such as 40%, and then multiplies the total number of cavities theoretically prevented by the average cost of filling one cavity. But when the actual costs of dental care delivered in similar cities are compared, residents of fluoridated cities seem to reap no economic benefit from fluoridation. In one study, reported in a February 1972 article in the Journal of the American Dental Association, the cost of dental care in five unfluoridated cities in Illinois was compared with costs in five similar cities with naturally fluoridated water. Even though dentists’ fees and the nature of treatments in the two groups of cities did not differ significantly, the cost per patient and the average number of visits to the dentist per year were greater in the fluoridated communities.

Screen Shot 2018-08-30 at 10.59.11 AM.png

 

FWIW: A 21st century innovation to get around the inconvenient financial facts regarding fluoriation is to use computer simulations and questionable input data that substitutes Medicaid codes as proxies for cavities. Again, I'm not accusing all dentists of being dishonest, but dental Medicaid fraud has been identified as a multi-million dollar problem in multiple states and has been the topic of several whistleblower cases. 

 

2014 in New York - 40% of claims are fraudulant

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2014/01/13/government-programs-have-become-one-big-scamm...

2015 in Indiana -  94 dentists defrauded Medicaid of $30.5 million

http://wishtv.com/2015/05/12/indiana-dentists-accused-of-overtreating-patients-overbilling-medicaid/...

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
683
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
674
Views

Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

674 Views
Message 786 of 1,248

Richard Sauerheber – Your statement suggesting that I implied, “So now it sounds like it is acceptable for fluoridation opponents to speak out againt it because indeed they truly believe and have evidence for the fact that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective. So that's great.” is a perfect example of how anti-science activists (ASAs) change topics and “adjust” reality and the context of statements to fit their agenda.

 

To be very clear, I never stated or claimed or implied that I believe that it is “acceptable for FOs to speak out against it”, particularly employing the tactics I and others have highlighted, regardless of whether they ”truly believe” or think they have legitimate supporting evidence.

 

I actually stated, “If someone saw a glow in the theater and really believed there was a fire that was endangering them and others they would certainly be within their legal rights to scream Fire!” “Within their legal rights” does not translate to “acceptable”.  If you can find anything in my comments to suggest I believe the conduct of ASAs is acceptable, please feel free to cite it.

 

I am stating that it is irresponsible to yell Fire! if the body of evidence (as interpreted by the majority of relevant experts) supports the conclusion that the fear-causing glow is from a cell phone – or perhaps a flashlight.

 

I actually agree with your statement, “It's not that complicated.  Unproven correlations can do much long lasting damage to the health community.”  That is precisely why many “medical treatments”, like homeopathy, that depend entirely on anecdotal correlations for evidence of effectiveness have the potential for harm.  However, support for CWF is not based on “unproven correlations” except in the over-excited imaginations of fluoridation opponents. 

 

The fact is that the medical community accepts the evaluation of the 70-year body of evidence that the benefits of CWF far outweigh any currently known risks.  If fluoridation opponents have legitimate evidence to support their apparently paranoid fears, it is their responsibility to convince the medical and scientific communities their fears are legitimate instead of continuing to yell Fire! for over 70 years with no legitimate, reproducible supporting evidence.

 

If the findings of legitimate research supported the conclusion that specific diabetic drugs caused more harm than benefits, and the results were published and confirmed by additional research the drugs should have been taken off the market.  If additional risks were discovered, but the benefits in many cases outweighed those risks, the drugs would probably be kept on the market with additional warnings.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
674
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
710
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

710 Views
Message 787 of 1,248

A straw man fallacy is when statements and positions are misrepresented by opponents in order to mount politically biased and invalid rhetorical attacks. Other logical fallacies used by fluoridationists DavidF, RandyJ and members of the fluoridation advocacy group on this thread and elsewhere are  circular reasoning, appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, etc. All the logical fallacies are popular with fluoridationists and social media trolls. 

 

The irony is that the fluoridationists claim the fluoride opponents are using 'gish gallop' with our science based and ethical arguments, when it is they who like creationist Duane Gish, PhD (1921-2013) are trying to manipulate public opinion with lengthy rambles filled with flawed reasoning.  Gish was a wordy creationist and orator who repeatedly 'proved' that evolution theory is false and that the Bible creation story is historical fact. (Randy's comments are frequently 2,000- 2,500 words while DavidF prefers making multiple comments one after the other for his delivery of fallacies.) 

 

In particular, let me point out that it is totally illogical to use the rubber stamp endorsements of the CDC for its own fluoridation policy and the Amercian Dental Association (ADA) which is a trade association with financial ties to the fluoride industry as proof of anything while denying the validity in the reasoned opposition to fluoridation in the 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use with over 500 citations by the Internationational Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAMOT). The IAOMT is an international group with professional membership in all 50 states. The IAOMT is governed by a science board and was founded in 1984 with a scientific mission that includes funding independent peer-reviewed research regarding non-toxic oral medicine and educating medical professionals and public in dental and oral medicine. 

 

But we digress. As an opponent of fluoridation, I prefer science and ethics. For your clicking convenience, here are the 8 scientific citations which were in fact removed via flagging when posted on another online platform in reply to RandyJ's taunt of lack of science: 

 

“The effects of fluoride intake pose risks of various diseases in the asthmatic-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin systems… avoid the fluoridation of drinking water and fluoridation of milk in all regions of the country.” - Romero et al. 2017 

  • The impact of tap water fluoridation on human health. Verena Romero, Frances J. Norris, Juvenal A. Ríos, Isel Cortés, Andrea González, Leonardo Gaete, Andrei N. Tchernitchin. Rev. méd. Chile vol.145 no.2 Santiago Feb. 2017.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28453591 

 

“This study provides evidence that chronic oxidative and inflammatory stress may be associated with the fluoride-induced impediment in osteoblast differentiation and bone development.” - Gandhi et al. 2017 

 

“In conclusion, prolonged fluoride intake at chosen concentrations caused imbalance of the cellular oxidative state, affected DNA and disrupted cellular homeostasis. It is recommended that fluoride supplementation requires a fresh consideration in light of the current study.” - Campos-Pereira et al. 2017 

  • F.D. Campos-Pereira, L. Lopes-Aguiar, F.L. Renosto, et al. Genotoxic effect and rat hepatocyte death occurred after oxidative stress induction and antioxidant gene downregulation caused by long term fluoride exposure. Chem Biol Interact. 2017 Feb 25;264:25-33. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28089781 

 

“The finding supports the epidemiological results that water fluoridation might be responsible for the increasing rate of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.” - Kakei et al. 2016 

 

“Last is the question of whether in issues of uncertainty it is appropriate to determine broad-based policies intended to mandate public health measures.” - Gesser-Edelsburg & Shir-Raz 2016 

  • Anat Gesser-Edelsburg and Yaffa Shir-Raz. Communicating risk for issues that involve 'uncertainty bias': what can the Israeli case of water fluoridation teach us? Journal of Risk Research · August 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305985332 

 

“We found that practices located in the West Midlands (a wholly fluoridated area) are nearly twice as likely to report high hypothyroidism prevalence in comparison to Greater Manchester (non-fluoridated area).” - Peckham  et al.  2015

  • S. Peckham, D Lowery, S Spencer. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. J Epidemiol Community Health. 24 February 2015. http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/02/09/jech-2014-204971 

 

“In summary, this study has empirically demonstrated an association between more widespread exposure to fluoridated water and increased ADHD prevalence in U.S. children and adolescents, even after controlling for SES. The findings suggest that fluoridated water may be an environmental risk factor for ADHD.” - Malin & Till 2015

 

“Such contaminant content (in fluoridation chemicals) creates a regulatory blind spot that jeopardizes any safe use of fluoride additives.” - Mullenix 2014

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
710
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
749
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

749 Views
Message 788 of 1,248

So now it sounds like it is acceptable for fluoridation opponents to speak out againt it because indeed they truly believe and have evidence for the fact that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective. So that's great.

As far as describing why some professionals agree with fluoridation, I can't determine that without discussing that with each person. I would guess that indeed most, being uninvolved in fluoridation research themselves, simply accept what dental officials at the CDC state. Why should they disbelieve it since they don't do their own research on it?

All doctors who I know do not intentionally subject patients to fluoridated  water and really could care less whether patients want to drink it or not. Most don't object to it either because it is widely believed to be a Federal policy. But this of course is incorrect for reasons listed previously. When discussing the issue with physicians over the years kmost accept that fluoridation is not useful after evidence is presented to them indicating that. I don't know any  who actually endorse or promote fluoridation in the face of evidence describing its ineffectiveness.


Early in my research career I had no reason to disagree with the use of the commonly prescribed diabetic drugs to treat type II diabetes. But after conducting experiments on the issue it became clear that these drugs should not be prescribed. Most are derivatives of beta cell harming substances that release insulin in an abnormal way and the real issue in type II is not insulin lack anyway, it is overnutrition that is correctable without drugs. So with fluoridation the same events are common, where people generally accept it on faith from word of mouth and only reverse position when discovering definitive data that indicate eating fluoride is ineffective.

It is not hard to understand this, where dentists are taught in dental schools that fluoride is good and ingesting it reduces dental decay. This was a stance that was agreed upoin by dental school deans in the 60's and the country is now paying the price for that.

It's not that complicated.  Unproven correlations can do much long lasting damage to the health community.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
749
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
763
Views

Re: Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

763 Views
Message 789 of 1,248

Richard Sauerheber – If someone saw a glow in the theater and really believed there was a fire that was endangering them and others they would certainly be within their legal rights to scream Fire! – even though it was a false positive.  One of humanities most important survival skills is to pay very close attention to and avoid perceived risks – real, imagined or fabricated.

  

If someone actually believed they and others were in danger, how can you conclude that "screaming fire in a crowded room when there is no fire, imagined or otherwise, is illegal"? 

 

I am just stating the fact that fluoridation, like noticing cell phones glowing in dark public areas, is recognized by most individuals who understand modern science as safe – that is the definition of a consensus.  There are some, however, who believe there are dangers and yell Fire!

 

Fluoridation opponents are within their legal rights, protected by free speech, to promote their opinions - for example those by CarryAnne:

(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt and vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions and Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

You also claim (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “Most [dentists] are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” 

(07-25-2018 11:30 PM)the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates
(07-03-2018 07:35 AM)I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.

 

And comments To Dr. Johnson by Dr. Osmunson (07-09-2018 09:09 PM):

"CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing."
"Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the publicThey are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust."
"I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation."

"Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion."

 

Do you accept CarryAnne's and Dr. Osmunson's specific claims against the organizations they referenced and also, as I have asked them, against all members of the 100+ respected (except by anti-science activists) organizations and their representatives who have not publically embraced the anti-F opinions?

 

If you answer yes, explain how you can trust any science or health conclusion or procedures accepted by anyone in those organizations?  If all professionals who support community water fluoridation are mindless lemmings who are willfully or ignorantly blind when it comes to the issue of fluoridation – and are willfully or ignorantly subjecting their patients to the allegedly obvious and damaging harm from fluoridation, how on earth can they be trusted to make any beneficial decisions?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
763
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
736
Views

Re: Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

736 Views
Message 790 of 1,248

But screaming fire in a crowded room when there is no fire, imagined or otherwise, is illegal. It is not protected by free speech rights.Those opposed to mandatory fluoridation of people against their will are not screaming any such thing and in fact are trying to protect the rights people are supposed to have to access fresh drinking water without added agents designed to treat human tissue (that do not work in the first place).

Claiming that opposing fluoridation is like screaming fire when there is no fire is an assertion that such opposing speech is illegal. it is not.  Whistleblowing is protected by first amendment free speech rights. This is the United States of America and in this country we are protected by the U.S. Constitution and have full rights of free speech on the issue of fluoridation of people against their free will.

Intimidation and threats of such protesters being illegal are unAmerican.

Protecting the rights of people to have access to clean fresh drinking water is also a right that is guaranteed by the United Nations. Forced fluoridation of populations en masse in cities is a violation of such rights and a violation of the prescription process since fluoride tablets cannot be prescribed in cities where water fluoride levels exceed 0.6 ppm and cannot be prescribed to children under three.  Fluoridated water promoters do not believe fluoride is a medicine and that these statements are irrelevant but that is false. The FDA ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. Is the FDA screamilng fire and mongering fear by making this ruling? Of course not. if you want to change the policy of the FDA land the pescription process and regulations for pescribing fluoride for ingestion go ahead and talk to them. 

But until then I preach what the FDA rules.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
736
Views