- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Invest, Diversify, Integrate Your Financial Life
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Comunidad Hispana de AARP
- Dogs, Cats and Pets
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Love, Sex & Dating
- Our Front Porch
- Random Thoughts and Conversations
- Singles Perspective Revisited
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Rewards for Good
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Good News
- Entertainment Archive
- Caregiving Forums
- Grief & Loss
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Numerical Deceits: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Fluoridation advocates and their political partners ”share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.” - A. Gesser-Edelsburg & Y. Shir-Raz in Communicating risk that involve ‘uncertainty bias’… Journal of Risk Research. August 2016
Misrepresentation of data is now and has always been a cornerstone of fluoridationist disinformation campaigns.
As Dr. Sauerheber indicates, the original 1940s fluoridationists cherry picked data sets when the entire data set did not prove their hypothesis. Brunelle & Carlos did the same thing circa 1990 with the NIDR study of 39k American school children. Both also used deceptive percentages that gave an appearance of substantial benefit when in absolute terms highly doubtful benefit amounted to a minority of children having perhaps one less cavity, but again only in a small dataset that was not representative of the whole. But that's not the only way the fluoride-lobby manipulates numbers in order to manipulate opinions.
Opponents frequently mention that 98% of Europe does not fluoridate their water or that about 97% of Europeans do not consume fluoridated food or water. A New York state presentation to dentists and public health officials this month promoting fluoridation coached their audience to emphasize that 13 million Europeans have fluoridated water and claimed that 10% have fluoridated salt then trailed off implying other fluoride delivery mechanisms were widespread. They are not.
First, there is close to a billion people in Europe and 13 million is less than 2%. Second, fluoridated salt is only available in some countries where it holds a minority share, mostly for industrial use like in prisons and military installations. That might be 10% of salt for those specific countries; I don't know and I don't care. What I do care about is disinformation campaigns that twist numbers and words and immoral medical mandates that harm vulnerable consumers.
- Missing from the New York DPH training is the harm caused vulnerable populations and the environment - and that is the topic of this thread despite the fluoride trolls hijacking the conversation and baiting some opponents into bickering over distractions.
Here's another fluoridationist numerical manipulation: Even if we accepted government pro-fluoridation figures, a more accurate way of representing that suspect data is 0.15% of the water might reduce 10% of the tooth decay in 25% of Amercian children. That's the best case scenario from pro-fluoride cherry picked datasets, but fluoridationists twist the numbers to give a false impressions and omit the documented harm to vulnerable populations who include senior citizens.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Doctor S., your quote:
"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."
Response: I am talking about the tributary data, the center section in each bar, in my last comment. Trying to confuse the issue by accusing me of misrepresenting data, simply because there are three sections in each bar, is pretty slick.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Dr. Sauerheber, nothing in your statement ever evolved? I have documented the evolution of your story. Here is the documentation of the documentation - See my comment timestamp 08-30-2018 11:34 AM
Again, trying to focus on your salmon story, (because we wouldn't want anyone to accuse us of gish galloping), this is what you just said:
You say, “It is a documented fact that when fluoridation began, the salmon returning population was the lowest in all recorded history in the Sacramento River.”
And, “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.”
Now, this is a link that you originally provided. http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=1586%C2%A0 I didn’t provide the link, but I suspect you didn’t bother to look at it either.
Take a look at figure one. All three sources of salmon spawn returns, Tributaries, Mainstem, and Hatcheries hit their lowest point in 2009.
You said water fluoridation began in 2010. All three sources showed improvement after 2009. In 2010, there was a greater abundance of fish into the mainstem than in 2009. 2011 also showed improvement from 2009 (before fluoridation began), although the Fall return in that year was not quite as good as 2010. Mainstem returns in 2012 was better than 2009. 2013 was better than 2009. 2014 was better than 2009. And the next year also.
In other words, the low point for mainstem returns happened before water fluoridation began. After fluoridation began in 2010 there was improvement.
I don’t get how you can’t even grasp the simple fact that when water fluoridation began in 2010, and you said it began in 2010, it had absolutely no negative effect on salmon runs, (you even have a picture to look at). And yet you think you have the insight to argue that Einstein was wrong about time dilation.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
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?
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
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. .
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
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?
Re: Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)
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?
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
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:
EXCERPT: In 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.
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:
2015 in Indiana - 94 dentists defrauded Medicaid of $30.5 million:
Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)
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.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
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.
“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
- Gandhi, D., Naoghare, P.K., Bafana, A. et al. Fluoride-Induced Oxidative and Inflammatory Stress in Osteosarcoma Cells: Does It Affect Bone Development Pathway? Biol Trace Elem Res (2017) 175: 103.0 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-016-0756-6
“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
- Mitsuo Kakei, Masayoshi Yoshikawa and Hiroyuki Mishima. Fluoride Exposure May Accelerate the Osteoporotic Change in Postmenopausal Women: Animal Model of Fluoride-induced Osteoporosis. Adv Tech Biol Med 2016, 4:1. http://www.esciencecentral.org/journals/fluoride-exposure-may-accelerate-the-osteoporotic-change-in-...
“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
- A Malin and C Till. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence. Environmental Health 2015, 14:17
“Such contaminant content (in fluoridation chemicals) creates a regulatory blind spot that jeopardizes any safe use of fluoride additives.” - Mullenix 2014
- Mullenix PJ. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2014 Apr-Jun;20(2):157-66.
- healthy brain
- AARP Global Council on …
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Brain booster
- brain food
- brain health experts
- Clean water
- Corrupt Law Enforcement
- dental costs
- dental fraud
- dental health
- Diet and memory