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

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
699
Views

Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

699 Views
Message 831 of 1,302

CarryAnne – First, let me apologize for interpreting your 08-22-2018 06:59 AM statement, “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” as “greedy, willfully blind”.  I have corrected the error in Q5 below.

 

Explain how my asking you a series of questions designed to examine your publically posted statements and positions and my requests for clarifications can, in any way, be defined as “A straw man fallacy” where “statements and positions are misrepresented by opponents(08-30-2018 07:46 AM)?  I am requesting that you explain more clearly your statements and positions so I don’t misrepresent them.  Specifically:

 

Q1)  Do you accept the fact that the support of CWF by virtually all nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations constitutes the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – YES or NO – and the related sub-questions.

 

Q2) Do you accept as true Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim about the CDC, ADA and AAP, “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust”?  And do you believe that is applies it to the other 100+ organizations that do not publically denounce fluoridation and their hundreds of thousands of representatives?

 

Q3) Since you have gone out of your way to bring vaccination into the fluoridation conversation, do you also believe vaccination policies (to use your 08-24-2018 10:07 AM language) are also “an immoral medical mandate that forces contaminated product into bodies of convenient consumers regardless of impact on individuals in vulnerable populations who include senior citizens”?  Or do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any risks?

 

Q4A) You still have not addressed my 08-21-2018 01:00 PM correction to your blatant misrepresentation of the precautionary principle.

 

Q4B) You also did not provide an answer to my question, “If your claim ‘The evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive’ is even remotely valid, how can you possibly explain the fact, which has been brought up and ignored by FOs  numerous times, that all of the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation is safe and effective and that there are no such organizations that support the anti-F agenda.

 

Q5) Did you actually describe in your comments (08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as (corrected version) -- “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopathsNote: I corrected my original use of the term greedy.  If I am still misrepresenting your statements, please explain what you actually meant by those comments.

 

Update:  It is interesting to observe that in your “correction” comment 08-30-2018 11:03 AM, you don’t reference or highlight your 08-22-2018 06:59 comment “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA & EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt.

Instead you reference your 08-19-2018 01:05 PM post in which you only accuse some dentists who “intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [financial benefit]” and continue with “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.

 

Q6) Do you also extend your description of fluoridation supporters in Q5 to all the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of all the other science and health care organizations that continue to recognize the benefits of CWF and have not publically denounced CWF?  Or do you have another explanation for why those professional health care providers choose to remain silent – or publically support the practice?

 

Q7) Another of my questions (08-21-2018 09:36 PM) I don’t remember you answering: ”By your ‘logic’ those who demand that drinking water chlorination be halted because chlorine has been used as an immoral chemical weapon (and creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts which have not been proven by randomized controlled trials to be completely safe) have a legitimate argument.  Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy is immoral mass poisoning because toxic chemicals are used and there may be health risks from overexposure to disinfection byproducts?”

 

You are still dodging my questions and providing additional irrelevant comments opinions and conclusions.

 

You still have not provided a rational explanation of why, if fluoridation opponents actually have legitimate scientific evidence to support their claims of harm, the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure has not changed in over 70 years.  Or, if you believe the scientific consensus on fluoridation is irrelevant, you have not explained what your alternative would be.  It appears your alternative is to do whatever it takes to convince the public to blindly trust and accept fear-based, minority, outlier opinions.

 

Also, you have not provided a rational explanation of why you would trust or accept any claims made by any health professionals who supported or did not denounce CWF:

  1. If, as Dr. Osmunson’s apparently believes, those professionals who accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.
  2. And, as you apparently believe, they are “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"

Q8 - New) Are all these science and health professionals selectively lemmings, willfully blind, greedy (sorry, [affected by] financial benefit), corrupt, etc., only when it comes to their understanding of the science related to fluoridation?  
If so, how would Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation” be even remotely justifiable?

 

As noted elsewhere, the IAOMT Position Paper Against Fluoride Use with “over 500 citations”, your lists of studies and articles FOs have interpreted as supporting their cause, dozens of opinions from other FOs, and what you accept as “inconsistencies between policy & scientific data” are completely irrelevant to any scientific discussion of the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.  These tactics are nothing more than marketing strategies designed and implemented to try and scare the public (most of who are not trained and experienced in science or medicine) into believing the anti-F arguments and interpretations of the evidence have some legitimate credibility.  If their “evidence” was even remotely legitimate and credible, FOs would have been able to change the scientific consensus in discussions with relevant experts.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
699
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
691
Views

Numerical Deceits: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

691 Views
Message 832 of 1,302

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.

 

PeabodyPercentageDog.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
691
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
708
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

708 Views
Message 833 of 1,302

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.  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
708
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
729
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

729 Views
Message 834 of 1,302

Wow!

 

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. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
729
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
969
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

969 Views
Message 835 of 1,302

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
969
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
985
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

985 Views
Message 836 of 1,302

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
985
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
991
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

991 Views
Message 837 of 1,302

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
991
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1006
Views

Re: Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

1,006 Views
Message 838 of 1,302

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
1006
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1011
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,011 Views
Message 839 of 1,302

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
1011
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1002
Views

Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

1,002 Views
Message 840 of 1,302

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
1002
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