Reply
Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

 

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

70,853 Views
1473
Report
Conversationalist

“The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

DavidF last comment, per usual, is not only not factual but also uses a mix of logical fallacies in order to achieve his goal of burrying useful information under a mountain of rhetoric. 

 

The purpose of this forum thread started in February 2015 that had 60 supportive comments from about 20 seniors prior to the troll invasion is to share personal testimony and advocate for a ban on fluoridation. The fluoride 'rapid response' team that overhelmed the thread in June 2018 has disrupted the conversation with flights into every possible distraction, one of which was arguing over environmental harm (another about  Einstein's theories). RossF responded to the environmental issue first with an appropriate abstract documenting that yes, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Services knew in 1980s that salmon are harmed at fluoride concentrations of 0.5 ppm. 

 

DavidF's reply that attacked RossF misrepresented a reply that provided 23 affadavits on harm from 1993 (not the 1960s) which included one from a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed, it was well documented that some people including the client, Mr. Riggins, are harmed by fluoridation. The lawyer reported that those client medical records struck a chord in him regarding his own health issues. In addition to the 1993 affadavits from doctors, scientists and lawyers that attested to human harm from fluoridation, this forum includes personal testimony of harm which David ignores, including mine

 

But as to environmental harm from fluoridation which at least is relevant if a little off topic, since I can't find my earlier comment with a list of a dozen environmental citations on harm cause plants & animals due to fluoridation waste water, here they are again (I have more): 

  1. 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.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851 

  2. Camargo, J.A. 2003. Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review. Chemosphere, 50:251-264. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12656244  

  3. Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook (2018) “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” by J.W. Pscheidt, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist, OSU. https://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease/pathogen-articles/nonpathogenic-phenomena/fluorine-toxicity-pl...

  4. Karina Caballero-Gallardo, Jesus Olivero-Verbel and Jennifer L. Freeman. (2016) Toxicogenomics to Evaluate Endocrine Disrupting Effects of Environmental Chemicals Using the Zebrafish Model. Current Genomics. 17:6. 515-527.
    http://benthamscience.com/journals/current-genomics/volume/17/issue/6/page/515/ 

  5. Jianjie C Wenjuan X, Jinling C, Jie S, Ruhui J, Meiyan L. Fluoride caused thyroid endocrine disruption in male zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicology. 2016 Feb;171:48-58.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26748264 

  6. Huan Zuo. Liang Chen. Ming Kong. et al. Toxic effects of fluoride on organisms. Life Sciences. Volume 198, 1 April 2018, Pages 18-24.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320518300456 

  7. AW Burgstahler, RF Freeman, PN Jacobs. Toxic effects of silicofluoridated water in chinchillas, caimans, alligators, and rats held in captivity. Research report. Fluoride 41(1)83–88 January-March 2008. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/411/files/FJ2008_v41_n1_p083-088.pdf 

  8. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1023-31. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697714

  9. Richard G Foulkes & Anne C Anderson. Research Review: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride Vol.27 No.4 220-226 1994. Included: http://fluoridation.com/enviro.htm  

  10. Kausik M and Sumit N. Fluoride Contamination on Aquatic organisms and human body at Purulia and Bankura District of West Bengal, India. Bull. Env. Pharmacology. Life Sci., Vol 4 [7] June 2015: 112-114. http://bepls.com/june2015bepls/18.pdf  

  11. Sauerheber R. Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2013:439490.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/ 

  12. Sauerheber R. Disabled Horses: Racehorse Breakdown and Artificially Fluoridated Water in Los Angeles. Fluoride 46(4)170–179 October-December 2013. http://www.academia.edu/6508850
Bronze Conversationalist

Carry Anne, your quote:  “The purpose of this forum thread started in February 2015 that had 60 supportive comments from about 20 seniors”

 

Response:   I didn’t get the memo.  Please show me where the rules for this thread are written so I can review them.  All I see is a title indicating that you are “Demanding” the AARP do something for you.  Should I be demanding something also?  Is that what this is about?

 

Ok, Carry Anne, since you want to talk about this again, There is not one documented case of any human being who has ever suffered harm because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

 

Your quote:  “DavidF's reply that attacked RossF misrepresented a reply that provided 23 affadavits on harm from 1993 (not the 1960s) which included one from a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed, it was well documented that some people including the client, Mr. Riggins, are harmed by fluoridation. The lawyer reported that those client medical records struck a chord in him regarding his own health issues.

 

When I click on “a reply,” it takes me to kf’s comment which says:  The sworn testimony of George W. Kell, Esq. (pg58) includes both his personal medical history and documents having received medical records from the doctor of his client, Mr. Riggins.”

 

And here is the link that KF provided:  https://firewaterfilm.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/affidavits-safe-water-assn_plaintiff-vs-fond-du-la... 

 

Let’s look at Page 58 and see if it says what you say it says.  Again, this is what you said that it says:  “a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed, it was well documented that some people including the client, Mr. Riggins, are harmed by fluoridation.

 

Really?  Here’s what the Affidavit actually says:  “he brought in a report from a doctor which stated that persons who had previously experienced nephritis or hepatitis were known to be more susceptible to chronic fluoride poisoning.”  That’s all it says.  There are no personal medical records which are ever mentioned.  And this report was from 1968!!  That was the science of the time.

 

There is no mention of “documented medical records.”  I didn’t misrepresent anything.  You, in your attempt to demand that the AARP does what you want them to do, are lying about what the Affidavit says. 

 

Moreover your quote:  "23 affadavits on harm from 1993 (not the 1960s)"

 

Response:  The incident we are discussing happened in 1968.  From the Affidavit:  "8.)  In the early part of 1968 a Mr. Riggins, alleging total disability, consulted me, "

 

Moreover, George Kell, the guy who is giving the testimony didn’t suffer any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water.  He himself says that the water he drank had several times the amount of fluoride in it than optimally fluoridated water.  Moreover, he provided no documentation attributing any of his problems to fluoride, water, fluoridated water, or anything for that matter.  He diagnosed himself!!

 

You also say that I ignore personal stories of harm, including yours.  That’s because you provide no documentation of anything either.  You could be a simple hypochondriac, you could be suffering from chlorine sickness, you could be suffering from any number of things.  Who knows.  The bottom line is that you diagnosed yourself, and you are not a doctor, and there is no documentation of anything you say. 

 

Question:  How many doctors have you seen, given them your “fluoridated water” hypothesis, had them tell you that you were wrong, before you just decided to go with your own non-professional diagnosis? 

 

You say that fluoridated water inflames your rashes when you bathe.  Really?  Have you ever walked in the ocean on the beach, since the ocean has twice the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water.  Were your rashes inflamed by that water?

 

By the way, none of the links to studies that you provided shows that salmon are harmed by cities who fluoridate their water and discharge treated effluent into rivers.  All irrelevant to the discussion, unless you are trying that age-old tactic of gish galloping.

Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne – You still have not answered the questions I asked you on 08-26-2018 &  08-30-2018 or adequately addressed my three observations on 08-21-2018 of how you continually and disingenuously manipulate and misrepresent information.   You are certainly better at not answering questions than you are answering them.

 

These are shortened questions – my original questions were posted on 08-26-2018 05:47 PM, and again on 08-30-2018 04:12 PM after your failure to address them.

 

I find it remarkable that you seem to believe a public. anti-science thread with the sole stated purposes, “to share personal testimony [anecdotal observations] and advocate for a ban on fluoridation”, by disseminating flawed interpretations of the scientific evidence would not be challenged by individuals who actually care about accurate evaluations and presentations of scientific evidence.

 

It is my obligation as a scientist to challenge false, dangerous, anti-science propaganda.

 

Back to the questions you are avoiding, starting with your inability to understand various logical fallacies, yet you have apparently mastered employing them:

 

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 actually requested 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 posted previously.

 

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 it 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.”  Oh, that’s right – you have listed six alternative health organizations…

 

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 false &/or irrelevant comments, opinions and conclusions.

 

You still have not provided a rational explanation of why, if fluoridation opponents (FOs) 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. 

 

All the tactics of anti-science activists (ASAs) 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 the interpretation of “evidence” by anti-F, ASAs was even remotely legitimate and credible, FOs would have been able to change the scientific consensus in discussions with relevant experts and there would be no need to try and scam the public.

 

Randy Johnson

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
2,051 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The Christian thing to do is to defend the rights of the needy, not to find fault and judge them. 

So my opposition to fluoridating people is an attempt to defend kids, elderly, and in particular the poor who can't afford to buy clean bottled water that has no artificially added fluoride materials.

It is pretty clear to me. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Trusted Contributor

Richard Sauerheber – One of your claims is actually partly correct (09-02-2018 04:16 PM), "The Christian [or any honorable] thing to do is to defend the rights of the needy, not to find fault and judge them."  So my support for community water fluoridation is an attempt to defend kids, elderly, and in particular the poor based on the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

It is pretty clear to me. 

 

For the record, fluoridation opponents, utilize reckless, anti-science, paranoid tactics to demand that a safe, effective public health measure which reduces dental decay in communities be abandoned.  They appear to believe there are no negative consequences to their actions.  Scientific studies from over 70 years, however, clearly show that dental decay rates in low-fluoride areas are higher than in communities with optimal levels of fluoride ions – particularly among those with lower, socioeconomic backgrounds.

 

References: 

Associations of Community Water Fluoridation with Caries Prevalence and Oral Health Inequality in Children: (2017, Kim, et al.) “These results suggest that CWF programmes are effective in the prevention of caries on permanent teeth and can reduce oral health inequalities among children. The implementation of CWF programmes should be sustained to overcome oral health inequalities due to socio-economic factors and improve children's overall oral health.

 

Hospitalizations for dental infections: optimally versus nonoptimally fluoridated areas in Israel. (Klivitsky, et al., 2015) “These results clearly indicate that there is an association between adequacy of water fluoridation and hospitalization due to dental infections among children and adolescents. This effect is more prominent in populations of lower socioeconomic status.”

 

Comparative effectiveness of water and salt community-based fluoridation methods in preventing dental caries among schoolchildren:  (2016, Fabruccini A, et al.) “CONCLUSION: Fluoridated water appears to provide a better protective effect against dental caries than fluoridated household salt among schoolchildren from developing countries.

 

The benefits of water fluoridation across areas of differing socio‐economic status: (2008, Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health) “The results confirm that there is strong evidence of the effectiveness of water fluoridation across SES groups, even when using an area‐based measure of SES split into 10 categories of disadvantage. Both area‐based SES and the concentration of fluoride in the tap water where children live were related to child oral health outcomes.

 

Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series: (2013, Kamel, et al.) “Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.”

 

The costs and benefits of water fluoridation in NZ: (Moore, et al.) “Community water fluoridation remains highly cost-effective for all but very small communities. The health benefits-while (on average) small per person-add up to a substantial reduction in the national disease burden across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups.”

 

Water Fluoridation: Health Monitoring Report for England, 2018: "Children from all areas benefited from fluoridation, but children from relatively deprived areas benefited the most. PHE results do not provide convincing evidence of higher rates of hip fracture, Down’s syndrome, kidney stones, bladder cancer, or osteosarcoma due to fluoridation."

 

Effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of dental caries across adult age groups: (2017, Do, et al.) “Access to FW was associated with caries experience in Australian adults. The magnitude of associations varied between age groups, dependent on the natural history of caries and its measurement by DMFS.

 

The differences in healthcare utilization for dental caries based on the implementation of water fluoridation in South Korea: (2016, Cho MS, et al.) “The implementation of water fluoridation programs and these periods are associated with reducing the utilization of dental health care. Considering these positive impacts, healthcare professionals must consider preventive strategies for activating water fluoridation programs...

 

A 4-year assessment of a new water-fluoridation scheme in New South Wales, Australia: (2015, Blinkhorn AS, et al.) “Fluoridation of public water supplies in Gosford and Wyong offers young children better dental health than those children who do not have access to this public health measure.”

 

Community water fluoridation and health outcomes in England: (2015, Young, et al.) “This study uses the comprehensive data sets available in England to provide reassurance that fluoridation is a safe and highly effective public health measure to reduce dental decay. Although lower rates of certain nondental outcomes were found in fluoridated areas, the ecological, observational design prohibits any conclusions being drawn regarding a protective role of fluoridation.”

 

Summary of: An alternative marker for the effectiveness of water fluoridation: hospital extraction rates for dental decay, a two-region study: (2014, Chestnutt, G.) “After ranking by IMD, DSRs of hospital admissions for the extraction of decayed or pulpally/periapically involved teeth is lower in areas with a fluoridated water supply.”

 

Water fluoridation in the Blue Mountains reduces risk of tooth decay: (2009. Evans, et al.) “Tooth decay reduction observed in the Blue Mountains corresponds to high rates reported elsewhere and demonstrates the substantial benefits of water fluoridation.”

 

Community water fluoridation and health outcomes in England: a cross-sectional study: (Young, Et al., 2015) “This study uses the comprehensive data sets available in England to provide reassurance that fluoridation is a safe and highly effective public health measure to reduce dental decay.”

Randy Johnson
Regular Contributor

On fluoride and salmon, the abstract of a paper in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 9:154-162, 1989, ‘Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982—1986’ by David Damkaer and Dougas Dey of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Center reads:

Abstract.—There is evidence that fluoride from an aluminium plant near John Day Dam had a significant negative effect on passage time and survival of adult Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. at the dam. In 1982, fluoride concentrations of 0.3-0.5 mg/L were recorded at the dam. These concentrations were probably representative of fluoride levels at the dam in earlier years as well, based on the aluminium plant's fluoride discharge records since 1971. From 1980 to 1982, the time (>150 h) required for upstream migrants to pass John Day Dam and the mortality (>50%) of migrants between Bonneville and McNary dams (below and above John Day Dam) were unacceptably high. Bioassay experiments on the behaviour of upstream migrating adult salmon suggested that fluoride concentrations of about 0.5 mg/L would adversely affect migration. Subsequent experiments suggested that 0.2 mg F/L was at or below the threshold for fluoride sensitivity of chinook salmon O. tshawytscha and below the threshold for fluoride sensitivity of coho salmon O. kisutch. Beginning in 1983 and continuing through 1986, fluoride discharges from the aluminium plant were greatly reduced and there was a corresponding drop in fluoride concentrations in the river. Concurrently, fish passage delays and inter-dam losses of adult salmon decreased to acceptable levels (28 h and <5%, respectively).       

Bronze Conversationalist

RossF, from the Abstract you presented:

 

"There is evidence that fluoride from an aluminium plant near John Day Dam had a significant negative effect on passage time and survival of adult Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. at the dam."

 

These higher concentrations of discharged fluoride are irrelevant to community water fluoridation.  It's kind of like saying that because pressurized, concentrated levels of oxygen can cause oxygen toxicity, therefore breathing air with the optimal level of oxygen is dangerous and somehow relevant to "anti-oxygen" arguments.  

 

Limnologist Joe Carroll has provided calculations of the effect of community water fluoridation into the Columbia River in Oregon.  This would be relevant to water fluoridation.  You may review his calculations here:  https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf

 

But I thank you for your irrelevant comment.

Regular Contributor

DavidF references an April 2005 letter from Joe Carroll and highlights “…we have numerous supported and documented examples that demonstrate the excellent health value in community drinking water fluoridation . . . “.

A year from that Carroll letter the major National Research Council report ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards’ (2006) provided evidence that endocrine systems and thyroid functions are impaired at exposure levels to fluoride below the consumption levels expected from drinking what is described as optimally fluoridated water.

NRC (2006) also says that kidney patients and diabetics are susceptible subpopulations that are particularly vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides as low as 1ppm concentration.

The U.S. National Kidney Foundation says that kidney patients should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposures.

NRC (2006) also states that fluorides accumulate over time in the pineal gland but at the time of the report, whether fluoride exposure causes decreased nocturnal melatonin production or altered circadian rhythm of melatonin production in humans had not been investigated.

As a calcifying tissue that is exposed to a high volume of blood flow, the pineal gland is a major target for fluoride accumulation in humans with the calcified parts of the pineal gland containing the highest fluoride concentrations in the human body - higher than either bone or teeth.

The 2006 report did, however, state that fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans.

Grandjean and Landrigan in their paper ‘Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity’ in the March 2014 issue of the The Lancet stated that epidemiological studies since 2006 had identified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxicant i.e. a chemical that can injure the developing brain. They warned that untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development and that chemicals in existing use, like fluoride, and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.

Choi et al. in their Environmental Health Perspectives paper ‘Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ showed results that supported the possibility of an adverse effect of fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment and that future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure adn neurobehavioral performance. 

A recent study, Bashash et al. ‘Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico’ published last September in the peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, by a team of investigators at the University of Toronto, McGill, the Harvard School of Public Health, and other institutions found an association between prenatal exposure to fluoride and cognitive development disorders in children. 

In this study, higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and non-pregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 years. 

The study’s findings, combined with evidence from existing animal and human studies, reinforce the need for additional research on potential adverse effects of fluoride, particularly in pregnant women and children, and to ensure that the benefits of population-level fluoride supplementation outweigh any potential risks. 

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety. The burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it.

The precautionary principle is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of firm evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries potentially serious implications for society.

AARP members will be interested to know that the independent Cochrane Collaboration, which provides high-quality information informing decisions on health issues, found that searching for ‘before and after’ studies did not find any on the benefits of fluoridated water for adults.

Fluoridation of community water fluoridation is well outdated. There are safer, more effective and cheaper ways of implementing sound community oral health programmes.  

Bronze Conversationalist

Thanks Ross.  This is a great example of what they call “Gish Galloping.”  You had originally brought up an incident about an aluminum plant which had harmed the environment with discharge into a river.  You saw the word “Fluoride” and therefore, in your mind, it must be a valid argument against Community Water Fluoridation, and you presented it as such.

 

After I pointed out that this factual incident was completely irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water, rather than attempt to defend your comment, you simply move on to a bunch of other arguments which also have the word “Fluoride” in them.

 

Ok, the 2006 NRC.  There is nothing in that report which says drinking optimally fluoridated water is harmful to anyone.  If there is, I’d like to see it.  (It’s nice to say stuff, but it’s better when you can actually prove it.)

 

To the contrary.  Dr. John Doull was the Chair of that committee.  This is his quote:  “"I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level."  https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Doull-Email-on-CWF-March-2013.pdf

 

He was asked about it, and that’s what he said.  So, again, please show me where, in the 2006 NRC, that committee agreed with anything you just said.  Just because it may have appeared in some junk literature doesn’t mean the NRC agreed with it. 

 

You bring up Grandjean & Choi and “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.”  Question:  Do you even know what that was, or are you just parroting anti-CWF propaganda that you read somewhere?

 

What we are talking about here is a Review of 27 non-peer-reviewed papers that came from Central Asia & China, Mongolia, Iran, etc.  In China, atmospheric fluoride levels are as much as 100 times higher than they are in the U.S.  In other places in Asia, fluoride levels in water are higher than 33 times the optimal level.  In other words, we are talking about what might happen from high levels of environmental fluoride exposure. 

 

But you saw the word “Fluoride,” therefore, somehow this is relevant to Community Water Fluoridation. 

 

Anna Choi herself said, “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.,” the researchers said in an e-mail response to questions from The Eagle.  https://www.kansas.com/news/article1098857.html

 

And you brought up a study from Mexico, where, again, Community Water Fluoridation is not practiced. 

 

And you bring up the “Precautionary Principle” (which you have parroted perfectly.  You say, “The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety.”

 

Ok, in that case all transportation should end immediately, since millions more people are harmed and killed from automobiles & air travel than have ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water. . there is harm to the global environment from mass transportation.  Or are you going to be hypocritical about this & say, ‘No, I need my car.’

 

You also say, “The precautionary principle is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of firm evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries potentially serious implications for society.”

 

I don’t know what kind of “firm evidence” you are asking for.  Since hundreds of millions of people drink this stuff every day, they have been for over 70 years now, and there has never been 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.

 

There has never been one other study which has looked at so many people over so great a time span.  So, just what kind of "firm evidence" are you looking for?  

 

I asked another writer on this AARP webpage for even one documented example of harm, and the best she could come up with was a sworn affidavit from 1968 in which a lawyer diagnosed himself because one of his clients, who also diagnosed himself, wanted to sue the EPA.

 

But again, I thank you for all of your irrelevant comments and I look forward to the next batch of gish galloping from you.

Bronze Conversationalist

I did not say I hated lawsuits. I said my folks didn't believe that is the way to  settle things but many people do and that is their right. 

James Deal is not t a criminal. So answering his questions is not wrong. 

Sorry to burst your bubble but I find James to be intelligent and very good at organic gardening and he believes we need to stop putting wastewater into our rivers and other things I also believe in.

Again this has nothing to do with the holocaust. 

My credentials from UCSD I cannot change so I don't see the problem. The chemistry department told me I can publish what I want under the  UCSD banner which acknowledges  where I was taught, both undergrad and grad degrees and the school of medicine. 

I've published math articles and physics articles (and on fluoride toxicology while collaborating with Dr. Benson there)  

. I am classified staff at Palomar College and am a private group teacher. Unpublished letters I write list UCSD as where my degrees are from. So? 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Quote from Dr. S. who said attorney James Deal,  "is very good at organic gardening and believes we need to stop putting wastewater into our rivers and other things I also believe in."

 

Sorry, Richard, I can't seem to find the Organic Gardening section on his Class Action lawsuit website.  The page dedicated strictly to you is easy enough to find . . but organic gardening?  

 

Your quote:  "My credentials from UCSD I cannot change so I don't see the problem. The chemistry department told me I can publish what I want under the  UCSD banner which acknowledges  where I was taught,"

 

Hmm, interesting.  So when I look at this paper written by you, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract 

and I click on "Author Information," right below your name it says, "Department of Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA"

 

To be clear, you aren't actually employed by the UCSD are you.  They don't actually give you money for anything, do they.  You don't actually work in the Chemistry Department at UCSD, do you.  They don't publish your stuff.  Is that all correct?  

 

You just graduated from there. 

 

This is quite unique, isn't it.  Again, can you provide any example of any other scholar who lists his Alma Mater  under scholarly works as though he is somehow affiliated with that institution? 

 

Here is what I mean by that.  Carl Sagan attended the University of Chicago.  But he worked, he became a Full Professor, at Cornell University in 1970.  So, when we look at Dr. Sagan's work during the time he worked at Cornell, for some odd reason, he doesn't cite the U of C as his affiliation.  He, unlike what you do, cited Cornell, the place where he was employed, the place that funded the research and published his material.  For example:    https://www.mottebooks.com/pages/books/17372/carl-sagan/an-analysis-of-worlds-in-collision-crsr-621

 

That's kind of the norm.  So again, can you cite any scholar who does what you do?  Cites his alama mater on his scholarly works as though he were doing the work for that institution?  

 

Conversationalist

“In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)

 

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)

 

Fluoridation was conceived as a human experiment in the 1940s. It has never been proven efficacious, effective or safe. Yet, in spite of dozens of human studies and hundreds of laboratory experiments documenting low dose harm to vulnerable populations which include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, the elderly and any with chronic illness like kidney, thyroid, autoimmune or endocrine diseases, fluordidationists insist 'we need more study' before stopping this fluoridation experiment - even when the studies document neurotoxic harm to babies in the womb (Bashash et al. 2017; Thomas et al. 2018)  

 

  • Fluoridation is a human rights violation. It is a bioethical wrong that denies individual medical consent and causes harms to millions of vulnerable consumers which is the exact reason why  AARP should write a resolution in opposition to fluoridation policy

 

DavidF insultingly uses Josef Mengele's claim that as a scientist he wasn't responsible for the horrific twin experiments he conducted in Nazi concentration camps as a metaphor in a attack of Dr. Sauerheber's response to DavidF's earlier taunt. Dr. Sauerheber said that as a scientist, he focuses on answering questions rather than on lawsuits - that faulty analogy is beyond the pale

 

Quotes2017.jpg

 

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

Carry Anne, thank you for your repetetive and exhaustive quotes.  They never get old do they.  And in only 34 minutes you managed to catch my comment and write all that.  Impressive.  You must sit on this site like a hen sitting on eggs.  More power to you in your attempt to "Demand" that the AARP adapt your fringe position.  

 

Your quote:  

 

"DavidF insultingly uses Josef Mengele's claim that as a scientist he wasn't responsible for the horrific twin experiments he conducted in Nazi concentration camps as a metaphor in a attack of Dr. Sauerheber's response to DavidF's earlier taunt. Dr. Sauerheber said that as a scientist, he focuses on answering questions rather than on lawsuits - that faulty analogy is beyond the pale, even for DavidF and his team of fluoride-trolls."

 

Response:  I'll answer that.  Aside from your inability to read ("uses Josef Mengele's claim that as a scientist he wasn't responsible for the horrific twin experiments he conducted in Nazi concentration camps" - Where did I say that?)  Dr. Sauerheber said, before he edited it, (and the AARP moderator can look at his edits) that he learned the ethics of not suing people from his parents.  He basically said that his aversion to lawsuits was part of his value system.  Yet I see him all over "Fluoride Class Action," a website dedicated to lawsuits.  

 

This tells me that he, as a self-proclaimed scientist, doesn't care about the ethics of those with whom he aligns himself.  He's just there to answer questions at their bidding, even though it might violate his value system.

 

So, if he doesn't care about the ethics of those with whom he aligns himself, he can align himself with anybody, as long as they ask the questions that he "is expected to answer."  

 

He says he hates lawsuits, but he is posted all over a class action lawsuit webpage.  I am opposed to the Nazi Party, and I would never allow anything I have written to be used by them.  But apparantly he would.  He said, "Scientists are supposed to and are expected to answer questions and that is what I have done for Deal and many others who seek to find answers.”

 

Now, Carry Anne, your defense of this guy, who falsely claims affiliation with a university simply because he graduated from there, and who doesn't care about the ethics of those who use his work, says more about you and your desperation to convince the AARP to align themselves with your fringe, scare-mongering position than it does about those so-called "fluoride-trolls" who see you for what you are and call you out for what you are. 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

The oxygen levels in the; Colorado River downstream of Laughlin that discharges sterilized city wastewater directly into the river are substantially lower because of the discharges. But the EPA ruled that since there is no clear level at which a minimum has been set that whatever the level measures at the Mexico border, that is the level that the EPA will recognize as the allowed level.

This twisted thinhking course does not consider the role oxygen deficiency plays in controlling the flora and fauna in the river. My complaints to the Colorado River Board were overturned because an agreeemnt withLaughlin had already been made before I found the emissions were accumulaitng soap suds along the banks below the discharge pipe.  So studying a situation and describing the truth don't usually make a hill of beans difference to political systems that are already pre-decided. Laughlin continues to discharge into the river even though water skiing is dead south of the pipe, and Sacramento continues to discharge fluoridated waste water regardless of the fact that salmon are highly sensitive to fluoride. Whatever the oxygen levels have been in the river, fluoride waste on top of that has its own contribution to the poor health of the river.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

RS:  “I don't work for James Deal and never have, so the extrapolations you claim are not correct.”

 

And:  “My interaction with Deal is the same as my interaction with this AARP site and with anyone else who asks me for information. Scientists are supposed to and are expected to answer questions and that is what I have done for Deal and many others who seek to find answers.”

 

Response:  I never said you did work for him.  But you certainly contribute to his Fluoride Class Action website.  And for somebody who says he is fundamentally opposed to lawsuits, I find this very strange. 

 

Let me try to provide an example to illustrate what I am saying.  Josef Mengele was a scientist who did research on twins.  He was, as you said, “supposed to and are expected to answer questions.”  He had no problem supplying those answers to the people for whom he worked. 

 

You say you are fundamentally opposed to lawsuits, but you contribute to the Class Action website.  That’s fine.  You are saying that as a scientist you simply answer questions, post papers on his website, even papers about Relativity, because you don’t care about his ethics, you are simply answering questions.  If that’s the case, you wouldn’t have minded working alongside Dr. Mengele, because you don’t care about politics or ethics, or who uses your work, or for what purpose. 

 

I think you aren’t fundamentally opposed to lawsuits.  Either that or you’re one of the biggest hypocrites I’ve ever encountered.  How much money did you say Deal has collected from gullible clients that you spend your time frightening?  And how many lawsuits has he won for them? 

 

RS:  “Also I don't teach at UCSD and only am afifliated with the campus now through the alumni association.” 

 

Response:  They don’t pay you anything, do they.  You offer tutorial services, but you are not listed with the Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services. 

 

But you are affiliated with them because you graduated from UCSD.  In that case, I must be affiliated with Central Michigan University, because I graduated from there.  Am I also affiliated with my high school?  I’ve never heard of a scholar listing as an affiliation a university from which he graduated, have you?  If so, please provide an example of one.  Does UCSD know that you claim to be affiliated with them on your scholarly work? 

 

RS:  “So I have spent most of my free time the last 11 years petitioning the FDA to ban fluoridation for the country. The peitition is still under review (submitted 2011).  The Agency now is divided on whether they should ban it or simply leave it as is . . “

 

Response:  That is a complete lie.  As you know, the FDA has no jurisdiction over water fluoridation, other than fluoridated bottled water.  As you also know, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was agreed upon between the EPA & the FDA in 1979 which placed water fluoridation under the jurisdiction of the EPA. 

 

You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. 

 

RS:  “The oxygen levels in the; Colorado River downstream of Laughlin that discharges sterilized city wastewater directly into the river are substantially lower because of the discharges.”

 

Response:  Then doesn’t it make sense that oxygen levels downstream of the Sacramento discharge point would also be lowered?  And wouldn’t this also affect salmon returns, since salmon & trout require high levels of dissolved oxygen?  But you say you have looked at all factors and it must be fluoride  .  .  .  Ah, but then you can’t frighten people into giving money to a lawyer who says he will sue BOD loading into rivers, can you. 

0
Kudos
6985
Views
Bronze Conversationalist

I don't work for James Deal and never have, so the extrapolations you claim are not correct.  Also I don't teach at UCSD and only am afifliated with the campus now through the alumni association. My direct collaborative work with Dr. Benson at UCSD ended when he passed away last year. I teach at Palomar and have students who are swamped with work. Interest and desire are far different than actually carrying out a project especially when the racehorse 7 year study that was published has not caused the city of L.A. to even consider halting fluoridation. A city mayor in Australia who supports fluoridation of people was given the study and remarked that "we don't have horses in our town so who cares?"

This is not "defeatist" as earlier claimed. It is simplly pragmatic. The reasons to halt fluoridation that are proven without doubt are already compelling and need to be described. We don't need more proof of harm for fluoridation promoters to ignore.

My interaction with Deal is the same as my interaction with this AARP site and with anyone else who asks me for information. Scientists are supposed to and are expected to answer questions and that is what I have done for Deal and many others who seek to find answers. 

One impact that was successful (which is very rare in the fluoridation industry) was to place the racehorse artricle on file at the Rancho Santa Fe Water District since this town has a horse population as high as the population of people. They know how to take care of horses there. The District officials told me they have no interest in fluoridation because most all their customers own horses.  Since this city operates the water treatment plant in the region, this spares from fluoridation all cities downline including Fairbanks Ranch, Solana Beach, Cardiff, old Encinitas, and Leucadia. Furthermore, one of my chemisry student's father is the chief breeder of horses for Los Alamitos. When he read the paper the word got out to the racing office at the track and soon after track officials halted purchasing L.A. city fluoridaed water and they only rely on well water. 

But victories like this are otherwise relatively nonexistent. So I have spent most of my free time the last 11 years petitioning the FDA to ban fluoridation for the country. The peitition is still under review (submitted 2011).  The Agency now is divided on whether they should ban it or simply leave it as is where fluoride infusions were already ruled as being an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. The FDA stands by that ruling, so getting the Agency to go farther than that is difficult (and certainly a time-stealing endeavor).  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

I don't believe in lawsuits and suing people. I was taught that by my parents. I also don't own an oximeter or a boat. So you are probably talking to the wrong person.

With the avocado leaf blight issue, saline is the chief known cause and there is no doubt the sodium from caustic soda used in fluoridation elevated the level above tolerable limits. There was no lawsuit against the city. It was proof that was undeniable and the conscience of city hall that led to an RO pipe dedicated without sodium and fluoride for the ranchers.

My deduction on salmon recognizes drought and other causes of salmon effects before fluoridation of course, but also that fluoride is one of the most potent causes because the fish only  lay eggs in water that chemically matches that where they themselves were spawned. So after the drought effects subsided and returns remain depressed anyway, fluoridation is the chief suspect.

The real question is why are city councils so easily convinced that fluoridation does no harm when it does harm bones, and yet also that it somehow hardens enamel, already the hardest substance in man when fuoride is absent from it? Propaganda is a dangerous thing. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

You say, "My deduction on salmon recognizes drought and other causes of salmon effects before fluoridation of course, but also that fluoride is one of the most potent causes because the fish only  lay eggs in water that chemically matches that where they themselves were spawned."

 

Response:  Great.  What's the dissolved oxygen level in that effluent, and what kind of BOD are they loading into that river?  Has anyone ever sampled for the new and emerging contaminant PFAS?  That would certainly have an effect on the chemical makeup of any waterway.

 

Richard, I had asked the question:  "Your hypothesis does nothing beyond supporting an agenda that helps Natural/Alternative Health people sell stuff, and Class Action Lawyers stir up potential clients for frivolous lawsuits.  Would you know anything about that?"

 

You responded by saying, "I don't believe in lawsuits and suing people. I was taught that by my parents."

 

Fair enough.  But it's no secret, and you've never made a secret of the fact, that you've done work for an attorney who runs a website called "Fluoride Class Action."  In fact, there's an entire page dedicated just to you https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/category/dr-sauerheber .   I mean, this is no secret.  This information is out there in the public domain.  

 

And this begs the question, how is it that someone whose very values are against the idea of lawsuits, has an entire section dedicated to him, for the entire world to see, on a website dedicated to a class action lawsuit against water fluoridation?  

 

By the way, has attorney James Deal actually won any lawsuits against anyone because of water fluoridation, or is he simply in the business of collecting money from potential clients?  

 

These are just questions.  I find it curious.  Fluoride Class Action isn't your website.  You just contribute to it.    

 

You also said, "I also don't own an oximeter or a boat. So you are probably talking to the wrong person."

 

Surely the University of California in San Diego has a boat and an D.O. probe.  The chemistry department, where you claim affiliation, surely has student interns just waiting for something to measure.  If I were in your position with a theory, but no empirical evidence to support it, I'd round up some students in a heartbeat, get some measurements and make some calculations.   

 

Is there any reason why you couldn't do that?

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

Ever since fluoridation started in the Sacramneto main channel where the discharge pipe dumps the fluoridated wastewater, salmon runs notice average about only 10,000. This is a 90% collapse compared to the former 100,000 before fluoridaiton and the infamous drought ( believed to be the cause of the decimation in the 2007-9 area). But the drought is long over. Only fluoridation remains to this date, and the salmon returns remain dismally below normal still also.

These data were not available when I deduced that fluoridation discharges were apparently affecting salmon in 2010 when the entire fishing industry collapsed on the river.

Yes the tributaries appear to have gained a little, but the tributaries are not and never have been fluoridated. The main channel remains fluoridated and the salmon have not returned anywhere near normal even though the drought is long gone. The drought came and went but fluoridation discharges remain.

Salmon only laoy eggs in the water that has the identical chejmical composiont as that in which they themsleves were spawned. Tributaries ar enot fluodiedc bu the main channel is. If anyone is bent on claiming that fluoride has no effect on salmon in the fluoridated main channel, then go there and find salmon laying eggs near the discharge pipe.  I am sorry to say you are not going to find them.

What else can I say? The outside chance that fluoridation of the channel has nothing to do with the coincident collapse (after the drought ended) all these years is so remote as to be irrational. I don't buy it is merely a coincidence.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Again, regarding this quote:  "If anyone is bent on claiming that fluoride has no effect on salmon in the fluoridated main channel, then go there and find salmon laying eggs near the discharge pipe.  I am sorry to say you are not going to find them."

 

Response:  That may be true, but to say that it is because of the minute amount of fluoride, which you have never measured, is absurd.  Can you tell me what the BOD levels in Sacramento effluent are?  Can you tell me what oxygen levels are in the effluent?  Are you aware that trout & salmon require at least 7-10 ppm O2?  Can you tell me anything about what is in that discharged effluent?  

 

If I were an environmentalist, I would take a good look at those oxygen levels.  From there I would take a good look at that effluent to see what kind of BOD they are putting in that river.  But before any of that, I would need some solid evidence that the discharge itself has anything to do with smaller salmon numbers.  I see that those salmon returns were dropping to extremely low levels as far back as the early 1990s, well before fluoridation began.  

 

Your hypothesis does nothing beyond supporting an agenda that helps Natural/Alternative Health people sell stuff, and Class Action Lawyers stir up potential clients for frivolous lawsuits.  Would you know anything about that?

0 Kudos
1,866 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, you say, "If anyone is bent on claiming that fluoride has no effect on salmon in the fluoridated main channel, then go there and find salmon laying eggs near the discharge pipe.  I am sorry to say you are not going to find them."

 

You know, that is a good idea.  I think it would also be a good idea to measure actual fluroide levels in the Sacramento River, since that has never been done.  Why don't you have some of your UCSD student interns take those measurements and do the necessary calculations to support these outrageous claims that you have been making . . without a shread of evidence.  That way you will at least have an empirical leg to stand on.

 

I see on this paper that you have written, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract you list your affiliation with the UCSD.  Are you still doing that or did they make you stop when they found out about it?

 

 

0 Kudos
1,847 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

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

Bronze Conversationalist

Carry Anne,

 

You object to Gish Galloping, so I thought we could get back to Dr. Sauerheber's salmon story.  Since you tried to bury my comment (timestamp 08-30-2018 02:40 PM) which completely proved him wrong, about an hour after I posted it, I thought we could review it before it gets lost. 

 

Being the objective person that you are, wouldn't you agree that Dr. Sauerheber's story changed as more evidence was presented to him, and wouldn't you also agree that there was no merit to begin with to his claim that water fluoridation harmed the salmon population in Sacramento.  

 

Here it is for your review:

 

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. 

Bronze Conversationalist

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.
0
Kudos
7077
Views
Bronze Conversationalist

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.  

Bronze Conversationalist

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.
Bronze Conversationalist

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. 

Conversationalist

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/...

Trusted Contributor

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.  

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
2,033 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

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

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements
Introduce yourself and connect with others on similar interests, experiences and needs.
AARP Games

Throw it back and play Atari's Missile Command. Grab your arsenal to neutralize your enemy and protect your cities from a missile attack. You got this!

AARP Games Atari Missile Command

Music and Brain Health

From soft jazz to hard rock - discover music's mental, social and physical benefits. Learn more.

Music and Brain Health

Let Us Work for You

AARP is your trusted friend and fierce defender. Membership unlocks powerful benefits to help you in your life. Join today for just $12 per year with Automatic Renewal.

AARP Membership