Refresh your driving skills and you could save on your auto insurance! Sign up for the AARP Smart Driver course.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1027
Views

Re: Political Deceits & Ethics: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,027 Views
Message 831 of 1,356

These are good arguments, Carry Anne. 

 

You say, "Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics."

 

Wow!  Now in your "Demand" that AARP submit to your wishes, you threaten them with being guilty of "criminal" acts.  This sounds vaguely familiar.  The same tactic was used by anti-fluoride Attorney Robert Reeves in his extortion of the National Kidney Foundation, threatening them with a "Public Relations Disaster," even if they weren't guilty of anything.  

 

"Individual Human Rights."  Good argument.  However, since there has never been one documented case of harm to any person who drinks optimally fluoridated water, no one is ever harmed by drinking it, you are literally arguing for the "right" to have poorer oral health.  That is not rational.  Moreover you are attempting to impose your irrational mindset upon those individuals who could truly benefit from this health initiative.  That's not cool, man.  

 

By the way, you never answered the question.  You said your rashes are inflamed when you bathe in optimally fluoridated water.  The question is, have you ever taken a walk along the beach at the ocean and walked in the water?  

 

Since ocean water has twice the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, I'm wondering if your feet broke out in hives if you did.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1027
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1036
Views

Personal Opinions replace the Scientific Consensus?

1,036 Views
Message 832 of 1,356

CarryAnne - I am trying very hard to get your specific answers to specific questions precisely so I don’t misrepresent your views and come to a conclusion like “it seems like your personal opinions replace the Scientific Consensus”   That’s how I would interpret your most recent tirade, but since you have not actually answered my questions, I will try again.  I certainly don’t want to misrepresent your opinions.  

 

~> Your continual reference to fluoridation as a “medical mandate” is irrelevant, and your claim that fluoridation is implemented “in order to protect prestige, power and paychecks” is unsupportable and libelous.  I ask you – do you apply this accusation to every member of the organizations worldwide that publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation who have not publically disagreed with the consensus?

 

~> You have apparently stated you don’t believe in the concept of a Scientific Consensus as it relates to the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.  What exactly is your alternative?  It seems from your statement, you believe that anything anyone with any level of training accepts as true is equally legitimate under the law (as long as it agrees with your beliefs), with no group of relevant experts needed to evaluate the evidence for quality, relevance,  accuracy, etc.  – correct me if I am wrong.

 

~>  Who, exactly do you trust to evaluate this “emerging scientific evidence” and determine the “evolving medical opinion”?  So far, as mentioned repeatedly, there have been no recognized science or health organizations that have recommended changing the scientific consensus – or whatever you believe replaces it – based on the most current evidence.

 

~> Do you accept application of Scientific Consensus to the evaluation and acceptability of conclusions in any other field of science or health – Climate change, vaccines, drinking water disinfection, etc.?  If not, what exactly is your alternative?

 

~> Can you explain more clearly your apparent accusations of the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"? (08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) 

 

~> Do you believe those accusations are also accurate descriptions of all members of the 100+ organizations in the world who either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not publically spoken out against it?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1036
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1054
Views

Political Deceits & Ethics: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,054 Views
Message 833 of 1,356

Fluoridation is a medical mandate. Medical mandates are politics pretending to be science. Fluoridation forces contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of adverse individual or environmental impact in order to protect prestige, power and paychecks. The politicized narrative that supports fluoridation policy acts to suppress scientific evidence, silence medical opinions and stifle victim voices.

 

Consensus is not synonomous with majority, despite what those in the majority claim. Consensus is a political construct that means there are no substantial objections to a position. There are not only considerable professional, organizational and public substantial objections to the medical hypothesis of fluoride ingestion using municipal water as an appropriate dental treatment, there is considerable emerging scientific evidence against fluoridation policy that adds to the weight of the evidence that fluoridation damages the health of millions. 

 

Similarly, a simple majority is nothing more than mob rule. The United States is a constitutional federal republic with a Bill of Rights that uses democratic principles which supposedly employs  safeguards to protect minority rights and individual human rights

 

Nevertheless, emerging scientific evidence, evolving medical opinion and voices of victims do not deter astroturfers or fluoride trolls who attempt to use political deceits and misrepresentation of fact in an attempt to intimidate people into ignoring the immorality and harmfulness of fluoridation policy, especially to vulnerable subgroups who include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies and young children, the elderly and those with chronic illness

 

Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics. 

 

"Adding fluoride to water to prevent cavities is as nonsensical as putting statins in water to lower cholesterol, Prozac to treat depression, or even aspirin to relieve headaches. Prescribing drugs isn’t one-size-fits-all. Virtually any can have harmful side effects, especially to vulnerable sub-populations like children, pregnant women and those who are medically fragile." - Rick North in "Water Fluoridation is an Emperor Without Clothes" (Lund Report, Sept 4, 2018)

 

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1054
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1060
Views

Re: Nat'l Kidney Foundation Drops Fluoridation Endorsement

1,060 Views
Message 834 of 1,356

651241, 

 

Just out of curiosity, where exactly do you get your information?  

 

Oh . . wait a minute, I see the link at the bottom of your comment.  "fluoride dangers blog spot."  Got it.  

 

Question:  When exactly did you get your diploma from the University of Google, and what is that worth in the job market?

 

RandyJ, this is the part of Attorney Reeves' letter that I like the best:

 

(paraphrased) 'Even if it is determined that the National Kidney Foundation is not liable or guilty of anything, this could still be a Public Relations disaster for them.'  https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2007-Letter-from-Attorney-Reeves-...

 

That sounds like a threat against innocent people to me.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1060
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1069
Views

Nat'l Kidney Foundation Bullied and Threatened Into Rewording Fluoridation Endorsement

1,069 Views
Message 835 of 1,356

651241 - This false claim has already been addressed by David 08-17-2018 09:44 PM.

 

In 2007, an attorney, Robert Reeves, sent the NKF an unconscionable letter threatening lawsuits against the then current and past members of the NKF Board of Directors, both collectively and against their personal assets, as well as against the NKF staff, if NKF did not remove its name from the list of organizations which support fluoridation.  The  NKF is a charitable organization which provides much needed services and activities on behalf of kidney patients.   Rather than waste its limited resources and subjecting its Boards and staff to protracted and expensive litigation fighting an antifluoridationist attorney with nothing to lose,  the NKF prudently decided to simply remove its name from the list.

https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2007-Letter-from-Attorney-Reeves-...


It is important to note that neither the NKF, nor any other credible organization in the world opposes fluoridation, which the NKF would most certainly do if it deemed fluoridation to be any danger to kidney patients.

 

Since Osmunson and CarryAnne are apparently not able or willing to answer the questions I have asked them several times, perhaps you could take a stab at answering a few of them


~> Q1 If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have you and the other fluoridation opponents (FOs) been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative? 

 

~> Q2 What is your opinion of the importance of the scientific consensus in making science and health related decisions – both in general and specifically with respect to CWF? 

 

~> Q3 If you don’t accept the scientific consensus as a legitimate representation of the majority position on relevant issues, what is your alternative explanation and terminology?

 

~> Q4 What is your explanation for the fact that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF – and their members & representatives have not mutinied?  


~> Q5 Do you accept as true CarryAnne’s representations of the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"? (Demand -08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (D-08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (D-07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (D-07-25-2018 11:30 PM)  Do you believe those are accurate descriptions of all members of the 100+ organizations in the world who either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not publically spoken out against it?


~> Q6 Do you accept as true Dr. Osmunson’s Demand-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”? 
If you accept Dr. Osmunson’s explanation, how would his additional claim “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation”  be even remotely justifiable?


~>  Q7 If the representatives of those health organizations that publically recognize the benefits of fluoridation have not publically denounced CWF, and they have completely ignored &/or misinterpreted the body of evidence you believe proves CWF to be a dangerous practice, and they have followed each other like lemmings, how can any of them possibly be considered the best in their field and experts in any other areas of their practices?


I, for one, find it impossible to imagine that a majority of scientists and health professionals who are committed to carefully evaluating understanding evidence and who are responsible for the health of citizens would ignore or dismiss the accusations of FOs without examining the evidence.

 

~>  Q8 Do you believe Dr. Osmunson’s explanations apply to the other 100+ organizations that do not publically denounce fluoridation and their hundreds of thousands of representatives? These organizations include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American  Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), and so on… 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1069
Views
Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1076
Views

Nat'l Kidney Foundation Drops Fluoridation Endorsement

1,076 Views
Message 836 of 1,356

The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation citing the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report indicating that all kidney patients, not just those on dialysis, are more susceptible to fluoride’s bone and teeth-damaging effects

.

The kidney-impaired retain more fluoride and risk skeletal fluorosis (an arthritic-type bone disease), fractures and severe enamel fluorosis, which may increase the risk of dental decay, reports the NRC.

 

 

The National Kidney Foundation’s (NKF) former fluoridation position statement also carried surprising cautions.  The NKF advised monitoring children’s fluoride intake along with patients with chronic kidney impairment, those with excessive fluoride intake, and those with prolonged disease.

 

But NKF now admits, "exposure from food and beverages is difficult to monitor, since FDA food labels do not quantify fluoride content."  

 

The NKF’s April 15, 2008 statement goes further: "Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure."

 

"There is consistent evidence that impairment of kidney function results in changes to the way in which fluoride is metabolized and eliminated from the body, resulting in an increased burden of fluoride," concludes Kidney Health Australia. in a paper NKF recommends reading  

 

On June 20, 2008, it was reported that the ADA was forced to finally drop the NKF as a fluoridation supporter

 

However, even the ADA reports in its Fluoridation "Facts" booklet  that "decreased fluoride removal may occur among persons with severely impaired kidney function who may not be on kidney dialysis."

 

Even the CDC has expressed concern about fluoride's adverse effects to those with impaired kidney funciton. http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2014/11/cdc-misleads-legislators-about.html

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1076
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1054
Views

Re: The scientific consensus continues to support CWF

1,054 Views
Message 837 of 1,356

RandyJ asks BillO, "If you believe your interpretation of the “evidence” actually supports the conclusion that optimally fluoridated water is obviously and dangerously carcinogenic, why on earth are you presenting this devastating news and “evidence” on a public forum instead of demanding a meeting with members of the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Cancer Society (and other relevant expert organizations) to instruct them on your “correct way” to evaluate the evidence."

 

Response:  Probably because it is easier to convince lay persons and a few conspiracy theorists who have graduated from the University of Google that controversy exists where there is no controversy,  than it would be to convince knowledgeable  people with legitimate scientific training.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1054
Views
Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1013
Views

Diet Not Fluoride Prevents Tooth Decay

1,013 Views
Message 838 of 1,356

Despite 73 years of water fluoridation, a US study finds Food insecurity linked to poor oral health https://t.co/PoQbKAzDsr

In FiJi, dentists see much less decay in poor children because they eat healthy diets in a more remote Fiji island http://www.fijitimes.com/dentists-discover-tooth-decay-trend/

In the 2004 JADA, it was reported that cavities occur in sixty-percent of U.S. preschool children, and more often in the poorly nourished, Plus federal statistics indicate that poor health is closely associated to bad teeth regardless of fluoridation levels.

About 2/3 of Americans drink fluoridated water. But those skipping breakfast and fruits and vegetables still have more cavities, according to researchers, Dye et al.

Because skipped breakfast is associated with higher caloric intake, poor nutrient intake and obesity, Dye and colleagues used "skipped daily breakfast" as an indicator of poor nutrition along with not eating required 5 fruits and vegetables daily.

Over sixty years ago, dental researcher Weston Price in his book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" examined various countries' inhabitants and their food choices. He discovered that bad teeth are created by poor diets

In their zeal to promote fluoride, dentistry, ignoring diet, may have helped create a billion-dollar toothpaste industry while enabling an appalling tooth decay national epidemic to fester and grow like the unfilled cavities in Medicaid patients who are often refused dental treatment

In the year 2000, the surgeon general decared tooth decay a national epidemice. Despite millions of dollars poured into fluoridation campaigns, meetings, conferences, etc, the problem persists. In fact, in 2015 Senator Bernie Sanders reported that the dental crisis persists because all Americans don't have access to dental care - https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/dental-crisis-in-america

Americans are fluoride-overdosed and dentist deficient.

Dental care is the largest unmet health need of school age children, according to the American Dental Association (ADA).( "1985 was the year that the ADA stoped funding diet-related caries research, which may reflect a lack of interest but not a lack or an excess of knowledge," according to "Caries Research," (38,S1,04)

Federal statistics support the poor health/more tooth loss association, regardless of fluoridation levels.

Dental crises are occuring in most fluoridated cities http://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1013
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1002
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,002 Views
Message 839 of 1,356

It seems necessary to discuss what is meant by scientific consensus and better define the difference between "endorsements" and statements of consensual science.

An endorsement is what Tiger Woods might do with respect to some brand of golf-clubs.

Reports of consensual science source are composed by teams of distinguished scientists, panels of experts, who are selected on the basis of their knowledge, professional reputation and experience to look at all facets of scientific issues.  Supported by librarians who collect the pertinent high quality literature, and support staff, the experts debate the evidence and draft a final report and recommendations.   These are large and often expensive undertakings.

Advocacy statements from organizations like the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP), the American Association of Family Practitioners (AAFP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) are founded upon evidence based science and reflect both the specific expertise of the organization's members and the findings of systematic reviews.

These are but three of prestigious organizations of the approximately 150 that the Canadian National Institute of Public Health lists as supporting fluoridation

Water Fluoridation:  An Analysis of the Health Benefits and Risks
Scientific Advisory
Institut national de santé publique
Quebec , June 2007, p 47
http://www.inspq.qc.ca/pdf/publications/705-WaterFluoration.pdf

All science including for example, theoretical physics, molecular biology, climatology and public health rely on such consensus of legitimate experts.   It is the only reasonable choice anyone has.

Systematic Reviews are at the top of evidence-based information hierarchy and are a most useful place to determine what is the consensus of recognized experts

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-traditional-hierarchy-of-evidence-based-medicine-The-higher-...

Harvard science historian Naomi Orestes in a TED talk well explains the fundamental importance of consensus to the scientific endeavor:

http://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science#t-29637

With respect to the cancer issue raised, no systematic review has found fluoridation causes cancer.  Many recent systematic reviews could be quoted .  Here's the conclusion from the 2010 European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks:  "SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general. There is no evidence from animal studies to support the link, thus fluoride cannot be classified as carcinogenic."

Any single study or series of arguments that may be posted in a public forum like the AARP's are distractions from the real science compared to easily verified expert consensus.

For what it is worth, Hardy Limeback, a dentist like Dr. Osmunson who opposes fluoridation, is unwilling to claim fluoridation is related to cancer.  As you know he was on the National Research Council's Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water.  Here is Dr. Limeback's statement from a public record submission to the Juneau City Council which was considering fluoridation in 2006.  Dr. Limeback well reflects the complexity of these data and the importance of technical and professional expertise in arriving at consensus.

"I'm not in a position to discuss the cancer data. No one should be critical or supportive of the fluoride and cancer literature without having some experience in epidemiology, toxicology, cancer risk assessment, clinical design and interpretation and years of experience. We had people that fit that description on the NAS committee. If you have any questions about the conclusions of the NAS report, I suggest you contact people who can address your concerns. .."

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1002
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
980
Views

The scientific consensus continues to support CWF

980 Views
Message 840 of 1,356

Thank you Dr. Haynie for your succinct response to Dr. Osmunson’s CWF causes cancer claims 09-04-2018 03:14 PM.  He is still avoiding my request that he explain his earlier comments 08-27-2018 01:40 AM, redefining the Scientific Consensus as an “Endorsement Consensus”, claiming 08-19-2018 02:18 AM that “Endorsements are not science”, claiming 07-09-2018 09:09 PM that “Most endorsements are not backed by a good scientific review of all sides of the literature” and making accusations of the CDC, ADA and AAP that, “None reviewed the science. All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.

 

Dr. Osmunson – Let’s look at your statement 09-04-2018 02:04 PM, “Lets talk science rather consensus.  Remember, the masses can be wrong.  Marketing can change public opinion” just before you dumped over 16,000 words into the discussion in an apparent attempt to support your claim that drinking optimally fluoridated water is a significant risk factor for causing cancer.  That was one of the most remarkable examples of Gish Gallop I have ever seen… 

 

If you believe your interpretation of the “evidence” actually supports the conclusion that optimally fluoridated water is obviously and dangerously carcinogenic, why on earth are you presenting this devastating news and “evidence” on a public forum instead of demanding a meeting with members of the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Cancer Society (and other relevant expert organizations) to instruct them on your “correct way” to evaluate the evidence.

 

Following protocols that are even remotely scientific would first and foremost require presenting legitimate scientific evidence to the relevant experts and convincing them that your interpretations are legitimate.  But that’s the whole issue with these anti-F opinions, isn’t it?  Relevant experts have evaluated the evidence you just presented and have not accepted your anti-F conclusions. 

 

In fact, the ACS states, “In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences. … The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer” and “A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The CDC report concluded that studies to date have produced “no credible evidence” of an association between fluoridated drinking water and an increased risk for cancer” and “In 2011, researchers examined the possible relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in a new way. … The analysis showed no difference in bone fluoride levels between people with osteosarcoma and people in a control group who had other malignant bone tumors.” and “More recent population-based studies using cancer registry data found no evidence of an association between fluoride in drinking water and the risk of osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma.”

 https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/myths/fluoridated-water-fact-sheet#r6

 

The CCS publically states, “Based on current evidence, CCS believes it is unlikely that adding fluoride to water raises the risk of cancer, including osteosarcoma, in humans. At the same time, we know that there are many benefits to water fluoridation, especially for people who have less access to dental care. We will continue to watch this area of research and update our information as we learn more.”

http://www.cancer.ca/en/prevention-and-screening/reduce-cancer-risk/make-informed-decisions/know-you...

 

Does the fact that neither of these organizations supports your outlier interpretation of the cancer-related evidence mean that you extend your 07-09-2018 09:09 PM accusations of the CDC, ADA and AAP to the ACS and CCS? 

 

That libelous claim reads in part, the “CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.”, and “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 “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“.

 

So, do you believe members of the ACS and CCS are "the best in their fields", but they can’t get it right when evaluating the carcinogenic risks of community water fluoridation (CWF) - Really?

You still have not addressed my questions about the necessity of the scientific consensus to protect the public from rampant fear-mongering by anti-science activists (ASAs).

Actually, challenging the current Scientific Consensus (or Expert Consensus) with new, legitimate evidence is a critical element of the scientific method.

Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxyQNEVOElU
https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ted-naomi-oreskes-why-we-should-trust-scientists/

 

Nor have you provided a rational explanation (besides claiming everyone who disagrees with you is a lemming) to explain why only a small group of outlier, alternative health organizations support the anti-F opinions – in contrast to all major science and health organizations (and their members) that either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not made public statements that CWF is a harmful public health measure.

 

Nor have you provided a logical alternative to replace accepting the scientific consensus when the public is evaluating complex, scientific conclusions.  Unfortunately two of your claims are true, “Marketing can change public opinion

 

Nor have you provided a logical alternative to replace accepting the scientific consensus when the public is evaluating complex, scientific conclusions.  Unfortunately two of your claims are true, “Marketing can change public opinion – ASAs simply throw out masses of fear-laced misinformation and misdirection and try to scare the public into trusting their conclusions, and because of that mistaken trust, “the masses can be wrong“, which reminds me of Kaa's attempt to hypnotize Mowgli into trusting him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDs57R6MYsY

 

Randy Johnson

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
980
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark