Content starts here
CLOSE ×

Search

Reply
Bronze 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! 

360,535 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

24,711 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “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)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

23,455 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

15,132 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

 

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

 

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

 

Really? 

 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

 

 

View solution in original post

11,010 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

I stand by my statements because you do not provide evidence to the contrary.   If you would spend more time checking the endorsements rather than simply regurgitating the mantra, you would be shocked.

 

Circular referencing is a huge problem.  

 

Chuck provided some of his favorite endorsements.  Lets look at the first one, the Hispanic Dental Association policy statement located at:  http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Files/FLResources_Hispanic_Dental_Association_Endor...

 

HDA references other endorsements as their evidence for their position.  For example, they reference the CDC, Surgeon General, and USPH.  However, no primary research is provided.

 

The CDC is slightly better with a longer list of cherry picked endorsements from other like minded organizations.  https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/organizations/index.htm

 

CDC goes further with a list of links, 

 

Community Water Fluoridation

collapse

Randy, maybe you could help me out here.  CDC lists basics, guidelines and recommendations, data and statistics, promotional resources, FAQ, and operators and Engineers.  What do you see missing???  Science.  Well that is hidden under Guidelines and Recommendations, as Scientific Reviews and Reports: Assessing the Evidence.    CDC did not assess the evidence, they rely on reviews and report which allegedly assess the evidence.    Lets, very briefly in summary look at their references.  

 

The Community Preventive Services Task Force,  (Cherry picked members who support fluoridation and avoided much science not supporting their position.)

 

NRC 2006  (CDC cherry picks the 2006 report.  And severe DF is now over 2%, or about 4-7 million people being harmed, known and undisputed harm, and CWF is a contributing factor, not the only factor.  NRC has too many reservations and concerns with recommendations for further study than space permits here.  Read the report and remember it is 12 years old, so read the last 12 years of research on each topic.)

 

US PHS.  ( USPHS references the CDC, circular logic and again cherry picks research.)

 

CDC. (CDC references itself, circular logic.)

 

IOM  (IOM's dietary guidelines for 1997.  What is the current IOM dietary guideline for fluoride?  Look it up.)

 

Cochrane review of 2015.  (See below)

 

Australian NHMRC (Again, cherry picked evidence)

 

WHO 2005  (WHO recommendations are not followed.  WHO advises to determine how much fluoride people are getting before starting fluoridation.  To my knowledge, no community, city, state, or country has determined with empirical measured evidence the current fluoride exposure prior to starting fluoridation.  They blindly start to fluoridate based on endorsements, not science.)

 

In my opinion, the Cochrane and NRC 2006 review need to be taken together, because Cochrane looks at "benefit" and NRC looks at "exposure" and "risk."  

 

Cochrane with my emphasis in bold. 

 
Authors' conclusions: 

"There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.

 

Randy, "very little contemporary evidence" does not give me confidence.  When we see huge increases in fluoride exposure from other sources, certainly we need contemporary evidence.  And the mother of all confounding factors which decreased dental caries by 4 to 5 teeth prior to fluoridation is not considered.  What was it?  Maybe that confounding factor is what caused caries to decline and not fluoridation.  With very little contemporary evidence, my confidence in mass medication evaporates.  We need good contemporary evidence to support fluoridation before fluoridation is continued.

 

Continuing with Cochrane Authors' conclusions;

 

"The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population's oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.

There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.

There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation."

 

Randy, is that what you call a robust endorsement of fluoridation?  I would say you need to read and weep.  But the CDC references Cochrane as evidence every single person, infants, adults, elderly, all ages, all health conditions, even those without teeth must ingest more fluoride. . . even without consent.

 

6,028 Views
1
Report
Trusted Contributor

BillO – Apparently I need to ask short, specific questions in hopes of obtaining specific replies.  I have actually examined the evidence responsible for the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective, and I am shocked that fluoridation opponents (FOs) can manipulate it with no regard for accuracy.

 

Q1) Do you apply your libelous “circular referencing” “They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.” critiques (07-09-2018 09:09 PM) to all the other 100+ organizations and their members who support CWF and don't accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate? 

 

Q2) Do you accept the concept of scientific consensus as the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study?  If so, how do you recognize and accept a scientific consensus?

 

Q3) Do you accept the scientific consensus that disinfection is a safe and effective public health measure to protect the health of citizens and the "DOSE" of residual disinfectants and DBPs is sufficiently regulated to protect the health of those who drink the treated water?

 

Q4) If you accept the scientific consensus that disinfection is safe and effective, how do you dismiss the scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure and the "DOSE" of fluoride ions is sufficiently regulated to protect the health of those who drink the treated water??  Fluoride ions actually have a health benefit while there are no health benefits (only risks) from ingesting DBPs. 

 

Q5) If a water treatment process is effective at protecting the health of citizens, why does it matter whether the treatment chemicals added are called poisons or medicines or additives or water treatment chemicals? 

 

Q6) You complain that “CDC did not assess the evidence, they rely on reviews and report which allegedly assess the evidence.”  Please provide a specific example of what you mean by “assess the evidence” and provide details of an anti-fluoridation organization that assessed the evidence and did not rely on reviews and reports which allegedly assess the evidence.

 

Q7) Do you accept the 28 references (2000 – 2018) I just posted in response to the comment by rs as endorsements or as legitimate scientific studies and reviews?  All of them concluded that community water fluoridation was effective at reducing dental decay, and none concluded there were any health risks – the only risk listed for drinking water containing 0.7 ppm was the recognized increased risk of minimal dental fluorosis.

 

Q8) You state, “In my opinion, the Cochrane and NRC 2006 review need to be taken together, because Cochrane looks at 'benefit' and NRC looks at 'exposure' and 'isk'."  Really?  Explain the following:
~> The 2006 NRC Fluoride Review committee (which included at least three dedicated FOs) “was asked to evaluate independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of 2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect children and others from adverse health effects”.  The review listed absolutely no harmful health-related finding or recommendation for water containing fluoride ions at the SMCL of 2.0 mg/l – three times the optimal level for CWF.  Provide the exact citation in the 2006 NRC review that concluded CWF guidelines (or water containing three times the guidelines) caused any adverse health effects.
~> You, like rs, have apparently not read the Cochrane review – or you were wearing your anti-science activist blinders, because you completely missed the first “Key result” which states in part, “Our review found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children. The introduction of water fluoridation resulted in children having 35% fewer decayed, missing and filled baby teeth and 26% fewer decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth. We also found that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and a 14% increase in children with no decay in their permanent teeth.” These conclusions were based on studies that met Cochrane’s very stringent review criteria and were mostly published before 1975.  The reviewers listed study limitations, yet they published the conclusion that evidence demonstrated the effectiveness of CWF largely before the use of fluoridated toothpaste, rinses, etc. became widespread.  How would that conclusion be possible if there was no evidence that CWF was effective?  Did fluoridation magically become ineffective post-1975?  The fact is that the complexity of the Cochrane review makes it an easy target for conclusion manipulations by FOs.

 

Q9) How do you explain fact that fluoridation opponents have no support for their paranoid opinions besides INFOWARS: Alex Jones, "I grew up in Dallas, Texas, drinking sodium fluoridated water. All the scientific studies show my IQ has been reduced by at least 20 points.", Natural News: Mike Adams, and a handful of alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations you listed as opposing CWF?

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
6,030 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

People who oppose fluoridation are in complete agreement with the scientific consensus. The consensus indicates that half of all ingested fluoride is assimilated into the bloodstream after conversion to hydrofluoric acid HF in the acidic stomach. And that of all the retained fluoride in man, 95% is retained in bone where fluoroapatite has a different crystal structure than normal hydroxyapatite.

The idea spread here that fluoridation opponents are not following this mainstream science is ridiculous. 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,255 Views
3
Report
Regular Contributor

You seek to pose isolated factoids that are unimportant to the public health decision.  I suspect that at the concentration of 0.7 ppm the fluoride and hydrogen atoms are completely dissociated but it really is utterly irrelevant whether undissociated molecules of HF exist there or not.

 

Here is a convenient place to read what the many restigious scientific and prefessional organizations advocating fluoridation have to say, in their own words.  For reader's convenience I've attached a small sample.  These quotations well reflect the scientific consensus supporting fluoridation.

http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

2013 Organizations Recognizing Fluoridation in their Own Words.jpg

 

 

0 Kudos
6,224 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

Chuck,

 

May I make a suggestion. 

 

When in contact with scientists, fluoridationists do not make sense when they talk about 0.7 ppm of fluoride in water.  No sense at all.

 

You see, fluoridationists don't understand the difference between dosage and concentration, or perhaps they desire to confuse the public.

 

Do your home work and talk about the range of dosages humans ingest at all ages and all quantities of water consumed.  

 

Then add the amount of fluoride from other sources.

 

Then determine whether the supplementation of fluoride in water is still safe for all people or just half or 90th percentage of the population.  How many people harmed is acceptable to fluoridationists?

 

Your endorsements don't make sense either.  What about the many organizations which do not support or endorse supplementing fluoride through public water to all people without their consent?

 

Cherry picking your evidence is a glaring admission of a house of cards.

 

Bill 

6,243 Views
1
Report
Trusted Contributor

BillO - FOs invent irrelevant distractions

 

The benefits of adding disinfectants to treat drinking water outweigh risks of ingesting residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (DBPs) even though, according to anti-F “logic”, there is no “dose control” (07-27-2018 12:55 PM) and “there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety” (08-21-2018 01:14 PM) for ingesting sodium hypochlorite, chloroform and other DBPs, and, as far as I am aware, “There are no prospective randomized controlled trials, good science, supporting your theory for [the safety of]  dilute, short contact topical or ‘ingested’ [chloroform and DBPs]” (08-19-2018 02:18 AM).  Then there is no control for the "amount of DBPs [ingested] from other sources.” (09-15-2018 09:14 AM). 

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/204/report/F

 

If you accept the consensus that disinfection is a safe and effective process to protect the health of citizens and the "DOSE" of residual disinfectants and DBPs is sufficiently regulated, it is difficult to understand how you can dismiss the consensus on CWF.  Fluoride ions actually have a health benefit while there are no health benefits (only risks) from ingesting DBPs.

 

Dr. Slott already addressed (07-01-2018 01:09 PM) your previous post of this recycled anti-F claim: “The intake, or dose, of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is very strictly controlled.  For every one liter of such water consumed, 0.7 mg fluoride is ingested.  The average water consumption of adults is 2-4 liters per day.  Ten liters is roughly 2.5 gallons.  If you know of anyone ingesting 2.5 gallons of water on a daily basis you should caution him/her  about the dangers of water toxicity.  No public health initiative is expected to account for extreme behaviors such as this.”

Prior to attaining the daily limit of  fluoride intake from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with that from all other normal sources, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.  When the amount of a substance which can be ingested falls below the level of adverse effects for that substance, then dose is not a concern in regard to adverse effects.  Presumably you understand this as you seem to have no problem with any “uncontrolled” dose of chlorine, ammonia, or any of the other substances routinely added to public water supplies.”

 

This is just another of your distractions and arm-waving tactics to try and divert attention from the fact that you have no logical explanation for why fluoridation opponents have been unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years or why over 100 recognized and respected (except by anti-science activists) science and health organizations (and their hundreds of thousands of representatives) that continue to publically recognize the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation for protecting public health. 

 

You also have no rational explanation for the fact that fluoridation opponents have no support for their paranoid opinions besides INFOWARS: Alex Jones, "I grew up in Dallas, Texas, drinking sodium fluoridated water. All the scientific studies show my IQ has been reduced by at least 20 points.", Natural News: Mike Adams, and a handful of alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations you listed as opposing CWF

 

Oh, and you still have not answered my questions about your libelous claims, “CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.” and "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

"I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation." and

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

 

Do you apply those critiques to the other 100+ organizations and their members who support CWF and don't accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate?

 

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
6,244 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I don't think the animals in the NTP study developed significant dental fluorosis. so Ithe exposure was not as high as what is happening to the fluoridated human population. We now  have nearly 70% of kids developing fluorosis.in the US,  Studies that don't develop the same blood fluoride level as seen in man and studies of short duration are insufficient to claim that lifelong fluoridation is harmless.

And if any study in animals finds significant harm, fluoride promotets will not halt fluoridation anyway. We already have massive proof of harm in research animals from fluoridated water, and yet fluoridation continues. 

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,309 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems…. Post menopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at risk of fractures.” United States Public Health Service Report (ATSDR TP-91/17,  Sec.2.7, April 1993)  

 

Fluoridationists have been organized and trained by marketing gurus to frame the conversations around teeth or whatever minor or discredited piece of science that can create doubt. However, the fact of the matter is the weight of the scientific evidence supported by testimony of seniors as well as evolving medical opinion is that fluoridation is an immoral medical mandate that causes disease, disability and even death in millions of consumers.  

 

2012 training for social media trolls2012 training for social media trolls

6,053 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The U.S. EPA correctly lists fluoride in water as a contaminant that must be regulated.  At 4 ppm fluoride (naturally present as a contaminant in water) consumption is prohibited by the EPA because doing so chronically causes severe skeletal fluorosis. For water at 2 ppm the EPA requires warnings to be issued not to drink, where it is clear that doing so chronically during childhood causes severe dental enamel fluorosis (hypoplasia).  

 

But what fluoridation promoters fail to grasp is that the EPA does not regulate intentional infusion of industrial fluorides into water (artificial water fluoridation), where the EPA Office of Water writes that this is the purview of the U.S. FDA because it is an attempt to use fluoride as an ingestible, to treat human tissue. So the EPA does not examine the long term effects of consuming water with artificially added fluoride at 1 ppm (or at 0.7 ppm).  These effects are not known with certainty to the EPA, and the EPA does not attempt to discover them either.

 

So what must be emphasized is that fluoride assimilation causes permanent accumulation of fluoride into bone where it is a contaminant that alters the crystal structure of bone in a pathological process. it is not biochemicallay reversible. Assimilatled fluoride is thus a cumulative poison. This means that the high stage bone fluorosis (usually with severe bone pain and bones being more subject to fracture) that is caused over several decades of drinking 4 ppm fluoride water can also be achieved by consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water by those consumers who happen to live long enough to accumulale fluoride to the bone level that 4 ppm water produces in decades.

 

So it must not be claimed that consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water is safe and harmless, even while assimilatling the fluoride for one's entire lifetime and for the life of their descendants in all perpetuity. Although this positiojn is posited by fluoridation advocates, it is false because, as stated, fluoride is a cumulative poison.

Pre-clinical, symptom-less bone fluorosis actually begins with the first sip of fluoridated water. This is because there is no concentration of blood fluoride that is low enough such that ALL fluoride is eliminated into the urine before ANY fluoride accumulates into bone. The concentrated calcium in bone hydroxyapatite strongly electrostatically attracts systemic fluoride ion. There is no escape that would allow anyone to claim that ingesting fluoridated water is harmless during liefelong continuous drinking. The claim is simply absurd. The FDA is also correct in its assessment ruling that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods and that fluoride ingestion has never been FDA approved.

The fact that easily noticed symptoms may be absent after long term fluoridated water consumption in many people does not mean it is "harmless" during lifelong consumption.

Understand?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
5,997 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Two that come to mind, where work was done at two institutions that was go at published when they were paid.by the second institution.

Im sure it happens when work spans a transfer between labs. 

 

But the questions I asked remain unanswered. Why for one is a person "fringe" for being the first to discover something?

 

Why should someone get no health treatment from a professional who happens to misunderstand one item while understanding other items well?

 

What gives a person a right to label someone as not opposing fluoridation simply because he does not conjoin FAN (even to the tune of a presumed seven million)? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,181 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

So there you have it. One cannot refer to a person as being "fringe" unless there are a majority who oppose him. No majority opposes my view that fluoride discharges in rivers where salmon spawn can, and did, affect salmon populations.  

So the view is not "fringe." it is merely an observation made first, where others don't bother to even look. Pretty simple really.

Claude Bernard was ostracized as some phoney when he discovcered that glucose is in the bloodstream even in people who eat no sugar. He turned out to be correct since humans metabolize glucose from consumed foods. We now know he was not "fringe" but instead observed something that was correct.  Just because someone is alone in thinking does not make him "fringe" as though he is in error.

And no one (except on this site) has criticized or disagreed with the deduction on fluoride discharges and salmon. So the "fringe" label is pretty absurd. 

Likewise, the idea that just because someone does not oppose fluoridation (or even may agree with it) does not mean he can't be trusted to do anything else. Two dentists I have gone to do very well with teeth repair or pulilnhg teeth, etc. But they assume that fluoride gels at 12,000 ppm might help teeth so they use it on those who allow it. He is wrong about the gels (all the fluoride that is not spit out is eventually swallowed since it only forms calcium fluoride globules on teeth surfaces that are easily dissolved upon eating/drinking). But neverftheless they are great at providing other services. The same is true for a doctor who can be excellent in many areas but wrong about one. 

I don't see why anyone would stop getting help from someone who simply doesn't know everything. In fact, no one knows everything. But because that is the case, we should not go for help from anyone because no one knows everything? Again, absurd.. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,011 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I know many people who oppose fluoridation for many reasons, but who you are improperly counting in the seven million who didn't sign the FAN petition. 

They do not want to affiliate with FAN or do not endorse all that FAN has written, or many other reasons. 

So? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,991 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

By the way, Richard, for the 6th time now, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works as though he was affiliated with that institution? . . as though they funded the paper? . . . as though they published the material?    Anybody?

 

Are you having a problem with the question, or are you really a fringe minority of one who believes this is an acceptable practice?

0 Kudos
6,047 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

Not all schools are the same and knowing where a person received their degrees can be helpful.  Those from Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and other Ivy league schools tend to do it more.  I sometimes list the school where I went to because we have our strengths in public health, international and areas of prevention.

 

However, we should probably more often or always list the schools we went.

 

By the way, did you receive your degree from Trump University?  Just kidding.  You can take a joke, right?

 

Bill  

0 Kudos
5,962 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

Richard Sauerheber – Your comment, "I know many people who oppose fluoridation for many reasons", brings the conversation back to the questions you seem to be avoiding, for example the comments by by CarryAnne and Dr. Osmunson about those professionals who support community water fluoridation (CWF) or don't publically condemn the practice:

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Whether you answer yes or no, explain how you can trust any science or health conclusion or procedures accepted by anyone in those organizations?  If all professionals who support community water fluoridation are ignorant, willfully blind, mindless lemmings when it comes to the issue of fluoridation – and are willfully or ignorantly subjecting their patients to the allegedly obvious and damaging harm from fluoridation how on earth can they be trusted to make any beneficial decisions?

 

Several additional questions about the scientific consensus: 
~> 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? 

~> 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?

~> What do you accept as the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) on CWF?
~> If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have FOs been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative? 
~> 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?

 

How would you describe the hundreds of thousands of members of the organizations who support CWF and have not publically denounced it? 

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
5,960 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Me calling attention to fluoride discharges in rivers during a salmon collapse is claimed here to be extremist and out of the mainstream. But finding something others have nor noticed is not being extremist. It is simply being attentive. 

There is not a single scientist who has published in journals or the media that the fluoride discharges in the Sacramento have  nothing to to with the decimated ongoing almon population problem. None. 

And yet I am argued to be wrong and extremist?

This discussion is quite amusing. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,080 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, this is a joke:  "There is not a single scientist who has published in journals or the media that the fluoride discharges in the Sacramento have  nothing to to with the decimated ongoing almon population problem."

 

Response:  Yeah.  There is also not a single scientist who has published that Sunspots have nothing to do with ongoing salmon population problems either.  

 

Love your reasoning.

 

Show me a scientist who agrees with your fringe position that water fluoridation caused this.  As of now you are a fringe minority of One.  

0 Kudos
5,106 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to, or that all seven million endorse or promote fluoridation. This is a typical mistake people make when analyzimg population data.

I don't mind being labeled fringe by one who knows my results are unconventional but correct. I of course am not fringe when the definition means being an extremist who is incorrect. 

The study in JEPH was first conceived  after the fluoridation overfeed killed a coastguardsman in Alaska in 1992. The analysis. and the writeup took a very long time to complete and by the time  it was published finally after lengthy reviews and discussions and encouragement from my mentor and collaborator Dr. Benson was published 2013. So from conception to finish it took my spare unpaid time over a 19 year span to finish. So what? 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,942 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

By the way, for the 5th time now, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works as though he was affiliated with that institution? . . as though they funded the paper? . . . as though they published the material?    Anybody?

0 Kudos
5,056 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Sauerheber, your quote:  "Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to, or that all seven million endorse or promote fluoridation."

 

Response:  First of all, I never said they endorse or promote fluoridation.  They are not opposed to it.  You are.  You are fringe.  

 

You say, ""Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to,"  

 

Response:  If somebody is opposed to water fluoridation in this country, they are familiar with the Fluoride Action Network, or Fluoridealert.  They just are.  That is were almost all of the misinformation & paranoia comes from.  So, if somebody is visiting that site, they have been asked to sign the statement.  

 

That 4500, or maybe it's up to 5000 now, represents the sum total of those whom FAN calls "professional" & "health care" workers.  It includes some doctors, some nurses, a few dentists, aromatherapists, chiropractors, among others, lawyers (for obvious reasons).  That's it.  

 

Face it, you are fringe, and your "Demand" of the AARP here is nothing more than a lame attempt to make you look more mainstream.  

 

You call optimally fluoridated water a "drug" in your attempt to generate paranoia.  No U.S. health agency agrees with you on that.  Not the CDC, not the FDA, not the EPA, not the USDPH, nobody.  

 

You have actually said that the Safe Drinking Water Act was originally written to halt the spread of fluoridation across the country.  (this thread ‎07-13-2018 12:46 PM)

 

 

0 Kudos
5,073 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

For anyone reading these posts, there are two key definitions of the term fringe. I would refer to a few of my 51 research articles published in scientific journals since 1972 as fringe, with a first definition, that is, the data are "unconventional, but correct." 

 

I do not however publish articles that are classed with the second definition of fringe, which is being used here as a criticism, to mean "extremist and false." I have no such articles. I stand by all the data I have published and yes there are several that are fringe because the results surprise many people in the field. 1. It is true that insulin stimulates glucose transporters present in the plasma membrane, rather than an opposing 'recruitment' view held by many in power at the NIH. 2. It is true that type II diabetes does not require drugs to correct the condition in all classical cases, in spite of the widespread use of drugs to treat it in the U.S. 3. It is true that time passes continuously, regardless of human acitvities or motion of observers, as revealed by real experiments published, in spite of widespread teachings otherwise. 4. It is true that swallowing  fluoride from industrial sources, including from fluosilicic acid and sodium fluoride, without plentiful calcium, causes the protonation of all fluoride ion into hydrofluoric acid HF in the acidic stomach in man, as published in the JEPH article to which is being labeled here with the false definition of fringe, when the data are nevertheless correct. 

 

I've already addressed the reference to UCSD in some of my articles, and it has nothing to do with what has been claimed. It is proper, not improper, to list an institution where work was initiated or completed even when it is published later when the author also works at a different institution. Taylor & Francis publishing group reviewed this and also agreed. The four articles on the Calculus were completed after initial work was done at UCSD. The two articles on time dilation were only able to be published, with heavy arguments from 5 physicist editors, because of the original concept that germinated to completion at UCSD. The fluoride toxicology articles were only published because Benson, my collaborator at UCSD, asked me to do so. My letters to institutions and to anyone who asks scientific questions usually list UCSD as the location where my degrees were earned, along with the institution where I now work.

 

I challenge any critic to describe any error in any work I have published, including the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490, 2013 article to which these posts mostly refer.

 

Publishing accurate scientific research is tedious, time consuming, and difficult, where the peer reivew process is rigorous and demanding. It is precisely for this reason that I have not published any information in scientific peer-reviewed journals on the likelihood that fluoridation chemicals discharged by cities into rivers where salmon spawn are deleterious to salmon. Even though I am confident that this is the case based on deduction and other published work, I cannot prove the specific point for the Sacramento River because much more work would be required to prove it beyond doubt, where all other environmental variables are so difficult to control. This does not mean however that dumping fluoride into a particular river be harmless to salmon simply because it harm has not been proven beyond doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to publish in science journals that are well peer-reviewed, as for all the articles that I have in the end actually published. Scientists are all human and all very different from each other. OK?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
4,971 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Gosh, Dr. Sauerheber, I didn’t realize you would be so defensive about being called a fringe activist.  If you don’t like being called fringe, don’t be fringe. 

 

“Fringe:  adjective

not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme.”

 

You publish papers that oppose community water fluoridation.  Opposing Community Water Fluoridation is unconventional, peripheral, and extreme.  Why do I say this? 

 

The Fluoride Action Network, the foremost contributor to misinformation about water fluoridation in the U.S., has a list of professionals who have signed their “Opposition to Fluoridation Statement.”  The list has about 4500 signatories. 

 

In the U.S. there are over 860,000 physicians, 2.8 million nurses, nearly 170,000 dentists and about 3.2 million PhD’s, or about 7 million.  If the list is accurate, then 0.064% or 1 in every 1555 oppose fluoridation.  In other words, 99.936% of Health Care and other Professionals are not opposed to water fluoridation enough to take 10 seconds to sign a statement. 

 

I understand that about 25% of the US list of Professionals Opposed to fluoridation are from outside the US, so the actual percentages opposing fluoridation might be even lower if that is the case. 

 

99.936% of all Health Care & Other Professionals don’t consider water fluoridation enough of a hazard to bother to sign a statement opposing it, which would take all of 10 seconds.   If your extreme minority position isn’t fringe, nothing is. 

 

But it goes beyond that with you.  You believe Einstein got it all wrong about time dilation.  You come up with weird stuff about the FDA & the EPA which is all provably wrong.  And not one other environmentalist attributes the salmon collapse in Sacramento to water fluoridation.  Not one.  You are a minority of one.  You are fringe my friend. 

 

And you never answered the question.  For the 4th time, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works?

 

Your quote:  “Publishing accurate scientific research is tedious, time consuming, and difficult, where the peer reivew process is rigorous and demanding.”

 

This is what another scientist, one of your peers, had to say about your time consuming work.  You’ve seen it before: 

 

“19 year study? Really. Surely the data you presented could have been produced in an afternoon in a high school chemistry lab. It is essentially just a school project to confirm already known relationships between Ca, F and pH. What took you 19 years?”  https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/calcium-fluoride-and-the-soft-water-anti-fluoridation...

 

I am surprised you would challenge any critic to find errors with your work. 

0 Kudos
4,904 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Is it not utter cracpottery for fluoridation opponents to allege that America's Family Physicians (who did their own independant systematic review) oppose community water fluoridation as part of a financially based perversion on the part of dentists (ie the ADA).  

 

Ditto the Australia New South Wales Dept of Health,  the British Dental Assn, the Canadian Medical Association, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, just a few of the 150 or so prestigious organizations who have clearly advocated that drinking water be fluoridated.

 

Fluoridation opponents believe that state and federal health agencies aided by organizations such at these are, for some mysterious reason, hiding the truth and helping to poison more than 200 million citizens.

 

Rather than a far reaching and 100% effective disinformation campaitn opponents allege Isnt' it more likely that fluoridation receives such support is because it does exactly what it's supposed to -  It decreases cavities.

5,039 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

But it is completely rational to oppose a fluoridation promoter who continues to endorse increased fluorosis incidence in U. S. children if he is discussing  treatments for the fluorosis he endorses. This is a gross conflict of interest. 

And it is rational to not oppose a man who  discusses treating fluorosis who also fights against fluoridation that causes it. 

If you can't see that then I can't likely help you. 

It is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned higher level math when publishing a math discovery. And it is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned that synthetic fluorides are all listed poisons (Dr. Benson, UCSD) and the scientist I collaborated with on fluoride toxicology research that I published at his request.  I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you argue that it is something other than  that, that is your belief. It doesn't change the facts. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,076 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, you say:

 

"It is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned higher level math when publishing a math discovery. And it is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned that synthetic fluorides are all listed poisons (Dr. Benson, UCSD) and the scientist I collaborated with on fluoride toxicology research that I published at his request.  I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you argue that it is something other than  that, that is your belief. It doesn't change the facts."

 

Yeah.  For the third time now:   Do you know of any other scholar who does it?  When Dr. Sagan published work he listed Cornell as his affiliated University.  That is because Cornell paid him, funded his work, and published his material.  That's the norm.  

 

Carl Sagan graduated from the University of Chicago, yet on none of his work (other than his dissertation) did he cite the U. of C.  That's because the U. of C. had nothing to do with his work.  You, on the other hand, think this practice is ok.  It kind of implies that your alma mater, the UCSD, stands behind your work.  But the UCSD has no idea what you are writing or publishing, does it.

 

I only raise this point to show the AARP what kind of people are making "Demands" of them.

0 Kudos
5,032 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Sauerheber, your quote again:  

 

""It is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned higher level math when publishing a math discovery. And it is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned that synthetic fluorides are all listed poisons (Dr. Benson, UCSD) and the scientist I collaborated with on fluoride toxicology research that I published at his request.  I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you argue that it is something other than  that, that is your belief. It doesn't change the facts."

 

Let me explain to you why this is wrong with one example.  Ted Kaczynski, the Unibomber, earned his B.A. in Math from Harvard in 1962.  

 

Do you seriously believe that it would have been ok for Ted to list Harvard as his affiliated university at the bottom of his "Manifesto," simply because he graduated from there.  That's pretty much what you're doing with the UCSD & your fringe papers. 

 

For the record, nobody is saying you are the Unibomber, you are like the unibomber, or you resemble the unibomber in any way . . because I know that's how you're going to try to spin it. 

 

I'm saying he had the good sense not to list "Harvard University" at the top of his Manifesto, and you don't seem to have that high of an ethic. 

 

It kind of makes you look more important than you really are when you imply that a major university stands behind your work, possibly funds it, maybe publishes it . . but none of that is true of your relationship with UCSD.  You just imply it by citing them on your papers.

0 Kudos
5,021 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

Richard Sauerheber – Several questions which you seem to be dodging…

 

~> Do you accept CarryAnne's and Dr. Osmunson's specific claims listed below against the specific organizations they referenced -- and also against all members of the 100+ respected organizations and their representatives who have not publically embraced the anti-F opinions?

 

Actually CarryAnne and Dr. Osmunson are dodging the same questions...

 

~> Specific claims by CarryAnne:

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

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

(07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates

(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.”

 

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

"CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing."

"Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust."

"I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation."

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

 

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

 

Several Questions about the scientific consensus: 
~> 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? 

~> 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?

~> What do you accept as the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) on CWF?
~> If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have FOs been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative? 
~> 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?

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
5,063 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

But you have not apologized for the false claim that since Deal doesn't list organic gardening on his website then I have no right to claim he is good at organic gardening.

And I already answered my affiliations with UCSD (alma mater, alumni association, the late Dr. Benson coworker, and the Chemistry department faculty). I also described why letters I write list UCSD as the location of my degrees. I wasa asked to do that and there is nothing wrong with it.

 

Why would I argue with a person who already understands the truth, that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis? Those opposed to fluoride are already tryinhg to halt dental fluorosis properly. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,072 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. S.,

 

Yes you "explained" it.  The question was, "Do you know of any other scholar who deceptively does it?"

 

I never said you "have no right to claim he is good at organic gardening."  Maybe you should apologize to me.  

 

RS:  "Why would I argue with a person who already understands the truth, that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis?"

 

Answer:  So that we don't think of you as a hypocrite.  You jumped all over Dr. Johnson about that because of your inability to read what he had written.  You said, "A fluoridation promoter requests that dental enamel fluorosis, which is abnormally thin enamel, be treated with abrasion."  ‎09-05-2018 06:51 PM

 

I guess it doesn't matter What is said.  The only thing that matters to you is Who says it.  That makes you a hypocrite.  If Dr. Johnson says it, you "can't believe what you are hearing."  If Dr. Limebeck says the same thing, he "understands the truth."  

 

Frankly, I can't remember ever reading more blatant hypocricy. 

5,102 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I don't believe what I'm hearing. A fluoridation promoter requests that dental enamel fluorosis, which is abnormally thin enamel, be treated with abrasion. In other words, don't bother fixing the cause of this problem by halting fluoridated water ingestion in childhood, but instead let's just treat the symptoms after they appear so the teeth will visibly look better while even losing more enamel.

Similar illogic is used when prescribing certain drugs to achieve a normal level of a body component such as high glucose from overeating sugar, so then you have two problems, the original cause of the high glucose plus the drug side effects. 

When a cause can be corrected, correct it. Don't leave it there and treat its effects. In other words,  eat less sugar and one won't need the drug. And stop eating fluoride and no one would need the treatment for fluorosis.

What a sick joke.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,095 Views
1
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users