Reply
Highlighted
Trusted Contributor
0
Kudos
1098
Views

1,098 Views
Message 871 of 1,450

rs – No one is questioning the scientific fact that fluoride ions, dissociated from whatever the source (natural minerals, fluoridation chemicals or foods) are absorbed in the GI tract.  What on earth is your point? That nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with the questions I asked BillO. 

 

You have also continued to dodge my questions about your understanding of CarryAnne’s libelous descriptions of fluoridation supporters as, “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths" and BillO’s derogatory descriptions as, “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

 

Do you agree with these claims about several of the organizations that publically recognize the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation (CWF), and do you apply those descriptions to all organizations that support CWF and their members?

 

It is noted that you and other anti-science activists (ASAs) like Mike Adams (Natural News) and Alex Jones (INFOWARS) make claims like “The problem with advertisements from the ADA and dental officials at the CDC and others is that these are not trained scientists

 

The problem with that claim – as has been pointed out repeatedly – is that there are only a relatively few outlier trained “scientists” and “health professionals” who have dogged personal beliefs and severe fluorine paranoia which require them to dismiss the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

 

There are many ASAs who believe vaccinations are dangerous and should be banned – or who believe they have seen or been abducted by aliens – or that the world is ruled by a reptilian elite – and the list goes on….  Should they all be believed because they have strong personal biases and beliefs?

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/how-spot-reptilians-runing-us-government/354496...

 

Stop with the distractions and explain why you believe (and provide conclusive proof) that all scientists who do not recognize the opinions of ASAs are “not trained scientists who actually do controlled experiments using the scientific method”?  Also, as requested in the past, explain the fact that if the anti-F opinions about the allegedly obvious and dangerous health effects of CWF were even remotely legitimate, the overwhelming majority of scientists and health professionals continue to accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – as evidenced by the fact that all major, recognized science and health organizations in the world accept that consensus.  Then explain why only Natural News, INFOWARS, and a few other alternative health organizations reject the scientific consensus. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1098
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1063
Views

1,063 Views
Message 872 of 1,450

No. Even fluoride at 0.7 ppm is fully converted to HF at pH 2. This is the means by which fluoride gains entry into the blood from the acidic stomach. If it were the charged ion, very little  would be able to penetrate the stomach lining. 

After HF (which is hydrophobic and able to penetrate any lipid membrane) enters  the blood at pH 7.3, it of course  is reionized to the fee fluoride ion. This is indeed how ingested   fluoride accumulates in bone. 

This is scientific fact  (and consensus)  

The problem with advertisements from the ADA and dental officials at the CDC  and others is that these ar not trained scientists who actually do controlled experiments  using the scientific method. These groups merely interpret data from published materials that are usually not sufficiently controlled because humans cannot be placed in cages to control diets, hygiene, etc to make proper judgments on whether eating fluoride affects caries. Controlled animal studies prove caries are not  affected by fluoridated water use, all while dental fluorosis incidence is elevated. This confirms human studies that were more objectively done by Ziegelbecker, and by Teotia, and by Yiamouyianns. 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1063
Views
Trusted Contributor
0
Kudos
1369
Views

1,369 Views
Message 873 of 1,450

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

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1369
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1369
Views

1,369 Views
Message 874 of 1,450

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 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1369
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1391
Views

1,391 Views
Message 875 of 1,450

Johnny,

I responded to your request regarding the NTP study, but still have not received your promised response to my concerns of your slander, defamation, and diagnosis of dental caries.

 

You asked, why has FAN not responded to the NTP animal study?  

 

1.   There are many animal studies, NTP's was just one.

 

2.  There are many individuals in FAN and many of us have responded to the animal study.  I just did in my last email and have in other places.  

 

3.  The NTP study is just one of many animal studies and, like all, had limitations.  It is just one phase of the NTP review.  The NTP study has minimal significance because it was only filling in a gap in the existing animal research, not a definitive comprehensive study, nor as significant as all the other animal studies or human studies.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Bill 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1391
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1391
Views

1,391 Views
Message 876 of 1,450

Johnny,

I responded to your request regarding the NTP study, but still have not received your promised response to my concerns of your slander, defamation, and diagnosis of dental caries.

 

You asked, why has FAN not responded to the NTP animal study?  

 

1.   There are many animal studies, NTP's was just one.

 

2.  There are many individuals in FAN and many of us have responded to the animal study.  I just did in my last email and have in other places.  

 

3.  The NTP study is just one of many animal studies and, like all, had limitations.  Because it is just one phase of the NTP review.  The NTP study has minimal significance because it was only filling in a gap in the existing animal research, not a definitive comprehensive study, nor as significant as all the other animal studies or human studies.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Bill 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1391
Views
Highlighted
Regular Contributor
0
Kudos
1349
Views

1,349 Views
Message 877 of 1,450

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

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1349
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1383
Views

1,383 Views
Message 878 of 1,450

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1383
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
3
Kudos
1432
Views

1,432 Views
Message 879 of 1,450

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1432
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1422
Views

1,422 Views
Message 880 of 1,450

You say this informtion is priceless. . . well maybe you can give me some of your Delta Dental money????

 

NTP Study. Johnny, you are only looking at one phase of the NTP review.

 

 I asked NTP to review the evidence on fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity.  NTP agreed.  The review usually takes 2 or 3 years. 

 

The first phase is a review of current animal literature.  The result reported a “moderate” confidence of developmental neurotoxicity from fluoride.    Actually, that is quite strong and raises serious concerns but not definitive.

 

The second phase of the NTP review was an animal study to fill in weak areas of current research. NTP failed to fully appreciate that rats are 5 to 10 times less sensitive to fluoride than humans.  And NTP chose a strain of rat which is least sensitive.  And NTP failed to give the rats fluoride during the most sensitive early part of life when the brain is developing.  In other words, the study had little chance of finding developmental neurotoxicity.   For more details ask.

 

The third phase of the NTP review are the human studies.  In emails with Linda Birnbaum at NTP, she said the final report would be out at the end of 2017, then Spring of 2018 and this summer she said the report would be out by the end of this year because they were waiting for the results of another human study.  

 

With a “moderate” result for animals and if there is a “moderate” for humans, that will result in a determination that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant.   In just a couple months we should know more.   

 

Of course you can cherry pick just the data which you like, or you can be inclusive.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1422
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

September is Emergency Preparedness month.

Do you have an emergency plan in place?

Share or ask questions today.

Emergency preparedness kit