Open enrollment for the ACA health insurance marketplace ends Saturday! There's still time to sign up or change your plan.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
568
Views

Re: More Irrelevant Distractions

568 Views
Message 291 of 874

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.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
568
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
559
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

559 Views
Message 292 of 874

Thank you Carry Anne. Yes nothing more needs to be said for normal rational people. 

As far as my opinion on the motives and reasons why one would support fluoridation, they are all different, and my opinion is not particularly important, nor anyone's business anyway. 

Endorsements that do not provide the experimental data and methods behind it are not science. Drug companies that promote the sale of a drug  to the general public without presenting the side effects data, the experiments, methods, snd results with error, and the structure and its mechanism of action, are nor science. They are advertisements based on opinions. Simply because such advertisements are rampant does not make it a scientific consensus. Far more is needed  for that. 

And when the CDC and ADA claim fluoridation is effective and harmless for consumption for generations  to come in perpetuity, when vast data demonstrate otherwise, this is advertisement, not science and certainly not a scientific consensus. 

There is no mechanism by which swallowed fluoride can improve the structure of normal hard crystalline  enamel that forms only when fluoride is not significant in the bloodstream during  tooth formation. Fluoride in saliva bathing teeth us 93000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste and even paste manyfacturers want to raise it to 5000 ppm because it is ineffective at existing levels of 1500.

Fluoridating people is hopeless at preventing caries. The problem is people think it works because of vast published literature which is nor controlled because humans cannot be placed  in cages where groups have identical  brushing habits, have all agreed to stop eating candy and sweets, etc. . The cochrane review by actual scientists recognize no studies that are sufficiently controlled to conclude any benefit exists scientifically  The science with caged animals prove no effect at all on caries while fluorosis increases. . 

Stick to the science and oppose fluoridation of man. 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
559
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
564
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

564 Views
Message 293 of 874

... however if you really want to get into the scientific part of what exactly happens when you add fluoridation chemicals to the water, I suggest this item has some very useful information. 

ChemistryHWpage.jpgChemistry HW

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
564
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
572
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

572 Views
Message 294 of 874

MuddledMottled.jpg

 

Fluoridation does not prevent cavities but does cause dental fluorosis, but even if that wasn't the case... it is still immoral mass medication that doses municipal water with a contaminated product that causes or worsens disease and disability in many consumers. 

 

Moreover, fluoridation chemicals are harmful to the environment. There is nothing more to say about it. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
572
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
537
Views

More Irrelevant Distractions

537 Views
Message 295 of 874

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
537
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
545
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

545 Views
Message 296 of 874

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
545
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
584
Views

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

584 Views
Message 297 of 874

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
584
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
584
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

584 Views
Message 298 of 874

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
584
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
602
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

602 Views
Message 299 of 874

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
602
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
596
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

596 Views
Message 300 of 874

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
596
Views