Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1948
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,948 Views
Message 831 of 1,426

Johnny,

 

You suggest, "True Facts."   Sounds like you and D. Trump have some in common.  Makes me laugh when you try to say "True Facts" after you defamed me and slandered me publicly claiming I did malpractice.    I did not do the cosmetic treatment you claim and cosmetic treatment is not malpractice.

 

The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  

 

True Fact.  You promised and did not keep your promise.   Send me one other dentist who claims I did malpractice or the treating doctors did malpractice.  Send me their name and contact info.

 

Regarding the NTP, I agree with you on the first phase and you have blown one study against many others.  You certainly have not convinced me with any statements from the NTP that their one study negates their determination that all the other studies in the review have now been rendered false by their one study.   

 

And now the more than 50 human studies reporting developmental neurologic harm.  It will take more than one study to refute all the other studies.   Before you get too confident, perhaps we should wait for the final report.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1948
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1914
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,914 Views
Message 832 of 1,426

Johnny,

 

You suggest, "True Facts."   Sounds like you and D. Trump have some in common.  Makes me laugh when you try to say "True Facts" after you defamed me and slandered me publicly claiming I did malpractice.    I did not do the cosmetic treatment you claim and cosmetic treatment is not malpractice.

 

The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  

 

True Fact.  You promised and did not keep your promise.

 

Regarding the NTP, I agree with you on the first phase and you have blown one study against many others.  You certainly have not convinced me with any statements from the NTP that their one study negates their determination that all the other studies in the review have now been rendered false by their one study.   

 

And now the more than 50 human studies reporting developmental neurologic harm.  It will take more than one study to refute all the other studies.   Before you get too confident, perhaps we should wait for the final report.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1914
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1890
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,890 Views
Message 833 of 1,426

CarryAnne,

 

An amazing compilation of powerful documentation raising serious concerns with fluoride exposure.  

 

In the last 3 years, this evidence has not been refuted.

 

“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! 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1890
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1886
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,886 Views
Message 834 of 1,426

The quote in question from the Cochrane review is as follows:
"We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults."

In other words, there was no determination made because the published work claiming benefit is not scientific. Scientists already knew this because all the studies were not controlled -- humans cannot be put in cages. So these thousands of publications on water fluoridation (97% were rejected) have little to no meaning.

The Ziegelbecker massive, inclusive studies, plus the 30 year massive study by Teotia and Teotia, and the detailed, meticulous studies published by John Yiamouyiannis are the best human observations we have and are completely consistent with the actual science on research animals in controlled environments in cages, proving that eating fluoride does not reduce caries while fluorosis incidence increases. The scientific case has been closed for a long time. You might get some benefit by reading Fluoride the Aging Factor by Yamouyiannis. It is very good biochemistry and the best human epidemiology we have on the subject.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1886
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1872
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,872 Views
Message 835 of 1,426

If the statement was intended to mean that all studies indicate that adults benefit from fluoridation, then you need to read the actual science as described in the textbook known as the Bible of pharmacology, Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics. In the section on ingested fluoride the correct statement is "fluoride is of no benefit to adult teeth".

The scientific consensus nsus in the 1940's and still today is correct. Fluoride found use as a rat poison and has always been considered unsafe to add to foods at any concentration. And in recent studies we know eating fluoride is ineffective in lowering tooth decay and causes skeletal and enamel harm. 

The consensus remains the same. 

The Kumar studies have been discussed before. The claim of caries reduction is not scientific. The slight difference is not even outside measurement error. A scientist does not accept a difference as being real, rather than an artifact, with data like that. 

Sorry

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1872
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1302
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,302 Views
Message 836 of 1,426

Johnny,

 

Your words, "true facts" made me laugh.  

 

You promised to respond to my claim you defamed and slandered me if I responded to your question on NTP.    I expect and request a public appology here and at your next public meetings and a letter to the communities you have slandered and defamed me, with an appology of your errors.

 

Johnny,  the ingestion of fluoride might have some benefit, might not.  Take the weight and amount of caries prevention possibility  and add to the evidence of risk for brain, thyroid, bones, teeth, cancer, kidney from many studies, then weigh the evidence of increased caries and risk from excess exposure and the lack of freedom of choice and individual dosage.   When you stack all those issues  together and weigh all of those factors, CWF becomes unacceptable.  

 

Research by nature takes one or as few variables as possible and tries to measure the variable.  Public Health Policy must take a look at the big picture, all the studies, all the possible benefits, risks, dosage, along with the lethality and contagious nature of the disease before people are forced to ingest the medication/treatment.  The big picture must be considered.

 

The one animal study by NTP should be taken along with the other studies.  One study which had limitations showing no harm is reassuring, but does not negate the many studies reporting harm.  

 

Cochrane.  Thanks for the link.  Note the authors conclusions are not as robust as your claim.

 

"Authors’ conclusions
Our results across all reviews (pooled ROR 1.08) are ver y similar to results reported by similarly conducted reviews. As such, we have
reached similar conclusions; on average, the re is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies
and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study de sign, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions.
Factors other than study design per se need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs
and observational studies. O ur results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level
of he terogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence study effects
might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness."
 
Little evidence is not no evidence.  And observational studies are important.  RCTs are still considered the gold standard and to my understanding are usually required by Cochrane reviewers and FDA, etc.  
 
Here are a few limitations often found in the observational studies on fluoridation:
 
  • A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors such as serious decline in caries of 5 teeth per 12 year old prior to fluoridation.  What caused the decline and control for that unknown.
  • B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials are required due to serious unknowns.   
  • C.   Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
  • D.   Inadequate size 
  • E.   Difficulty in diagnosing decay
  • F.   Delay in tooth eruption not controlled 
  • G.   Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year round
    vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled. 
  • H.   Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
  • I.     Oral hygiene not determined 
  • J.     Not evaluating Life time benefit 
  • K.    Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
  • L.     Dental treatment expenses not considered 
  • M.    Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
  • N.    Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.  
  • O.    Genetics not considered

 

Cochrane did find benefit for children from observational studies.  But those studies did not control for all of the concerns above.  

 

Pressure on Cochrane by fluoridationists so you say "they took the unprecedented move to totally re-write their Plain Language Summary"

 

Obviously, if political pressure is placed on someone after their studdied written opinion, that is bias.  Perhaps the original version was their true conclusion and under pressure they changed.  Seen that often with fluoridation.  Preventing publications, can't find peer reviewers, delay in publication and out right junk research published.

 

Johnny, I expect and appology and put all the pieces of the puzzel together.  Stand back and line all the evidence and weigh the evidence.  60% of adolescents in 2011-2012 with too much fluoride is too much fluoride, even if you think it is a good thing.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1302
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1276
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,276 Views
Message 837 of 1,426

Rich,

Do you really understand what the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) was saying about the 20 studies that met their strict inclusion criteria out of over 4,000 studies that they quieried from various scientific databases?

 

None of the studies which met their strict inclusion criteria showed that adults didn't benefit from CWF.   They never said that there was no benefit from CWF to adults.

 

You might be interested to know that this same COHG reviewed the studies that the U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force was using to make its recommendations on CWF. This COHG approved the studies which they used, many of which were exactly the same as was used in their own study in 2015.

 

The U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmed in 2013 their recommendation of fluoridation based on strong evidence.  They used contemperary studies, similar to the one you referenced by Jay Kumar, to draw their conclusions from.  The COHG had not included these in their 2015 report on CWF.

 

I attended a meeting in London with the COHG and scholars from academia, research, and many others where we discussed their report.  Their report was so egregiously being misrepresented by those opposed to CWF that they took the unprecedented move to totally re-write their Plain Language Summary so that could no longer be done.

 

Observational studies produce essentially the same results as Randomized Controlled Trials per one of the articles by a Cochrane researcher:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2/epdf/full

 

Using information from groups like Cochrane without truly understanding what it was that was being stated is how so much misinformation has been spun by those who oppose CWF.  

 

Thanks for bringing up the COHG.  It's nice to be able to share the true facts of their findings with you.


Warm regards,

 

Johnny

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1276
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1227
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,227 Views
Message 838 of 1,426

My opinions about why fluoride advocates  believe eating fluoride is effective and harmless are not important. But statements I make about the fallacy of fluoridation are certainly important. 

The comparison of fluoridation of people with the sanitizing.effect of chlorination is absurd. Chlorine is necessary to kill pathogens in water to avoid immediately lethal disease when it is consumed later.

Fluoridation does not sanitize water but is adds to treat humans to elevate fluoride blood levels in an attempt to affect caries when the proper method is to brush after eating sugar or drinking  sugar laden beverages, and to keep teeth clean. 

And as stated before, chloride has a an essential electrolyte in blood. Fluoride  is a contamunant un blood. 

There is  consensus on the usefulness of chlorination. The is no scientific  evidence that fluoride ion reduces decay  or is harmless. The scientific evidence using controlled animals proves fluoride in blood at water fluoridation levels does not reduce caries and indeed causes harm (fluorosis of both bone and teeth). 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1227
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
891
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

891 Views
Message 839 of 1,426

I do recall the following sweeping statement made in the Cochrane review.:

"We had concerns about the methods used, or the reporting of the results, in the vast majority (97%) of the studies."  The report also concluded that there is zero evidnece proving that caries are reduced by water fluoridation in adults.

Many studies indeed found caries were reduced in children, but just  like modern studies by Kumar and others who make the same claim, the observation error and bias are problems, coupled with the fact that again humans cannot be put in cages to control candy eating, teeth brushing, diet, etc. Kids with dental fluorosis are typically embarrassed by it and naturally brush their teeth more than kids without fluorosis, in an attempt to help their disfigured teeth. So it would not be surprising to see fewer caries in fluoridated areas because brushing is not controlled between the groups.

This has everything to do with brushing and fluorosis, and has nothing to do with any intrinsic ability of fluoride to somehow reduce caries. There is no known mechanism for fluoride to reduce caries. Enamel is too hard for fluoride to penetrate into its matrix.

Again, humans cannot be caged, and this is largely why 97% of the studies making these claims of effectiveness have no power. 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
891
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
851
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

851 Views
Message 840 of 1,426

Hi William,

 

I have been a bit busy and unable to keep up with your frequent posts.

 

Your post about the NTP is lacking in accuracy.  The first phase found mild to moderate confidence in the data that they reviewed.

 

The second phase, which was the definitive and rock solid phase of their evaluation, showed no neuorological effects from fluoride ingestion of regular chow, low fluoride chow, or 0ppm, 10ppm, or 20ppm fluoride in the water fed to the pregnant rats during the 6th day in utero and testing of the offspring male rats to adulthood.  This is where the train runs off the track with the anti-fluoride group's arguement with the NTP's  methodology.

 

For a full response to the letter that was sent to the main author of the NTP Report, please click on the link below.  The NTP was an authoritative study which measured both intakes of all foods and liquids ingested.  The outcomes of these intakes were evaluated at the highest level that this group always performs. Yet, you didn't like the results.   Opinions do not equate with facts:

https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/1363-2/

 

Warm regards,

Johnny

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
851
Views