Getty Images and AARP present the Disrupt Aging Collection, a searchable photo collection that redefines what it means to get older. Take a look.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
534
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

534 Views
Message 831 of 1,448

The Hunt for Red October 

 

The baiting of Dr. Osmunson, a dentist and peer-reviewed published researcher, and Dr. Sauerheber, a chemist and peer-reviewed published researcher, is a strategy in the troll playbook to distract focus and bury substantive social media comments, such as my comment on the fluoride studies published ahead of print this month, all focusing on medical data such as  urine and blood measurements. 

 

Another damning study was just published. Here are the October citations and urls to date with my thumbnail descriptions: 

 

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they have low thyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Overall, 9% of the population is diagnosed with low thyroid. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201830833X

  • Ashley J. Malin, Julia Riddell, Hugh McCague, Christine Till. Fluoride exposure and thyroid function among adults living in Canada: Effect modification by iodine status. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 667-674.

PREGNANT WOMEN: Pregnant Canadian women drinking  'optimally' fluoridated water had twice the fluoride exposure per individual testing as compared to pregnant women in non-fluoridated Canadian communities - and consistent with the range in the Mexican women whose children had up to 6 points lowered IQ based on prenatal exposure to fluoride (from salt).  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116302808

  • Christine Till, Rivka Green, John G. Grundy, Richard Hornung, Raichel Neufeld, E. Angeles Martinez-Mier, Pierre Ayotte, Gina Muckle, and Bruce Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2018. 

LEARNING DISABILITIES: Over 200 children were individually tested. Study found attention deficit disorder apparently caused by their prenatal exposure to fluoride specific to dose. This is the 3rd report out of the NIH sponsored 12 year study that seems to have been designed with the intention of showing no ill effect, but instead has three times to date confirmed low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities causes subtle but permanent brain damage for many consumers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018311814

  • Morteza Bashash, Maelle Marchand, Howard Hu, ChristineTill,  Angeles Martinez-Mier, Brisa N. Sanchez, Niladri Basu, Karen Peterson, Rivka Green, Lourdes Schnaas, Adriana Mercado-García, Mauricio Hernández-Avila, Martha María Téllez-Rojo. Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age in Mexico City. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 658-666

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume unsafe amounts of fluoride in excess of the upper limits of fluoride considered safe per government regulations. Even 4 % of babies in non-fluoridated communities are overdosed on fluoride. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, mottled teeth, a condition associated with more learning disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease. http://jocpd.org/doi/10.17796/1053-4625-43.1.7 

  • Claudia X Harriehausen, Fehmida Z Dosani, Brett T Chiquet, Michelle S Barratt, and Ryan L Quock. Fluoride Intake of Infants from Formula. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2018. 

GOVERNMENT BIAS: A National Toxicology Program’s animal experiment used the wrong rats, the wrong dose, and the wrong study design in order to manufacture a finding of no prenatal or postnatal effect, apparently in an effort to protect policy instead of people. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987718308600

  • Karen Favazza Spencer, Hardy Limeback. Blood is Thicker Than Water: Flaws in a National Toxicology Program Study. Medical Hypotheses. Volume 121. December 2018. Pages 160-163

SKELETAL MUSCLE DISEASE: Doses consistent with doses in the general population of optimally fluoridated communities can cause an autoimmune response and cell inflammation that results in either skeletal muscle enlargement or wasting. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118325673  

  • P. Sudheer Shenoya, Utsav Sena, Saketh Kapoor, Anu  V. Ranade, Chitta R.Chowdhury, Bipasha Bose. Sodium fluoride induced skeletal muscle changes: Degradation of proteins and signaling mechanism. Environmental Pollution. Available online 10 October 2018. 

 

AARP - it’s time to fish or cut bait. You’ve been informed of the modern evidence of harm and substantial scientific opinion against fluoridation. This forum began in Feb 2015. It blew up in June 2018 when a small group of fluoride trolls pounced on it. It is obvious that this topic is both of interest to seniors and that there is an organized astroturf effort to suppress science, silence medical opinion and stifle voices of victims. Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
534
Views
Conversationalist
2
Kudos
583
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

583 Views
Message 832 of 1,448

One statement is not true

A nutrient is defined as a substance that provides nourishment essential (please note essential) for the maintenance of life and for growth.

There is no evidence that fluoride fits that definition, even for teeth.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
583
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
591
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

591 Views
Message 833 of 1,448

Fluoride that is unavoidable from natural contamination of fresh water is a mineral, but it has no nutritional value.

Also it is not lying to repeat what officials from the EPA or FDA have writen, whether a link to such a written statement exists or not. Truth is not all contained in computer links..

Most people know the SDWA wording that prohibits a national requirement for adding fluoride. But fewer understand that the Act was written to halt the spread of water fluoridation Graham and Morin).

The FDA allowed wording on bottled water does not constitute approval for the intentional addition of fluoride into water for ingestion. Fortunately the FDA still cannot approve any such substance for ingestion without controlled clinical trials data.

And the notion that ingesting fluoride MAY reduce dental caries (because many people claim so) has no meaning. Fortunately it is stated to not be intended for ingestion by infants.

The FDA ban petition for the country is still pending under review. Pray it will happen, to end all this lack of knowledge gross propaganda.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
591
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
580
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

580 Views
Message 834 of 1,448

Clearly fluoride can be .

A natural mineral in drinking water
A mineral nutrient
A water additive
An over the counter medication
A prescription medication
An industrial chemical
An industrial pollutant
A fumigant
Used as a rat poison

Each of these statements is true.  There are important, critical distinctions between each use, each concentration, and the purity standards which define the various incarnations of "fluoride."   Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use.

The willful refusal to acknowledge these clear and easily understood distinctions is an important element in fluoridation opponents misleading the general public.

--------

I've made this point before her (June) but am repeating it because of the claim continues to be repeated. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
580
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
612
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

612 Views
Message 835 of 1,448

One more thing, Dr. Bill, you said:  

 

"For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 "

 

The problem here is that the Freedom of Information Act was created so that previously unreleased , or hidden records could be made available to the public.  That's what it does.  

 

You are saying that you contacted the EPA for clarification of a statute in the SDWA.  For all I know, what you cited above could be a quotation from a FIOA Request to the EPA, not a response from the EPA. 

 

Hmmm . . it does say this is a Request, doesn't it.  I guess I could argue that unicorns exist, make an FOIA Request, and in that request I could say, "Unicorns have been sited in various locations."  

 

Then, I could do what you did.  I could quote the very thing I wrote and use it as evidence for the thing I was arguing.  And to make it sound official, I could cite the FIOA Request that I had made and make the claim that I provided documented evidence of something.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
612
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
605
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

605 Views
Message 836 of 1,448

Dr. Bill, I called you a liar because you aren't telling the truth.  

 

BillO:  

"For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

 

I had asked you to provide documentation of what you just said so we may all read the whole thing in context.  

 

Again, please provide a link which supports what you just said.

 

I said you were lying because the statute from the SDWA which you cited clearly does not prohibit water fluoridation.  It says the Federal Government can not Require it.   That's a little bit different than prohibiting it.  

 

A link please?  

 

Moreover, if what you are saying was true, take the EPA to Court.  Take every state regulatory authority which oversees water fluoridation to court. 

 

It should be easy for a guy like you.  I see your name, and Dr. Sauerheber's name plastered all over a website called "Fluoride Class Action."   Isn't that the sort of thing Attorney James Deal is supposed to do?   How much money is that guy taking from potential clients?   You never answered that question, did you.

 

Your deceptive quote:  "Now look at your toothpaste.  If fluoride is added, the toothpaste has a label, "Drug Facts.""

 

Response:  We are not talking about toothpaste.  We are talking about optimally fluoridated water.  Do you understand that there is a difference between these two products?  

 

Again, The FDA is the regulatory authority which oversees Bottled Water.  This is a label from the FDA regulated product, "Dannon's Fluoride to Go" bottled water:  Please show me the word "Drug" or "Drug Facts" on this FDA regulated product, . . fluoridated water . . you know, what we're talking about here.  

 

This label lists fluoride as a Mineral Nutrient.  That's an FDA regulated product.  

 

By the way, the FDA has approved the ingestion of optimally fluoridated bottled water.  It allows the Health Claim to be put on its bottled water: The claim language is: "Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay]." 

 https://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/ucm073602.htm

 

That's what a link looks like.  I look forward to seeing the link to your  FOIA, or the upcoming lawsuit against those whom you are claiming are violating the SDWA.

 

The FDA does not consider optimally flouoridated water a drug in any sense of the word.  You know that is true and yet you deceptively talk about toothpaste.  That is why I call you a liar.

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
605
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
610
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

610 Views
Message 837 of 1,448

David,

 

You call me a liar because I quote the FDA with reference.   Those are not my words, those are the EPA's.  Why don't you contact the EPA and ask them to explain the law on fluoride to you?

 

I asked you to read what I wrote and you made me laugh because right after you call me a liar you demand documentation.  May I quote:

 

"That is a lie, Dr. Bill.  Please provide documentation of what you just said here.  

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 "

 

Read that again David.  Do you see the documentation right after your tirade.  The EPA's response to my FOIA.  Contact the EPA and ask for a copy of their response, the number is right there.   See it????    FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10

 

May I repeat FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 Contact EPA for a copy.

 

You are so focused on ripping me apart you fail to see the documentation in your own cut and paste of my quote.  

 

Contact the EPA, Contact the FDA, do your homework.   I did my homework before I spoke out against fluoridation.  I respect you not wanting to have blind belief, but you do have blind belief in the fluoridation public health blunder.  

 

I do not have time to argue with you on RCT methodology and requirements.  

 

You do not understand the theoretical action of fluoride ingestion benefit to teeth.  

 

Yes, there are some differences between the same dose in a pill or diluted in water.  And there are more differences because pills have dosage controlled whereas fluoridated water does not have doseage controlled.  Some drink very little water and some drink a great deal.  A study with pills would be better controlled and higher quality.  But RCT with water could be done.

 

Another option for a good study would be fluoride urine and serum fluoride concentrations and caries rates.  Measured results are so much better than evidence by default.  These should have been done long ago and they have not.

 

Like I said before, go to the FDA and read the definition of a drug, how a drug is approved, etc.   

 

Even a placebo is considered a drug by the FDA because of the intent of use.

 

Do your homework, go to the source.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
610
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
610
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

610 Views
Message 838 of 1,448

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Vote on whether a town wants to fluoridate or not?  Wow. What planet do you live on?

San Diego citizens voted in city wide elections against fluoridation of water TWICE. AND passed a city ordinnace prohibiting addition of fluoridation chemicals into water. .And yet the CDC recommendation to fluoridate, which led to the CA State "mandate", caused the city to capitulate regardless of how their own citizens voted.

 

A request from the CDC, a Federal agency, is identical to a requirement because who is to challenge the supposed head agency on the issue?

 

And the point is that thre are no controlled clinical trials for ingested fluoride in man and thus no FDA aqpproval can be granted for the ingestion of the substance, regardless of whether it is called a supplement, drug, etc. 

The CDC is requesting and promoting a bone fluoridation program that has no proven experiments to defend it and that is forbidden from being Nationally required anyway (as stipulated in the SDWA).

 

Regardless of what the FDA or anyone calls the substance and the program, there are no data that prove ingesting fluoride decreases caries. In fact the rigorous experiments we have that are well-controlled are mammals in cages given fluoridated water. There are no reduction in caries incidence from fluoridation.  But when the CDC ignores the facts, this is what we are dealt--correlations that suddenly are argued to be proven facts wihtout actual proof, which is luldicrous.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
610
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
608
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

608 Views
Message 839 of 1,448

Dr. Bill, 

 

Your quote:  "Unfortunately, you seem to either fail to read my posts or read so fast you miss the answers.  I have responded repeatedly on your two questions.  Please slow down and read carefully."

 

Response:  Actually, I have read your responses, and you were kind enough to repeat them here.  Let's look at what you propose for an RCT for Community Water Fluoridation (CWF).

 

Let's look at your proposal B first.  Your Quote:  "There are communities in the North of Canada/Alaska and other remote communities in countries where water is trucked to the community.  A prospective RCT could be done with these communities. Again, the biggest hurdel would be ethics approval."

 

Response:  You are correct.  Ethics would be a problem here since your proposal is a clear violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act which requires each supplier of drinking water to supply its customers with written notification of the results of analysis on that water.  Under your proposal, people who drink water which is "trucked to the community" would not be privy to analytical results.  That is illegal.  

 

Moreover, your proposal is not an RCT, it is a prospective cohort study.  An RCT invokes random selection from within a population, not comparing 2 self-selected populations, so they would have to combine the names from both town, then randomly select people into the F and non-F groups, and force them to live in their assigned town for 5+ years.  That would split up a lot of families!

 

Now let's look at your proposal A.  Your Quote:  "Easiest to do an RCT with fluoride pills  The intent of fluoridation is to increase fluoride exposure (increase background dosage).  Fluoride pills have the same alleged benefit as putting the fluoride pill in water and swallowing the water. "

Response:  Pills.  You are suggesting that pills would somehow replace authentic community water fluoridation to determine that teeth are protected in the same way as a constant supply of drinking water.  

 

For the readers of this thread who may not be accustomed to your loose relationship with facts, let me illustrate how absurd this idea is.  

 

First of all, any study like this would fail an objecive peer review process.  Why?  

 

They are not the same things.  You want to test apples by applying oranges.  Allow me to illustrate the problem with your idea.  

 

I get up at 3 o'clock in the morning to go to the bathroom, and I drink some fluoridated water which not only neutralizes the acids in my mouth which have been accumulating since 9 pm' these are acids which would normally lead to decay.  Correct?  

 

In your scenario, instead of drinking water at 3 am, 6 am (when I get up), 7 am, in my coffee, and throughout the day in which 0.7 ppm F are bathing and remineralizing my teeth, .  .  .  you suggest that I take a pill once a day.  

 

You are literally nuts.  That is the most insane proposal I have ever heard.  It would in no way ever pass a peer-reviewed process as a substitute for community water fluoridation.  

 

It is simply not the same thing!  

 

So while you whine and say, "It is time for promoters to provide RCT studies," you must realize that your own ill-advised proposals lack any substance whatsoever.  

 

To your second point about FDA approval, I couldn't help notice that you have failed to provide any quotation, any citation, from any Federal Health Authority which has deemed optimally fluoridated water "A Drug."  

 

The only people in this county who call optimally fluroidated water a drug is YOU.  You at the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which takes money from Alternative Health companies who profit from the paranoia that FAN generates, .  .  .  and You at Fluoride Class Action, you and Dr. Sauerheber, who have your own web pages on that site.  

 

Interesting question. Both you and Dr. Sauerheber are all over the website "Fluoride Class Action."  My question is, how much money has Attorney James Deal taken from prospective clients as part of his fluoride paranoia campaign?  

 

Next question:  How much money has he actually collected from legitimate lawsuites filed against those responsible for the proven health initiative Community Water Fluoridation?  

 

You deceptively cite this from the SDWA:  "SDWA: “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

 

Response:  So What.  All this says - when applied to water fluoridation - is that the federal government can not mandate it.  The Federal government can not require water fluoridation.  It is normally voted upon by the people, and in some cases states can mandate it, but your interpretation is . .  deceptive to say the least. 

 

The following quote from you is a blatant lie.

 

"For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

 

That is a lie, Dr. Bill.  Please provide documentation of what you just said here.  

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 "

 

There is no such

 
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
608
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
617
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

617 Views
Message 840 of 1,448

David.  

 

By your our response I can tell you have not read enough on the web site.  

 

FDA reviews drug applications.   

If no one makes application, no approval or denial on the FDA site will be found.  

 

Look for sodium fluoride pills and no approval will be found.  

 

You will either find approval or nothing.  

 

And the approval is specific with dosage warnings contraindications etc.  

 

listen to tv adds on drugs.  All the warnings and contraindications and side affects.   

 

Nothing on fluoride ingestion but there is on toothpaste.  

 

Your question makes no sense in the drug regulatory process.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
617
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera