Reply
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! 

51,884 Views
1449
Report
Conversationalist

“The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D.  (2014)

 

In my youth, abortion was illegal in the U.S. Then it became legal. It might become illegal again. Regardless of your opinion on abortion law, it is obvious that laws change. Moreover, laws have remarkably little to do with truth and justice. In that way they are like fluoridation and tooth decay. 

 

Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion. Science is supposed to be the best faith effort to interpret reality, i.e. truth. Unfortunately, like the law and all activities of men, science is often corrupted by bias and politics. 

 

Regardless of law, science or politics - the truth validated by empirical data and reported in scores of scientific articles is that fluoridation compromises kidneys, endangers thyroids, inflames guts, damages bones and poisons the developing brains of infants in the womb and bottle-fed babies. Modern citations for these assertions of fact and evolving medical opinion against fluoridation policy have been repeatedly detailed in this forum, ex: here and here and here

Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne – Remarkable, now you are comparing the decision to fluoridate or not fluoridate water with the decision to allow or ban abortions – really?

 

I suggest a more rational comparison – the decision to fluoridate or not fluoridate water with the decision to disinfect or not disinfect drinking water – or the decision to implement or not implement vaccination programs.  These decisions are based on decades of research with thousands of studies of varying relevance, quality and bias – and varying conclusions on the risks and benefits of implementing or not implementing these public health measures.

 

You made one correct statement, “science also changes”.  However, that truth is evidence that confirms the current scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective health measure.

 

The scientific consensus of all these public health measures is that the benefits of implementing fluoridation, disinfection, and vaccination are significantly greater than any known or suspected risks.   That is why the major science and health organizations in the world continue to publically recognize the benefits of these programs.  The overall body of scientific evidence continues to support their overall benefits.

 

The lack of legitimate scientific evidence to support their opinions is the reason opponents to these public health measures have been unable to change the scientific consensus or the position of the relevant science and health organizations.  The absence of legitimate evidence and their inability to change the scientific consensus are the reasons that fluoridation opponents and other anti-science activists must resort to “adjusting” the evidence as selected and presented in hopes of scaring the public into believing their propaganda.

 

 You have still not answered my specific questions: (10-20-2018 05:45 PM) & (10-20-2018 01:56 PM)

0
Kudos
10713
Views
0 Kudos
2,672 Views
7
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Legal rulings come and go, and change with time for many issues. 

The chief evidence I've seen of making false conclusions and turning data into propaganda is from those who promote fluoridation as though eating fluoride somehow reduces dental decay when it doesn't. The average study claiming benefit for example usually cites means that are not outside experimental error. Currently caries reduction is not sufficient to counter sugar consumption in causing decay with fluoridated toothpaste at 1,500 ppm. So some manufacturers are considering elevating it to 5,000 ppm. But data that are reliable from volunteers indicate no significant decrease in caries by going to this level. And why ecpect otherwise, knowing that  fluoride even at 12,000 ppm in gels does not incorporate into rock-hard enamel.

 

And  eating fluoride water at 0.7 ppm which produces a dismal 0.016 ppm in saliva is of course topically worthless for teeth. The modern invented idea is now that this small level works by incorporating into plaque on teeth surfaces where it "helps" toothpaste fluoride. This was invented because it is known that enamel is too hard to incorporate fluoride into its matrix. But plaque is something that most dentists remove from teeth and advise patients to remove regularly.

 

Fluoride ingested from water and foods does not systemically or topically affect dental caries.

On the other hand, whole body fluoridaiton of systemic fluid leads to gross incorporation of fluoride into bone. So the story was invented that since fluoride "is good" then it must strengthen the bones it enters.  But this was proven false (NIH, FDA) so most fluoridationists don't discuss much about fluoridation of bone except to sweepingly claim that there is no proof of harm. But altering the crystal structure of bone hydroxyapatite into fluoroapatite which is bone of poor quality, and eventually forming exostoses of bone that did not belong there in the first place, are indeed harmful.

 

So facts emerge over time, yes. And investigators modify positions based on those facts. But facts themselves are immutable. As it turns out scientists in the 1940's who concluded that the data they had then indicated that fluoride ingestion would be harmful have been fully validated.  Read for example the FDA opposition to fluoridation (based on that data) when fluoridation first began, as described in Bryson, C. The Fluoride Deception. 

 

   .  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Trusted Contributor

rs5526 – Several specific questions:

 

  • What does your response about “legal rulings” that “come and go, and change with time for many issues” have to do with anything?
    The entire issue of fluoridation rests on the scientific consensus, not “legal rulings”.  The entire point of the scientific method (not legal rulings) is to create and continually adjust the scientific consensus in all areas of science and health care based on legitimate scientific evidence.  The scientific consensus also is not the same as ethical beliefs or legal decisions based on personal interpretations of the consensus.

  • Do you agree with CarryAnne’s (10-22-2018 09:52 AM) comparison of decisions to allow or ban abortions with decisions to fluoridate or not fluoridate drinking water? If so, explain exactly and specifically in what ways you believe those issues and decisions are alike.
    In my youth, abortion was illegal in the U.S. Then it became legal. It might become illegal again. Regardless of your opinion on abortion law, it is obvious that laws change. Moreover, laws have remarkably little to do with truth and justice. In that way they are like fluoridation and tooth decay.”

  • What is the point of your fluoridated toothpaste discussion? Do you believe fluoridated toothpaste has no effect on reducing dental decay?

  • Do you believe there is a scientific consensus that the benefits of implementing disinfection and vaccination are significantly greater than any known or suspected risks and that those public health measures should be supported and promoted by the major science and health organizations?

  • Another question: If the “alleged evidence” provided by fluoridation opponents is as legitimate and obvious as you seem to believe, what is your explanation for the fact that over 100 national and international science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation?  What is your explanation for the fact that the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of those organizations have not rebelled if they were presented legitimate scientific evidence that their patients and fellow citizens were being mass poisoned by a public health measure?

The facts are:  
1) The scientific consensus in all scientific fields/areas does change as legitimate scientific evidence is presented that provides new, relevant information that would require a change in perception &/or conclusions. 


2) The scientific consensus has not changed significantly regarding fluoridation for over 70 years of anti-F activists presenting their alleged “evidence”.  It has been tweaked, however.


3) Because the anti-F “evidence”, when evaluated by most relevant experts does not support a change in consensus, that “evidence” must be “adjusted” and presented to the public in a way that will effectively scare them into accepting the anti-F opinions as legitimate.


4) The “legal rulings” you seem to be focused on are not a scientific consensus, and may not reflect the scientific consensus at all.. Similarly,decisions by various local governmental bodies regarding fluoridation may reflect public opinion that has been effectively “adjusted” by anti-F propaganda instead of the scientific consensus.

0 Kudos
2,673 Views
5
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The point is that laws have changed for many issues, only one being fluoridation.

And the statement posted here by this fluoridation promoter is correct:

 

"The “legal rulings” you seem to be focused on are not a scientific consensus, and may not reflect the scientific consensus at all."

 

That is true. The legal ruling of the appealed case in Escondido that allowed fluoridation, and overturned the earlier ruling by the judge, does not reflect scientific consensus at all.   A scientist knows full well that adding industrial fluoride into drinkng water alters the bodily chemistry of the consumer. It not only elevates the incidence of dental fluorosis abnormality but also causes incorporation of fluoride into bone to thousands of ppm over decades consuming it, causing formation of bone of poor quality and altered crystal structure.  So when the case was ruled to alter body chemistry, it was correct. But when fluoridationists appealed the case and the judge then overturned the earlier ruling, that ruling was incorrect and certainly has nothing to do with scientific consensus. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

“They have no conscience, no compassion about the people who are being made ill by fluoride, and they have no social responsibility. It’s purely an ‘I’m all right Jack’ situation – ‘it’s just business’. And they’ll gas-light the people by saying, ‘No no, it’s good for your teeth’ – when really what they’re saying is, ‘Shut up and don’t stop my cash-flow’.” - Thomas Sheridan, author of ‘Puzzling People: The Labyrinth Of The Psychopath’ (2017)

 

Randy and his troop of propagandists were going on and on about the legality of fluoridation. My point is the law is maleable, imperfect and has nothing to do with emerging scientific evidence of harm. The issues are emerging evidence of harm, evolvig medical opinion against fluoridation and testimony of victims

 

Moreover, social media trolls and advocacy groups who engage in astroturfing in order to gaslight the public, politicians and whomever else falls victim to their ploys are neither scientists nor lawyers, although they play act as such online. 

 

AARP - You should be too smart to fall for these ploys. Do your due diligence. 

Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne – Your Thomas Sheridan quote (10-22-2018 03:50 PM) would only make sense if the body of scientific evidence actually supported the opinions of fluoridation opponents (FOs) that community water fluoridation (CWF) was ineffective and harmful.  If that were reality, however, the consensus would change. 

 

The reality, as described repeatedly, is exactly the opposite.  The majority of relevant experts have concluded (for over 70 years) that CWF is a safe and effective measure to protect the health of citizens by reducing dental decay in communities.  Because of that scientific consensus, virtually all major science and health organizations publically recognize the benefits of CWF.  I have asked you (several times without success) to explain this fact. 

 

I have also asked you to explain the fact that only about 6 alternative health organizations, 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (according to lists provided by you and BillO) plus other groups like INFOWARS (Alex Jones) and Natural News (Mike Adams) support the anti-F interpretations of the evidence.  A more accurate rendering of the quote based on current accepted science would be, “FOs have no conscience, no compassion about the people who at an increased risk of dental decay in communities with low levels of fluoride ions and poor diets and poor dental care, and they have no social responsibility.”

 

You have a remarkable ability to twist reality.  You claim “Randy and his troop of propagandists were going on and on about the legality of fluoridation.”  Did you even look at the comments which address the ”legality of fluoridation”?  Virtually every comment over the past couple of months about the ”legality of fluoridation” was posted by FOs (mostly rs5526  and BillO) trying to make the case that fluoridation is illegal.  My focus is on the scientific consensus – any legal rulings should be based on that consensus.

 

If you mean what you say in your (10-22-2018 09:52 AM ) comment, “Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion” then please explain why you and other FOs go to extraordinary lengths to try and change public opinion instead of using what you believe to be legitimate, conclusive, obvious scientific evidence to change the majority consensus of relevant scientists and health care professionals.  So far, after over 70 years of effort, you and other FOs have been unsuccessful.  Your only option then, is to select and “adjust” the evidence so it is successful at scamming the public into fearing fluoridation and demanding fluoridation be halted.

 

You still have not answered my specific questions.

0 Kudos
2,741 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"relevant experts" mentioned here are those who do not opppose fluoridation.

This ignores experts who oppose fluoridation including John Yiamouyiannis (Fluordie the Aging Factor); Ziegelbecker;Teotia and Teotia;Sutton; and others who found that fluoridated wter is useless in reducing caries and instead is most efficient at causing abnormal fluorotic teeth enamel in children.

This also ignores experts who found that water fluoridation harms consumers, elevating TSH, PTH and calcitonin, and converts normal bone into fluoroapatite (published by the NRC committee 2006), and as published in many studies lowers IQ.

As far as answering the ludicrous question of how could so many experts and agencies be deceived?  You fail to recognize the power of false correlation. If you want to get a glimpse of how so many have been deceived since 1945 read Bryson, C. The Fluoride Deception. This is a chronicle of what took place to attempt to prove ingested fluoride is useful, as reported by this news reporter.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
2,703 Views
1
Report
Regular Contributor

Sure . . Yiamouyiannis is the guy who claimed that fluoride, not a virus causes AIDS. . .(Readings in American Health Care: Current Issues in Socio-historical Perspective (1995) p 135) In the book you refer to. Yiamouyiannis claimed that fluoride harms the immune system, cause colds, premature aging, birth defects and of course cancer.

Dr. Y is well representative of the "experts" who believe the water fluoridation is neither beneficial nor safe.


0 Kudos
2,683 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

My friend Jeff Gren organized the suit. And I live in the outskirts of Escondido

 Yes you can read the verdict 5bat caused the city tovf lyorifat it's citizens. 

And just like I said, this,was the appealed case. The original case ruled against whole  body fluoridation of citizens because the intelligent judge agreed that the city water district  had no rights to alter the bodily chemistry of anyone. The purpose for whole body fluoridation is to adjust the composition of systemic fluid with a contaminant that is not a component of normal human blood

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

An appealed case overturned is a lower court judge deemed mistaken. There have been a few such cases. None have been upheld on appeal.


0 Kudos
3,996 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

That's my point. Court rulings against fluoridation are always overruled eventually. The justice system is wrong on several issues but rational judges know the truth on fluoridation

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

It isn't realistic for you to believe that lower court judges are rational yet appeal court judges are uniformly mistaken. An in any case, appeals are always possible unless you lose at the Supreme Court level.

0 Kudos
2,661 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

It is completely rational for one knowing the truth  to know if a ruling is correct or not. Many court cases are ruled incorrectly.. Many people are in jail,who,are innocent.

And being wrong on one issue doesnt mean a judge is irrational on any other issue. 

It is difficult to be a  judge and none are correct all the time. Many simply rule based on precedent or earlier rulings and incorrect decisions can spread widely particularly for a Federal progeam such as fluoridation which is illegal. The SDWA was written to halt the spread 8f fluoridation.   but who can find a high level judge who knows this today? Especially with so many fluoridation advocates who don't believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

,who vicallrcadset5 otgerwis4.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

And to be clear, CA AB733 does not mention ANY fluoride source, notthat you are free to choose form a list of three, nor that there are three, less, or more.  The discussion presented is meaningless since one cannot buy "fluoride". Fluoride is only always accompanied with its corresponding cation.  All soluble fluorides are listed poisons (all three of the NSF rubber stamped allowed source materials) on poisons registries, while calcium fluoride is not a listed poison because of its finite solubility. Ironically Nelson refused to accept the use of calcium fluoride because he felt the solubility would be too cumbersome to work with. Note: one country in South America that fluoridates uses calcium fluoride; and the original listed source materials for fluoridation by the CDC included calcium fluoride, but such records are getting harder to find in public now..

Ease to fluoridate first, long term safety last.

Again, AB733 is meaningless, vague, and deceptive in assuming that eating fluoride reduces caries and that mandating it by request of the CDC is somehow not in violation of the SDWA when it is. States can be no less restrictive than the SDWA, as stated in the original SDWA statutes approved by Congress.  But in today's world, who cares about laws?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

And by the way the 0.016 ppm fluoride level in saliva of consumers of 1 ppm fluoride water is a measurement published by the NRC that was also confirmed in,writing from NRC committee member Dr. K. Thiessen.

 This is indeed 96500 times less concentrated than in toothpaste at 1500 ppm. 

So how pray tell did this lead to the idea that  somehow my work is debunked? If you want to lash out about that, then do so with the NRC committee.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0
Kudos
10713
Views
Conversationalist

Fluoridationists who use rhetorical deceits and come up with childish acronyms so as to use obscenities to describe those who campaign against the immoral use of municipal water systems to dose the population with an inflammatory drug aren't scientists. I suggest if winning is so important to them, rather than using social media as a tool to villify and victimize senior citizens and children, they should attend Friday night football games. 

 

From the lead investigator: “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous…" - Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

From an international leader in environmental poison research: “Adverse effects from fluoride additives to drinking water have not been fully considered in the past, and the new study from Mexico, along with substantial evidence from other countries, now shows that fluoride toxicity to brain development must be taken seriously.” -  Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

From the Director of the US National Toxicology Program: "There have been similar findings related to exposure to fluoride and IQ from children in China. So this observation or association has been reported before.” - Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

From a pediatrician who studies links between environmental exposures and health problems: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water” - Dr. Leonardo Trasande,  pediatrician & associate professor at New York University Langone Health on Bashash et al., Sept 2017

 

BTW: I have never quoted Alex Jones or Infowars for anything - ditto for Mike Adams. I prefer scientific evidence and professional opinion to entertainment. However, I can also recognize a put up job and never trust organizational endorsements until I verify their data. 

Philip R.N. Sutton is one of my fluoridation heroes. A statistician and dental researcher, he assumed the 1940s fluoridation trials were legitimate, until he did his due-diligence. His report  contains the following:

 

"...the evidence tendered in favor of fluoridation reveals two disturbing features. The first is that what must be essentially a statistical study does not appear to have been planned as such. The second is that even when sufficient information is presented, no comprehensive attempt at statistical evaluation has been considered." - Dr. Philip R.N. Sutton in “Fluoridation: Errors & Omissions in Experimental Trials” (2nd ed. 1960)

  

Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne – Interesting response.  If you are replying to my comment I noticed that you provided no answers to my very specific questions regarding your previous comments. 

 

Unlike fluoridation opponents (FOs) and other anti-science activists (ASAs), I try very hard not to take comments out of context.  As I demonstrated with your US Public Health Service quotes, FOs and ASAs extract and present any portion of a comment out context if it can be adjusted to fit their agenda.  BTW: You apparently accused me of claiming that you quoted Alex Jones &/or Mike Adams.  I have never made such an accusation – I simply stated that their organizations are among the few that oppose CWF, and their tactics and arguments are the same as those employed by FOs and other ASAs.  When did I use an “obscenity”, and what “rhetorical deceits” did I employ?  I simply asked several questions about comments you have made and pointed out where you had used an out-of-context deceitful quote.

 

I am trying to get straight answers in your words so I don’t misinterpret your position.

 

That is why I asked you very specific questions about very specific comments you have made about those who support community water fluoridation (CWF).  I will try again.

 

The fact is that over 100 major science and health organizations with hundreds of thousands of members continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF.  The members of those organizations have not initiated a revolution to stop that recognition. The questions reference this fact – if you dispute it, let me know.

 

  • Please clarify – do you believe all CWF supporters &/or those who do not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate, are “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”?  If not, which groups and supporters fall into which categories and why?
  • If your description above does not cover all CWF supporters then please explain why there continues to be such support if any of the alleged “evidence” proved that CWF was harmful to health. Why would the majority of scientists, dentists, MDs and other professionals around the world continue to support a public health measure that obviously (according to your claims) caused the type and degree of harm to their patients and fellow citizens you and other FOs allege? 
  • Do you accept that there is a 70+ year scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure? If not, please explain what the scientific consensus regarding CWF is and how it is determined.  If you don’t accept that there is a scientific consensus regarding fluoridation, please describe exactly what you would replace it with when deciding which mutually contradictory conclusions to believe regarding a complex scientific topic like pro- vs. anti-vaccination positions, for example.
  • How do you explain the fact that, if the alleged evidence provided by FOs in these comments (and elsewhere) has been even remotely presented accurately, FOs have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years.

 

Five quotes from FOs are not evidence of anything – that is precisely why understanding the scientific consensus is critical to understanding how best to interpret the existing body of evidence.

0 Kudos
3,198 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

“The amount of effort, propaganda, and money the fluoridation-lobby is willing to utilize to cover-up their experiment-gone-wrong is unprecedented.  Their credibility and authority are tied too closely to fluoridation, and there is no letting go for them, regardless of emerging science, of facts, of reality, of anything.  They’re committed to protecting their policy and themselves, not you or your family.” - Stuart Cooper, FAN Campaign Director (2017) 

 

Although Gary Whitford is the fluoridationists' go to science guy for manufacturing questionable reports many of which are published in science journals, I do not believe Whitford's attack piece  on Richard Sauerheber's peer-reviewed 2013 publication is published anywhere other than pro-fluoride blog sites promoted by fluoride-stakeholders like JJ and Chuck Haynie.

 

More importantly, 21st century scientific evidence is very strong that whatever is happening on a chemical level, consuming fluoridated water or foods is bad for thyroids, kidneys, bones, and brains. 

 

THYROID: Even after excluding test subjects diagnosed with thyroid disease, 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of developing 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.

KIDNEY: Not even arsenic is as toxic to kidneys (and livers) as fluoride. Fluoride is kidney poison. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X18302382

  • Monica I. Jiménez-Córdova, Mariana Cardenas-Gonzaleza,  Guadalupe Aguilar-Madrid, Luz C. Sanchez-Peña, Ángel Barrera-Hernández, Iván A. Domínguez-Guerrero, Carmen González-Horta, Olivier C. Barbier, Luz M. Del Razo. Evaluation of kidney injury biomarkers in an adult Mexican population environmentally exposed to fluoride and low arsenic levels. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. May 2018. 

BONE: Chemisty inside people relevant to genetic profiles confirms that some of us are more likely to have ill effects which include abnormal bone chemistry which can lead to fractures and bone cancer.  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-016-0756-6  

  • Gandhi, D., Naoghare, P.K., Bafana, A. et al. Fluoride-Induced Oxidative and Inflammatory Stress in Osteosarcoma Cells: Does It Affect Bone Development Pathway? Biol Trace Elem Res. 2017;175: 103. 

BRAIN: Fluoride doesn't just 'harden teeth' - it causes brain inflammation, which results in a whole slew of injuries.  

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10753-017-0556-y 

  • Chen, R., Zhao, LD., Liu, H. et al. Fluoride Induces Neuroinflammation and Alters Wnt Signaling Pathway in BV2 Microglial Cells. Inflammation. 2017;40: 1123. 

 

 

 

Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne – Your most recent post (10-20-2018 09:59 AM) carries the mistaken implication that that “21st century scientific evidence” supports the anti-F agenda. Exactly how do you explain the fact that this sampling of 21st century studies and reviews does not support the anti-F opinions?  http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html

 

The most recent studies you and other anti-F activists have listed are no more credible (or prove the anti-F opinions are valid) than the other studies which have been trotted out for the last 70 years.  Despite all of the anti-F opinions presented in this discussion, I have seen no rational explanation for why, if the evidence against community water fluoridation (CWF), as interpreted by fluoridation opponents (FOs), is even remotely legitimate or credible, virtually all of the major science and health organizations in the world continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF.  If any of the anti-F opinions were reliable and accurate, one might reasonably expect a significant number of the hundreds of thousands of members of these organizations to rebel and munity against CWF and their organizations’ suupport – they have not.

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Consensus.html

 

I have asked you and other FOs several times in this discussion to explain – and provide proof – exactly why the major science and health organizations (and their members) would continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF if there was a reasonable probability CWF was actually ineffective or caused significant and obvious harm.

 

Instead of specific, supported reasons you have described various CWF supporters as “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks

 

Please clarify – do you believe all CWF supporters are “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”?  Is that your only explanation for why the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF or do you have other explanations? 

 

These are your specific comments:

(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

(08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [big bucks earned from treating dental fluorosis].  Most 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.”  Provide specific evidence of your claim these professionals are “cowards”. 
You provided a link to a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics.  The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water fluoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition, “In closing, given the fluoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontarioand other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be filed, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientific integrity and professional ethics. We suggest the ATA speak for themselves…”

 

I would like to thank you for posting a quote from the US Public Health Service on 09-13-2018 03:44 PM  & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM in an effort to provide support for your opinions.

 

Those comments provide an excellent example that exposes and highlights a disingenuous, fear-mongering tactic regularly employed by anti-science activists (ASAs) and bias-science activists (BSAs) to peddle their propaganda.  They also help explain why ASAs & BSAs can come up with what appear to be long lists of references that appear to support their anti-science opinions – and explain why those opinions are dismissed by the majority of relevant scientists.

 

The tactic:  Extracting out of context content from published papers, which may appear to support their position, when the actual study design or conclusions of the study don’t. ASAs & BSAs not only cherry pick the studies they believe support their opinions (whether the study has anything to do with optimally fluoridated water or not), they cherry pick and present specific sentences out-of-context or cite completely irrelevant studies in their ongoing efforts to frighten the public.

 

Your quote included everything in the paragraph from the US Public Health Service review EXCEPT the last two sentences, which you conveniently scrubbed out – and which actually support the scientific consensus that fluoridation does not cause adverse health effects.  Here is the actual quote in context.

Some 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 osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems.  For most of these populations, there are very limited data to support or refute increased susceptibility to fluoride.  Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations.” (Page 162-163)

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf

 

That example clearly demonstrate why fluoridation opponents (FOs) have not been able to change any relevant scientific consensus.  Unlike most members of the public –– who  don’t have the training, experience, time or inclination to track each anti-claim to its source and understand the context –– actual scientists and health professionals can identify the erroneous claims of FOs for what they are – “adjusted evidence” manufactured and deployed in fear-mongering campaigns. 

 

That is precisely why virtually all major science and health organizations in the world (and their members) support fluoridation and why 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 and others have listed as opposing CWF.

0 Kudos
2,991 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

Randy, Randy, Randy,

 

You have put together several studies on Cyber-nook which support fluoridation but the bias is so strong as to be unbelieveable.  http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html

 

Your background in chemistry and biology is commendable.  However, even the first quotation of NTP 2018 is incomplete and biased.  The NTP study you reference did not report harm, true, but that is one of three major steps the NTP is taking.  What about the first and third phase of the review??????

 

Do not cherry pick science to prove a point.   Twisting and manipulating science and claiming it says something it does not, is not scientific.

 

I hope you did better teaching your students critical thinking than simply memorization.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Trusted Contributor

Bill, Bill, Bill – You stated (10-21-2018 04:14 PM) exactly the same thing I claimed, “The NTP study you reference did not report harm, true”  Thank you for the confirmation.  You ask about the first and third phases of the review???  The second phase of the study (referenced in my list) was conducted, in part, because of the findings of the first review phase – it helped correct the lack of specific studies on the neurological effects of exposure to fluoride ions, and found none at levels relevant to community water fluoridation (CWF) and above.  Any speculations about the third major NTP step is liable to be as accurate as the anticipation of FOs that conclusions the 2018 NTP study I cited would support their opinions.
https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/1363-2/ - NTP study author.

 

In the past I have asked you specific questions which have gone unanswered.  I will try again and number the seven questions so you can specify which ones you are answering.

 

Q1) Explain exactly what you mean by your accusation, “…even the first quotation of NTP 2018 [on the web page referenced] is incomplete and biased.”  That is a direct quote from the abstract – if you believe it to be incomplete and biased, take the issue up with the authors.

 

The point of that list of reviews (and some studies) is to refute the argument of FOs that there is no evidence that supports the scientific consensus that fluoridation as safe and effective.  If dispute the fact that those reviews and studies support the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and/or effective or are biased, then provide the specific proof to the contrary.  Here are several hundred more studies that support the consensus.  If you disagree, please feel free to present specific evidence of why they should be disregarded.

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationReferences.htm

 

It is quite interesting that you accuse me of “cherry pick[ing] science to prove a point.” when earlier in this comment section 9/4 – 9/5 you seem to have picked every “cherry” possible out of the mud to try and prove fluoridation causes cancer – of course none of them had anything to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

If you have such an excellent understanding of carcinogens, why not present your case (your ‘professional’ analysis of the evidence) to the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute instead of online to a group of non-experts?  Neither organization has concluded that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes cancer, but perhaps they missed evaluating the studies you listed.  What is your explanation – Do you believe members of the ACS and CCS are "the best in their fields", but they can’t get it right when evaluating the carcinogenic risks of CWF?

 

You still seem to endorse your 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim that the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.”, and “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”, and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“ and “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science.

 

Q2) I will ask you specifically, what makes you a better expert in fluoridation than the members of all the organizations that continue to support CWF?  It could be argued that you are a lemming, follower, part of a herd of FOs that allow their irrational fear of fluorine to bias their selection, evaluation and presentation of the scientific evidence.


Q3) I have asked you before, and I ask yet again – Do you apply your above evaluation of the ADA, AAP and CDC to all members of all the organizations that recognize the benefits of CWF who either publically support CWF or have not publically accepted the anti-F position?

 

Q4) I have asked you before, and I ask yet again – What is your explanation for the fact that virtually every major science and health organization in the world either publically recognizes the benefits of CWF or have not made public statements that CWF is a harmful public health measure, and the hundreds of thousands of members of these organizations have not rebelled? 

 

Q5) I will take this opportunity to ask another question do you accept CarryAnne’s description of the ADA, EPA and most dentists?
(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

(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

Do you apply those descriptions to everyone who does not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate?

 

Q6) Provide a rational explanation (besides claiming everyone who disagrees with you is a lemming) that explains why only extremist groups like INFOWARS (Alex Jones) and Natural News (Mike Adams) and a small contingent of outlier, alternative health organizations and some environmental, marketing, spiritual and cultural organizations support the anti-F opinions.

 

Fluoridation supporters claim that there is a 70+ year scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay (and related health problems) in communities, and that consensus is the reason the 100+ science and health organizations recommend the practice. 

Q7) What is your response to that claim and what you would consider a definition of scientific consensus as it relates to CWF.  Would that definition be applicable to the scientific consensus on vaccination (that they are safe and effective)?  Alternately, provide a logical alternative to replace accepting the scientific consensus when the public is evaluating complex, scientific conclusions.  Why trust FOs instead of the major science and health organizations???

 

Unfortunately two of your previous claims, 09-04-2018 02:04 PM, are true, “Marketing can change public opinion – Anti-Science Activists simply throw out masses of fear-laced misinformation and misdirection and try to scare the public into trusting their conclusions, and because of that mistaken trust, “the masses can be wrong“, which continues to remind me of Kaa's attempt to hypnotize Mowgli into trusting him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDs57R6MYsY

0 Kudos
2,753 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

FDA recalls drugs all the time, so discussions about the FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility is a red herring:  https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528 

 

Banning fluoride would be more appropriately compared to these historical events:

  1. Removing asbestos from school buildings. Asbestos use began in the 1940s, same time as fluoridation. 
  2. Removing lead from gasoline. It took over 40 years of protests for that to happen. 
  3. Establishing public smoking bans to protect the most vulnerable among us from ill effects. Again, took decades in the face of fierce resistance from tobacco stakeholders who insisted  that there was no harm.

Air-Water AnalogyAir-Water Analogy

0
Kudos
7276
Views
2,510 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"Carry Anne" says:

 

"FDA recalls drugs all the time, so discussions about the FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility is a red herring"

 

Response:  Then you should tell your friends, Drs. Osmunson & Sauerheber, to stop bringing up this red herring by making blatantly false claims about them.  

 

By the way, since the FDA has nothing to do with water fluoridation, your comment, "FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility," is itself a red herring.

 

That would be like me saying, "Discussions about NASA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility . . "

0
Kudos
8925
Views
0 Kudos
2,518 Views
34
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

By now you should be starting to understand the complexity of fluoridation jurisdiction.  All agencies try to hide from their responsibility.  Local water districts tend to rely on the CDC and EPA.  However, CDC does not determine the safety of fluoridation and legal counsel for the EPA in effect put jurisdiction with the FDA.  However, legal counsel for the FDA in effect put jurisdiction of fluoridation onto the EPA.

 

No Federal agency accepts jurisdiction for determining the dosage, safety and efficacy of adding fluoride to public water with the intent to prevent dental caries. 

 

That is one reason HHS stepped in and the parties agreed to have the PHS recommend 0.7 ppm of fluoride in water.  A compromise, but a serious admission that too many were ingesting too much fluoride for many years.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

0 Kudos
2,541 Views
33
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill says:  "No Federal agency accepts jurisdiction for determining the dosage, safety and efficacy of adding fluoride to public water with the intent to prevent dental caries. "

 

Response:  There was a woman, Mrs. Cathy Justus, who made the outlandish claim that her horses were killed because of optimally fluoridated water.  Her dogs died, her horses died . . yet in every fluoridated city in the U.S. people are raising happy healthy dogs.  Only on her ranch did deaths like this occur.  And these were expensive horses.

 

Now, if there was any merit to her story, she could have sued the EPA which allows up to 4 ppm in drinking water.  She said her horses died from drinking water with 1 ppm of fluoride, and the EPA allows 4.  

 

The EPA, which allows more than 4 times the optimal level of fluoride in drinking water, would have been responsible for the deaths of her pets . . . if there was any truth to the story.

0 Kudos
2,477 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Billo says:

 

"By now you should be starting to understand the complexity of fluoridation jurisdiction."

 

Response:  Not really.  There is nothing complex about it unless, like you, one is conspiracy-theory oriented.  I have the same complete understanding of the "complexeties" now, as I did before you tried to enlighten me.   But I thank you for your condescending remark.  

 

Since I've shown that both you and Dr. S have made blatantly false statements, your "complexeties" are wasted on someone who has both feet in reality.

 

Be Careful, Dr. Bill!  According to "Carry Anne":

 

"discussions about the FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility is a red herring:"

 

I can say from personal experience, I wouldn't want to be on her bad side if I were you.  

0 Kudos
2,535 Views
31
Report
Conversationalist

David,

Science is about facts, empirical evidence.  

 

Instead of calling people names dealing in speculation, scientists look for factual evidence and honestly face the facts rather than avoid the uncomfortable facts.

 

FACT: NHANES 2010-2011 (National Health and Nutrition Survey) found 60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis.   

 

Undisputed FACT.  Too many are ingesting too much fluoride as measured with the increase in dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride.  NHANES 2010-2011.  Two more recent NHANES surveys have be done and all data reported to the public except dental fluorosis.  Why?  Why the delay in reporting only the fluorosis data?  Does the data suggest more or less dental fluorosis?  I would suggest if the data showed less fluorosis the data would be out ASAP.  

 

Undisputed FACT.  HHS lowered the concentration of fluoride in water because too many were ingesting too much fluoride.  Was lowering the total fluoride exposure as HHS suggests by an average of about 14%, adequate?  In my opinion, no.  Still too many are being harmed. 

 

And much more. . . . 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH  

Bronze Conversationalist

Billo, before you gish gallop to other issues, I'd like an answer to the question I just posed.

 

Is there a massive conspiracy of silence between and among every Federal U.S. Agency - none of them, Not One, classifies optimally fluoridated water as a drug. 

 

Or is it simply that optimally fluoridated water is not a drug, any more than salt with iodine added, or bread with folic acid are drugs?

0 Kudos
2,506 Views
29
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

You are asking me to speculate on what government agencies think and why.

 

Lets talk facts we know.  

 

No Federal Agency has accepted jurisdiction to determine the dosage, efficacy and safety for fluoride added to water.    You ask, "why?"   

 

The answer is in the responses from those agencies.  EPA says the FDA has jurisdiciton.  FDA says EPA does.  CDC says they do not determine safety.  Surgeon General has said they do not determine dosage, safety or efficacy of any substance.  

 

No, I do not think it is a conspiracy, I think it is politics.  No one wants to be the "bad guy" and stop fluoridation. . . because so many people have swallowed the theory that fluoride is safe and effective.   And, there is big money pushing fluoride use.  Industry, agriculture, foods, medications, dentists, pediatricians, pharmaceutical companies, toothpaste manufacturers, etc.   

 

Who does not get some financial reward from more fluoride?  The public, the patient.  And who is standing up for those being harmed?  

 

The answer to your question is two fold.  Money and ethics.

 

Now, your turn to get back to the facts and answer my question.  

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  Of the many sources of fluoride, which one should be reduced to lower excess exposure?   

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

2,492 Views
28
Report