- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Work & Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Invest, Diversify, Integrate Your Financial Life
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Travel Archive
- Home & Family Forums
- Dogs, Cats and Pets
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Love, Sex & Dating
- Our Front Porch
- Random Thoughts and Conversations
- Singles Perspective Revisited
- Comunidad Hispana de AARP
- Home & Relationships Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Politics, Current Events Archive
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Rewards for Good
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Good News
- Entertainment & Leisure Archive
- Caregiving Forums
- Grief & Loss
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs Archive
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
- AARP Help Archive
Fluoridationists Use Logical Fallacies to Confuse Public & Politicians
“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.
FOs Equate Abortion With Fluoridation - Really?
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.
Re: Abortion Is Like Fluoridation - Really?
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.
Abortion Is Like Fluoridation - Really?
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.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“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.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
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.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Re: Major science and health organizations dismiss anti-F opinions
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.
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 public. They 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 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, “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.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
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