From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
721
Views

Re: Trying to get specific answers from you to my specific questions = pulling teeth?

721 Views
Message 711 of 1,448

Quite a tirade. But I know of no fluoridation opponent who regards scientists as "fairweather friends." Nor do I know any who are saying "trust just me" while having plans to eat and kill people, instead of helping them have a clean bloodstream free of useless fluoride contamination.

Scientists are often right and are often wrong in data interpretation. The claim by Dean that in 21 cities the higher fluoride level, the lower the caries incidence did not pan out. It was mistaken. When all cities are examined there is no correlation between caries incidence and water fluoride all the way up to 6 ppm. There was no caries reduction capability for ingested fluoride . And this is fully consistent with recent data indicating that saliva fluoride is only 0.016 ppm, 96,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste, and with spectroscopic data indicating fluoride cannot penetrate into teeth enamel. 

Again, scientists in 1943 in the AMA were correct that fluoridation should not be instituted, and have been verified by scientists today. So what is the problem?  The problem is belief that the original correlation proved causation. It is a belief, not a fact and has been disproven.

Between fluoridation opposition and whole body fluoridation promotion, I know which one turned out to be a scam.  It is not anyone on either side's desire I am sure to harm patients, but nevertheless intentionally fluoridating blood is the unnatural action that harms.  Fluoridated bone is abnormal bone. Fluoridation is not physiologic, it is pathologic. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
721
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
698
Views

Trying to get specific answers from you to my specific questions = pulling teeth?

698 Views
Message 712 of 1,448

Bill – Wow!  Trying to get specific answers from you to my specific questions might be compared to pulling teeth. (10-23-2018 02:48 PM, 10-23-2018 03:00 PM, 10-23-2018 05:24 PM, 10-21-2018 09:44 PM)

 

In response to your most recent 10-23-2018 05:24 PM & 03:00 PM comments:  All legitimate scientists base their conclusions on the evaluation of scientific EVIDENCE.  Scientists and health professionals are frequently members of organizations, but I’m not sure what you mean by “[I am] NOT organization or individual based” –– is that part of your lemming/puppet “theory”? 

 

All legitimate scientists are persuaded by facts – but facts are also interpreted by people who can be exceptionally biased and/or don’t understand science.  Members of the Flat Earth Society claim their beliefs are based on facts.  Anti-vaccination activists claim their beliefs are based on facts as do all other anti-science activists

 

That is precisely why the scientific consensus is critical.  The consensus of a majority of experts (members of the major science and health organizations, for example) is a provisional agreement on how best to interpret the entire body of evidence in context.  The scientific consensus is a firewall to help keep the scientific community from becoming a pinball machine where theories bounce, spin, crash and get flipped around based on every new unverified, unvalidated, unconfirmed, incompletely understood “fact” that gets dumped into the hopper.  The fact is that a consensus changes when new, legitimate evidence is presented, tested for relevance, evaluated in context with the rest of the evidence and found to conflict with the existing consensus in a manner that requires a change.  Changing a consensus is, and should be, a challenging and rigorous process that examines all relevant evidence and not just the evidence that appears to support strongly held beliefs of individuals.

 

Yes, the scientific consensus is “people based”, but it is also “FACTS, evidence based”.  That is what makes the methods of science and the scientific consensus completely unique – completely different from any other human consensus; philosophical, political, religious, artistic, judicial, moral, etc.  Fluoridation opponents (FOs) seem to believe that science-based conclusions can and should be validated by strong personal opinions.

 

Do you accept the concept of scientific consensus as traditionally defined, “the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity”? (Wikipedia)  If not, what is your alternative – a “scientific” free for all, based on everyone’s personal interpretation of the FACTS?

 

The questions I have asked you (10-21-2018 09:44 PM and others) are based on trying to understand the FACTS of your specific statements.  The opinions of Dr. Limeback you posted don’t count – they answer none of my specific questions to you – nor do any of your other answers.

 

The only conclusion I can reach based on your (10-23-2018 03:00 PM) comment and lack of specific answers is that you are not perfect, you were “raised in a religious cult”, and you seem to believe all scientists and health care providers in the world who have not accepted the anti-F interpretation of the complete body of scientific evidence as legitimate or credible are members of a cult (or cults?) who blindly follow beliefs that are “based on fraud, lies, and mistakes”.  That would explain your earlier comments.

 

I will take your failure to address my specific questions about your specific comments, (08-19-2018 02:18 AM), (08-19-2018 07:15 PM), (07-09-2018 09:09 PM) as strong evidence that you believe ALL scientists and health care providers who don’t accept the anti-F opinions “don't think for themselves”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, have “seriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, are “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” and “None reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.

 

Is this a correct interpretation and summary of your comments and beliefs about the scientific and health communities?  If I don’t hear otherwise, I will assume you agree with my summary, and you would use it to describe all members of the 100+ science and health organizations who either support or do not denounce fluoridation.  If you disagree then provide other specific explanations (with supporting evidence) as rational reasons why none of the major science and health organizations referenced by Dr. Haynie, 07-04-2018 12:51 have accepted the so-called “evidence” provided by FOs as sufficient to change the consensus.

 

You claim to be “EVIDENCE based … persuaded by facts”.  However:

~> You ignore all the evidence that supports the conclusion that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure that improves health. 
~> You ignore the fact that most scientists and health professionals accept that supporting evidence as legitimate and compelling. 
~> You ignore the fact that most science and health professionals care deeply about understanding as much as they can about their profession and protecting the health of their patients and fellow citizens. 

~> You focus exclusively on a small, carefully selected subset of available evidence which FOs believe proves CWF is ineffective and dangerously harmful to health.
~> You ignore the fact that relevant experts continually review that “subset of available evidence” presented by FOs (in context with the rest of the evidence FOs ignore) and find sufficient limitations to prevents the FOs' “evidence” from changing the majority consensus. 

~> However you and other FOs “adjust” and present this inconclusive, flawed “evidence” to the public –– as demonstrated in this discussion –– in a manner designed to create fear and sow distrust of the science and health establishments they depend on to protect and improve their health.

 

In reality, you and other FOs are actually EVIDENCE biased … persuaded by carefully selected “facts”.

 

I do not want members of the public to blindly follow any person, organization or me either.  I also don’t want them to blindly follow a group of anti-science activists.  However, if members of the public do not have the training, experience, inclination or time to seek out and evaluate a significant number of relevant studies for themselves, they must – by default – trust some person or organization. 

 

According to your comments (and those of other FOs) anyone who disagrees with the anti-F interpretation of the evidence –– which includes most members of the science and health communities –– are not really scientists and are not to be trusted.  If they can’t be trusted with making an accurate decision about the benefits and risks of CWF, how could they be trusted with any other health-related decision???  You and other anti-science activists deliberately sow and promote distrust against the major science and health organizations and their members.  That tactic, along with carefully orchestrated fear mongering (trust in me, CWF is ‘proven’ to lower IQ, cause cancer, diabetes, thyroid problems, etc.), are the cornerstones of your anti-science strategy.

 

I trust the current scientific consensus, for two reasons:

First: Overall, I trust the scientific and health communities to draw the best conclusions and make the best decisions possible based on a continual and accurate evaluation of the available body of evidence as understood at any given time.  Science is not perfect, nor is it settled – new evidence is always available for review.  However, I trust that the conclusions, as accepted by the majority of relevant experts, have the best potential for protecting the publicIn the case of CWF, as in vaccination and other recognized public health measures, I trust the majority of professionals.  I do not trust the few outliers who are unable to change the consensus, who have no unified cohort of relevant experts and who resort to fear-mongering techniques and sowing distrust of major science and health organizations to influence public opinion and promote their agenda.

 

Second: I have experience in the sciences and in evaluating studies, and I have examined the “evidence” presented by FOs, (including The Fluoride Deception, Connett’s publication and others).  I have also examined actual scientific evidence (which has been rejected by FOs) that supports the consensus that CWF is safe and effective.  I am not an expert in the specific areas related to fluoridation, but I can recognize when the content of studies has been used out of context by FOs to misrepresent the conclusions.  I can identify when conclusions of a suggestion of a possible, potential correlation has been exaggerated by FOs and presented as “proving” a cause and effect relationship to bolster the fear-factor, and I recognize and understand other tactics all anti-science activists utilize to scam the public.  That is why I continue to challenge you to answer specific questions about how you interpret and understand evidence and conclusions reached by the scientific and health communities.

 

What was the point, for example, of you Gish gallop frenzy (9/4 – 9/5), copy/pasting a bunch of studies you seem to believe proved that CWF causes cancer?  Are most members of the public ever going to read your posts, and why would you expect any non-expert who read these comments to legitimately come to a different conclusion than members of several cancer societies – who have not reached that conclusion

 

Are you more qualified than those professionals to evaluate the evidence and draw those conclusions?    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?

 

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 to 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 the scene in Jungle Book where Kaa claims (1:25), “I'm not like those so-called fair-weather friends of yours. You can believe in me” then places Mowgli in a trance and instructs him to “Trust in me, just in me” in preparation to eating him.  Substitute ‘mainstream scientists and health care providers’ for ‘fair-weather friends’ and you will have an excellent illustration of the deceptive tactics of anti-science activists.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
698
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
685
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

685 Views
Message 713 of 1,448

The fact that there are so many agencies that endorse fluoridation is being argued on this site as proof that fluoridation is good. This of course is absurd. It is a defense of the claim but contains no evidence proving it.   

Jumping on band wagons is as old as civilization itself and is very common in our society. For example many people support and belielve claims made by the White House, such as "Democrats organized the train of refugees to march toward the U.S." and that "Democrats want a wide open border" and that "there are Middle East terrorists and MC13 gang members in the train."  People actually believe what their leader or authority figure tells them. It was admitted that there is no proof of the terrorist claim, but neverthtless the claim was again made by rephrasing it as "there could be such individuals in the train".

 

What actually matters in the end is the truth, the facts that do not change. And the facts indicate that whole body fluoridation is harmful, useless, and illegal. The number of agencies believing otherwise has little to do with the truth. Many people can fall to deception, especially when those promoting the claim believe it themselves. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
685
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
727
Views

Re: Still unanswered questions from 08-21, 08-26, 08-30, 09-03, & 10-20

727 Views
Message 714 of 1,448

The question of why people agree with fluoridationists' claims has been answered before (i.e. The Fluoride Deception, Bryson) but apparently the answers are being ignored. Is the book simply too detailed?

For a more trivial introduction to fluoridation see for example the Fluoride Debate stating the following:

 

The Journal of the American Medical Association (Sept. 18, 1943) states that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons — they inhibit enzyme systems, and water containing 1 part per million (ppm) or more fluoride is undesirable. This was the AMA's stand on fluoridation shortly before the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed nationwide fluoridation.

 

Industrial fluoride waste was industry's menace until Oscar Ewing, an Alcoa Aluminum lawyer, became head of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1947.  Alcoa was one of the largest producers of hazardous fluoride waste at that time. Under Ewing, the U.S. Public Health Service proceeded to conduct the fluoridated drinking water experiment on thousands of people without their consent, even though they knew at the time that there was little or no margin of safety between the hoped-for therapeutic dose and the toxic dose that causes dental fluorosis for children and skeletal fluorosis over lifetime exposure.

Ten years later, by reading the statistics incorrectly they claimed a "65% reduction in tooth decay," and moved on to fluoridate more cities. Newburgh and Kingston were two of the original test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after nearly 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh's children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston. ("New Studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits," by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News. Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989).

Today there is a great deal of scientific agreement that ingested fluoride does not reduce tooth decay. The largest study of tooth decay in America, by the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research in 1986-1987, showed that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,207 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in the 84-city study. The study cost the U.S. taxpayers $3,670,000, yet very few Americans are aware the study was ever performed. ("New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits." Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989).

 

So the scientific consensus of 1943 has been validated with the scientific consensus in 2018. The plain fact is that industrial fluoride has always been an insidious poison, cumulative in its effects when ingested in minimal amounts, unable to affect dental decay significantly, and this remains unchanged no matter how many claim otherwise.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
727
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
704
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

704 Views
Message 715 of 1,448

Randy,

 

You asked three questions and I was going to answer the next, but the answer to your question #2 answers the rest of you questions.

 

I'm EVIDENCE based, NOT organization or individual based.  I am persuaded by facts, not people.  (Money persuades people.  Facts are less biased.)

 

The questions you asked are not scientificly based and cannot be answered by empirical evidence. You questions are political, personality, and human based.  

 

Start thinking FACTS, evidence based rather than people based.  Ask a science question rather than a people question.

 

I answered your four questions.  Now please answer mine.

 

1.   How many people with moderate/severe dental fluorosis is acceptable to you and are too many ingesting too much fluoride?

 

2.   Bashash 2017 (Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes) did not find a "no effect" threshold.  Mother's urine samples mean of 0.90 mg/L and for every 0.5 mg/L increase showed 2.5 IQ drop.  

 

Till just published a study reporting pregnant mothers in Canada have a similar fluoride urine concentration in fluoridated communities.  Most studies I have read report urine fluoride concentration in fluoridated communities is close to 1 mg/L regardless of country, including the USA.  

 

Question: What empirical evidence (evidence based science, measured evidence) can you provide which reports that fluoride urine concentration at 0.9 mg/L is neurologically safe for the developing fetus?

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
704
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
693
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

693 Views
Message 716 of 1,448

Thanks Dr. Osmunson for the response regarding Dr. Yiamouyiannis. Yes scientists don't know everything and in fact allow personal bias and their own thoughts to affect understanding sometimes.  But such mistaken extrapolations do not negate what the scientists did that was correct, or the actual true data that were compiled. 

 

For example Einstein was correct about the photoelectric effect and other items, even though he committed the blunderous thought that absolute time could be slowed if someone were to move quickly. That mistake that has been disproven does not negate the correct work that he did.

Likewise, the incorrect thoughts Yiamouyiannis had about AIDS does not negate the data demonstrating that fluoridated water consumption has no signfricnat effect on tooth decay.  

 

People who are often wrong are sometimes correct, and mostly-correct careful people are sometimes wrong. The data are what count. His analysis of fluoridated vs nonfluoridated cities and dental decay were compelling--and agree with the large studies of Ziegelbecker; and Teotia; and the CA study. Small sample studies such as are typically done by fluoridation promoters are subject to large effects from altered diets, brushing habits, etc. They are not reliable and usually have mean differences that are a small effect size. Kumar for example tries to claim fluoridated water lowers tooth decay but the mean diffrerences tell the story. The effect size is less than 1, with the standard errors being larger than the mean difference. A scientist would conclude that there is no signficant effect, but a fluoridation promoter is not so careful and attempts to claim the difference is significant when, from the large studies we know, there is no effect in reality.   .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
693
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
681
Views

Re: Still unanswered questions from 08-21, 08-26, 08-30, 09-03, & 10-20

681 Views
Message 717 of 1,448

Randy, 

 

I just answered your question again, in my response to Dr. Chuck.  Both of you are having the same thought process.

 

You asked,

 

"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."

 

If there is one thing I don't want, is for people to blindly follow any persen, people, organization, or me.  

 

Become "EVIDENCE BASED" rather than "human based, individual, organization based."  

 

I was raised in a religious cult where the profit died and the followers lied and became very dishonest in order to protect "God."  At lest their theory of God.

 

When the evidence became clear that the cult was based on fraud, lies, and mistakes, I left the cult.  It has taken a couple generations for the cult to slowly change.   Change is hard for one individual, extremely hard for organizations. . . takes generations.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
681
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
612
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

612 Views
Message 718 of 1,448

Dr. Chuck,

 

Yiamouyiannis was wrong on AIDS and if alive he would agree.  No one is perfect, look at the facts, and the dates not the individual.   

 

Scientific discussions with faith based, endorsement based, trust based individuals is very difficult.    Science is not "individual" based, rather evidence based.

 

Your comment about Yiamouyiannis "disqualify themselves from serious consideration" is an example of science based on individuals rather than facts.

 

You may have heard the comment, "quote me but date me."   When AIDS was first considered, my most respected mentor also claimed AIDS was a judgment from God.  I was shocked, but didn't argue.    That did not negate everything else he said.  My mentor also reminded me, "50% we know to be true, is actually false.  The problem is we don't know which 50%."    

 

Be humble with our theories.  At one time I promoted and provided mercury fillings, root canals as the most successful treatment procedure in dentistry (short of the apex, to the apex, past the apex????), Dycal/Life, Centric Relation (with 26 different definitions I'll let you guess which one), and a whole host of other historic dental procedures and techniques.  It was the best I knew and the facts have helped me improve.  One certainty is I will change more. . . . 

 

The PHS, CDC, Courts, Congress, ADA, AMA, and even you and me have been wrong at times, and still are.  If our trust is in "individuals," learning that our "gods" are wrong can be a shattering experience.  If we are "fact" based, "evidence based" then we focus on the evidence, judge the evidence, and move our theories with the evidence.    If our trust is in individuals, then when those individuals die their theories are canonized and extremely hard to change when the evidence shows a better way.  

 

The question is not whether someone is perfect, because no one is.  The question is:

 

"What do you do with the evidence when the evidence disagree with the theory?"

 

 

Chuck, I would suggest you move towards evidence based rather than individual based.  Everyone has some opinions which are true and some false.  Use the evidence, the facts, to keep checking the theories and perfect the theories.

 

For example, fluoride has some benefit and some risk.  We have always known that fact.  Now the evidence reports that at least 1 or 2 in 10 adolescents have significant harm to their teeth from too much fluoride and 60% some degree of fluorosis.  Is the evidence suggesting many are ingesting too much fluoride?   If so, what do we do with the evidence?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
612
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
603
Views

Re: Still unanswered questions from 08-21, 08-26, 08-30, 09-03, & 10-20

603 Views
Message 719 of 1,448

Bill - Here are three related questions from my most recent request for specific answers.

 

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.” 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?  

 

And please provide some evidence, and not just your opinions.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
603
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
586
Views

Re: Still unanswered questions from 08-21, 08-26, 08-30, 09-03, & 10-20

586 Views
Message 720 of 1,448

Randy, Dr. JJ, and All,  (provides partial answer to some of your questions)

 

PARRY SOUND – Parry Sounders have spoken; they do not want their drinking water fluoridated.   Hardy Limeback,  PhD, DDS wrote an opinion letter answering fluoridation claims.    Very concise and clear.

 

Quote:

"I read the Oct. 5 opinion letter by a group of local doctors trying to convince Parry Sounders to vote in favour of fluoridation in the upcoming plebiscite.

As one of the persons derogatorily labeled as a “so-called expert,” I’d like to offer some corrections and facts in response based on science, not politics or endorsements.

 

Claim1: “As health professionals we serve as first-hand witnesses to the impact that poor dental hygiene has on the overall health of the community.”

This is an odd statement, since physicians do not practice dentistry and are not familiar with dental science.

 

Fact: poor dietary choices (frequent sugar intake) cause cavities. “Poor dental hygiene” is a not a major factor in the prevalence and severity of dental decay.

 

Claim 2. Cavities cost Canadians over a billion dollars a year.

Sounds impressive, but that’s only $27/person/yr.

Fact: Other dental costs, including cosmetic dentistry to treat the dental fluorosis side effects of fluoridation, are 12 times higher.

 

Claim 3. The truth is, fluoride in drinking water has been scientifically studied for over 70 years without ever finding evidence that the low levels recommended in municipal drinking water have any negative health effects

Fact: While fluoridation has been in place for 70 years, studies have not been conducted to show safety. Our expert review panel (the National Academies of Sciences Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water) reviewed over hundreds of studies on fluoride toxicity. See https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards We found several problems with fluoride in drinking water because fluoride accumulates in the body, primarily the skeletal system.

Our own study (Chachra et al, 2010) published after our NAS Review of 2006 comparing the bones of fluoridated Torontonians with the bones of the non-fluoridated Montrealers showed that the people in Toronto had more fluoride in their bones and the physical properties of their bones had changed. Fluoride accumulation in bones weakens them.

But if you don’t look for problems you won’t find them.

There has never been a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial to see if fluoridation actually works. This kind of study is required for every drug that seeks approval from Health Canada or the US FDA.

 

Claim 4. In recent years, when communities have voted to remove fluoride from drinking water, cavity rates have risen.

Fact. This is incorrect. Nearly all studies, including in Canada, showed that where fluoridation was halted, dental decay continued to drop. The increased dental decay claimed was anecdotal and could not be backed up with good science. We published a critique of the findings in Calgary after it stopped fluoridating in 2011 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28994462)

 

Claim 5. It is true that swallowing too much fluoride toothpaste can cause your teeth to stain (known as fluorosis); an uncommon finding even in those who brush regularly and have fluoride in their town water.

Fact. Dental fluorosis occurs when too much fluoride is ingested from birth to age 6 years. It is the total fluoride that is ingested that is important. By far, fluoridated water is the largest contributor, especially when a baby is given infant formula made with fluoridated tap water. Unfortunately dental fluorosis, a permanent scarring of the teeth, is now a very common side effect of fluoridation. Some estimates are that 1 in 10 children have unsightly dental fluorosis in fluoridated areas.

 

Claim 6. The point is, there are no known negative health effects from the amounts of fluoride added to municipal drinking water, despite decades of study on the topic.

 

Fact: The good doctors are obviously not up on their science. There are 4 studies published in the last two years that linked prenatal exposure to fluoride to lowered IQ in the children later in life. One study showed that dental fluorosis was associated with lowered IQ. This is not ‘misinformation’ as the doctors suggest. These are peer-reviewed studies from highly respected international researchers.

 

Claim 7. Will updating our fluoridation system cost money? Yes, but not as much as it will to deal with all the cavities we will face if we don’t.

 

Upgrading Parry Sound’s fluoridation system to current standards will cost taxpayers at least $350,000. Add to that $150,000 over the next 15 years to maintain and run the system. The total cost is at least $0.5 million.

 

What are the dental cost savings Parry Sound families can expect after 15 years of fluoridation?

 

Fact: The most up-to-date peer-reviewed study (Slade et al, 2018) shows that 0.5 teeth might be saved per teenager exposed to fluoridated water since birth.

There are about 850 teens in Parry Sound. Saving 0.5 tooth/teen from decay will save families in Parry Sound about $85,000.

 

Spending $0.5 million to save $85,000 in dental costs is not wise way to spend taxpayers’ money.  I was told that the cost to fluoridate will be recovered from increases in Parry Sound water bills.

 

Claim 8. It’s worth noting that no Canadian town has ever removed fluoride from water because of actual health concerns related to these low levels of fluoride

This is another unsupported claim. When Canadian towns have the opportunity to weigh the risks vs the benefits and look at all the health concerns, they usually vote to discontinue the practice.

 

Fluoridation is medication, as ruled by Supreme Court of Canada. You cannot control the dose. Everyone is obliged to take it whether they need it or not. It will harm the most susceptible even if they do not provide consent to this ‘medical treatment’.

 

In most medical schools graduates are asked to uphold the oath “primum non nocere” which is “first do no harm”.

 

But then those advising you to vote for fluoridation, including your medical officer of health and the group of doctors who wrote the OpEd letter, are not liable for any harm that fluoridation will cause your family.

 

Because of the Fluoridation Act of Ontario, if the answer to the referendum is in the affirmative, a majority of 51% of the community can tell the other 49% they have to contribute to the cost of fluoridation, pay for fixing dental fluorosis their children will get, pay for a home filtration system that removes unwanted fluoride and try and avoid foods made with fluoridated drinking water including foods served in the restaurants and coffee shops of Parry Sound.

 

This time Parry Sounders have a say whether or not they want fluoridation. It’s not up to the council, whether for or against.

 

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD (Biochem), DDS
Professor Emeritus and former Head of Preventive Dentistry
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto
Past member of the US NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
McKellar Township"

 

Randy,

Note the Supreme court of Canada.

Note the lack of cost savings.

Note the harm to just the teeth.

Note the harm to the brain.

 

And he never seriously covered excess exposure.

So much more to be added.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
586
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season