- 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
CONCLUSION: Too much fluoride exposure. . . stop fluoridation.
You bring up two powerful concepts.
A. Urine fluoride concentration, although not perfect, is a good measure of fluoride exposure. The 2017 Bashish study reporting lower IQ for children when their mothers had increased urine fluoride concentration. The study has been marginalized by some, such as Martinez-Meier, because they claim we do not have urine fluoride concentrations in the USA population.
After 70 years of fluoridation, the USA has not thought to actually measure urine fluoride concentrations in the public. Oh, yes, Mexico, Canada and other countries have, but blind faith and trust has ruled in the USA rather than measured science.
Failure to measure is not proof of safety. And lack of measured evidence is no reason to give everyone more fluoride in fluoridated water.
However, we do have current measured evidence out of Canada which reported pregnant women on fluoridated water have similar urine fluoride concentrations as pregnant mothers in Mexico.
I'm waiting for fluoridationists to say, "BUT MEXICANS AND CANADIANS ARE NOT AMERICANS." I suppose as proof they would ask for passports.
Fluoridationists have responded, "We trust the CDC and ADA."
The head of the CDC Oral Health Division has an MPH degree. No serious science background. Who are the Toxicologists, Epidemiologists, Pharmacists at the Oral Health Division or the American Dental Association reviewing the science as it is published?????? There are none. No competent scientists are reviewing the studies.
Therefore, fluoridation promoters are trusting organizations not competent or capable or with jurisdiction of determining the dosage, efficacy AND safety to ensure we are not ingesting too much fluoride.
B. WHO also says fluoridation should not be started until total fluoride exposure is determined.
Lack of measured evidence is not proof of safety.
Neither the CDC Oral Health Division nor the American Dental Association have qualified experts to assess the dosage, efficacy AND safety of fluoridation.
FDA does. And the FDA regulatory process has not approved ingesting fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries.
Ross, Now to your comment on fluoride as a bio-marker of urine fluoride exposure.
From my memory, there are quite a few studies using fluoride urine concentration. However, getting consistent results has had some problems. For example, the fluoride concentration varies throughout the day. Some kidneys can excrete fluoride better than others. Just because a chemical in urine is low (mercury, fluoride, etc.) does not mean exposure is low. And several other concerns.
However, the testing of fluoride in urine has become more standarized and more reliable. Do we need more studies. . . always. Never enough, but we do have enough to know from several streams of evidence (urine, serum, fluorosis, bone, pineal gland etc.) that many are ingesting TOO MUCH FLUORIDE.
We have enough evidence now, and the new evidence is robust, that we must start to use caution and lower total exposure. What are the best places to reduce exposure???? The main sources of fluoride are from fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste. Topical from toothpaste has some benefit, increased fluoride in water has much less benefit. The obvious answer is to give people freedom of choice and stop wasting money on fluoridation of public water.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Re: Lets move on to the science - and away from anti-science
RossF – Thank you for your input.
You referenced a World Health Organization article, so I assume that you trust and accept other scientific conclusions supported and published by this organization. At least we have something in common – respect for the conclusions of a major health organization.
Read the 2015 World Health Organization report, Fluoride and Oral Health which presents an excellent summary of the scientific consensus regarding the benefits and risks of community water fluoridation (CWF). If the anti-F opinions and alleged supporting “evidence” are even remotely legitimate, how do you explain the conclusions of this report?
—> “Fluoride is effective at controlling caries because it acts in several different ways. When present in dental plaque and saliva, it delays the demineralization and promotes the remineralization of incipient enamel lesions, a healing process before cavities become established. Fluoride also interferes with glycolysis, the process by which cariogenic bacteria metabolize sugars to produce acid. In higher concentrations, it has a bactericidal action on cariogenic and other bacteria. Studies suggest that, when fluoride is ingested during the period of tooth development, it makes teeth more resistant to subsequent caries development. Fluoridated water also has a significant topical effect in addition to its systemic effect (Hardwick et al., 1982). It is well known that salivary and plaque fluoride (F) concentrations are directly related to the F concentration in drinking water. This versatility of action adds to fluoride’s value in caries prevention. Aiding remineralization is likely to be fluoride’s most important action.” (p70)
—> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water ﬂuoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artiﬁcial water ﬂuoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.” (p78)
—> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have conﬁrmed that water ﬂuoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.” (p78)
—> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to ﬂuorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.” (p79)
Do you accept Bill Osmunson’s explanations of why the CDC, ADA and AAP accept the scientific consensus regarding CWF, and would you apply them to the authors of this report – and to members of the World Health Organization and the other science and health organizations referenced in previous comments who accept the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective?
Re: Lets move on to the science - and away from anti-science
In Basic methods for assessment of renal fluoride excretion in community prevention programmes for oral health, World Health Organisation, 2014, it is stated that ingested fluoride from all sources, whether deliberately or unintentionally ingested, is excreted primarily in the urine. Thus, studies of urinary fluoride levels are ideal for assessing the total intake of fluoride in populations and, more particularly, such studies also provide a basis for decisions on the use of fluoride for caries prevention.
This WHO report also clearly states that public health administrators should assess the total fluoride exposure of a population before introducing any additional fluoridation or supplementation programmes for caries prevention.
Fluoridation advocates in this conversation might wish to comment on epidemiological researches (if any and with methodologies) undertaken by or for any health authority (world-wide), using fluoride in urine as a biomarker to determine total levels of fluoride exposure in any exposed population which comply with WHO advice before a community water fluoridation regime is implemented.
Lets move on to the science - and away from anti-science
Bill – You requested (10-25-2018 02:27 PM), “Lets move on to the science” and “I have asked you to discuss science and you keep diverging onto people.” However, you are the one diverting away from the Science.
Actually, I am discussing some of the most serious aspects of science and trying to obtain some specific answers about those issues which you brought up in the first place – and which you continue to ignore.
Your comments are the root of the problem. Anti science activists ignore science. – they don’t just exhibit the single characteristic you mentioned, “Any scientist who disagrees with the CDC, ADA (or you?) is anti-science?” That is not my position, as you would have understood if you actually read my comment – or chose to report it accurately.
It is perfectly acceptable and quite scientific to disagree with any given scientific consensus and the organizations (and individuals) that support it – provided the disagreements are accompanied by legitimate, conclusive supporting evidence presented accurately and fairly.
Disagreements and legitimate challenges are precisely how the scientific consensus evolves. Without vigorous disagreements, challenges and a continual supply of new research and evidence, science and health care would be stuck – probably in the 1700s or 1800s (or perhaps earlier).
Anti-science activists not only disagree with the scientific consensus, they exhibit all of these additional characteristics:
- They ignore the normal processes of legitimate science by ignoring all supporting evidence and summarily dismissing any scientific consensus (and the supporting evidence) they disagree with.
- They fail to work successfully with other experts to modify or revolutionize the consensus based on the evidence they believe supports a change.
- They ignore the fact that their “evidence” is inconclusive &/or poor quality and is not sufficient to change the consensus.
- When their evidence does not change the consensus they bypass science and try to influence public opinions by creating an illusion of serious, significant disagreement within the science and health communities, sowing distrust of the scientific and health communities among members of the public (for example, your comments referenced below) and irresponsibly and disingenuously spreading unwarranted fear into the public consciousness by misrepresenting the actual scientific evidence.
I fully understand that you and CarryAnne have “spoken harshly against the ADA and CDC Oral Health Division”, and to summarize, you believe that the CDC, ADA and AAP and their members “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.” (08-19-2018 02:18 AM, 08-19-2018 07:15 PM, 07-09-2018 09:09 PM)
Obviously you are upset that these organizations and their members accept and publically recognize the scientific consensus on community water fluoridation (CWF) and reject your interpretation of your “evidence”. I am certainly not offended, but I am astounded at your complete distrust and dismissal of those professionals, and I am simply trying to obtain answers to some very obvious questions that arise from your “spoken harshly” words. I will try again…
Q1) Is my summary above of your accusations an accurate representation of your opinions of why the CDC, ADA and AAP don’t accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure? If not, please correct it for me.
You continue to make a great fuss about the ADA and CDC, but those are only two of more than 100 respected science and health organizations in the world (with hundreds of thousands of members) that also publically accept the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective? I will try again to obtain your explanation of why all these other organizations continue to trust and accept the interpretation of evidence by the majority of experts instead of your opinion of how a few studies should be interpreted.
Q2a) You still have not answered my specific question: Do you apply the accusations above to all the other organizations (and their hundreds of thousands of members) that that continue to publically support CWF or do not publically accept the anti-F opinions. I believe it is safe to conclude from your arguments (unless you publically provide an alternative interpretation) that you would also apply the same descriptions to all members of the 100+ science and health organizations who either support or do not denounce fluoridation. These organizations include the WHO, the AMA, the APA, the CMA, the CPS and the other 100+ organizations listed here, 07-04-2018 12:51, by Dr. Haynie.
Q2b) If you choose not to apply those accusations above to the other organizations (and individuals) that do not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate, then provide a rational explanation for why they would all continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF.
These are extremely important scientific (not personal) questions and issues:
Q3) If relevant experts in these 100+ organizations (and other experts they consult) can’t be trusted to honestly, accurately and reliably interpret the incredible complexity of the relevant bodies of scientific evidence and reach a relevant, accurate and reliable scientific consensus in the areas they represent (fluoridation, disinfection, vaccination, etc.), how can they possibly be trusted to “protect the public” by supporting any of the other science or health conclusions formed and decisions that are made?
Protection against anti-science activists 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. It is provisional and changes when legitimate evidence is presented – that is how science has always progressed – not by demanding the consensus be changed because of strong personal beliefs and opinions by a few biased outliers.
As stated in my previous comment, 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.
It is the responsibility of legitimate scientists and health professionals who have relevant, legitimate evidence they believe should change the scientific consensus to present that evidence to relevant experts for review and consideration, to have it evaluated within the context of the relevant scientific and health communities and to work aggressively to reach a new consensus.
Anti-science activists abandon that responsibility when their "evidence" does not change the consensus and deliberately engage in fear-mongering. Yes – fear mongering – which, by the way, is not being “Scared of science” as you implied. Fear-mongering is those deliberate activities designed to manufacture and distribute ”evidence” specifically designed to scare people into fearing specific science-based conclusions when legitimate supporting evidence does not exist.
Q4) As I asked in a previous comment – What was the real purpose of you Gish gallop frenzy (9/4 – 9/5), copy/pasting a bunch of studies you seem to believe proved that CWF causes cancer? Were you really expecting any non-expert, rational members of the public to read these comments, and if they did, to be able to evaluate them and legitimately come to a different conclusion than members of several cancer societies?
Q5) Bill, do you consider yourself more qualified than those professionals in the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute to evaluate the cancer-related evidence and draw those conclusions? 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 NCI are "the best in their fields", but they can’t get it right when evaluating the carcinogenic risks of CWF?
However, anti-science activists repeatedly hand the “evidence” directly to the public along with a highly inflated interpretation of harm with the expectation of adjusting the beliefs of those who unwittingly accept the propaganda as legitimate because they have been carefully instructed that mainstream scientists and health professionals “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.”
As I requested before, please list the specific personal attacks and names you claimed I called you that are “disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric”. I will certainly apologize for any unwarranted personal attacks I have made on you.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
You have made some excellent posts on this thread. I would like to emphasize your comments on an article in Environmental Health News: https://www.ehn.org/we-add-it-to-drinking-water-for-our-teeth-but-is-fluoride-hurting-us-2611193177.... is powerful and has great quotes. The studies cited:
- Iodine deficient adults with higher urine levels of fluoride have a greater risk of hypothyroidism
- Pregnant women with higher urine fluoride levels give birth to children with higher ADHD rates (funded by NIH)
- Fluoride levels in pregnant women were almost twice as high in areas that had fluoridated water than in unfluoridated areas.
The lead author of the hypothyroidism study, Ashley Malin, said “I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure. And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years . . . Research is showing more and more that subclinical elevations are associated with bad health effects.”
The lead author of the ADHD study, Christine Till, said she is “certain the safety of fluoride ingestion has not been proven. The problem is that it’s an uncontrolled dose – everyone is exposed to different levels. It may be prudent for pregnant women to reduce ingesting fluoride during pregnancy.”
Dr. Manish Arora: “A question that is becoming increasingly important – is fluoridation of water supplies the best way to deliver the oral health benefits of fluoride? . . . now is the time to have the scientific debate.”
However, I don't know of any scientists at the CDC even considering the dosage or risks of fluoride. The acting director has an MPH. From my experience, my MPH degree simply gave me the authority to quote policy, certainly no authority to disagree.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH.
Re: Still no answers, only accusations?
Lets move on to the science. But one more try at answering your questions
I have asked you to discuss science and you keep diverging onto people. If you can't see the unprofessional, cruel, vulgar, barbaric unscientific attacks in your posts, I'm not sure pointing them out would help. Trumpian words/labels in your last post which is more mellow than most of your posts, has two example.
"anti-science." Really? Any scientist who disagrees with the CDC, ADA (or you?) is anti-science? I don't know anyone on this discussion list who is anti-science. The term has no point other than defamation, sensation and irritation. What scientist on this list will kneel down and confess their "sin" of being opposed to science. The intent of the term here is to be cruel and vulgar. Simple basic science questions have been asked, and you call me anti-science.
"fear-mongering" Really? Scared of science? When I present National Health Assessment and Nutrition Evaluation Survey results reporting 60% of adolescents with fluorosis and 20% moderate/severe dental fluorosis as evidence millions are over exposed to fluoride; is that NHANES data "fear-mongering?"
You appear to have taken personal offense when CarryAnne or I have spoken harshly against the ADA and CDC Oral Health Division. You are not the ADA or CDC. . . are you? Are you even an ADA member or employeed by the CDC Oral Health Division? If anyone would take offense, it might be the dentists here. But most know the limitations of the ADA and CDC Oral Health Division.
Clearly you have great respect and trust the CDC Oral Health Division to determine the dosage, safety and efficacy of fluoride ingestion. Would you kindly forward the names of the Oral Health Division Director, Senior Toxicologist, Senior Epidemiologist, Senior Pharmacist, Senior Chemist and their respective degrees? Who are the scientists at the CDC OHD who are continually digesting the current science and advising you?
Remember, the American Dental Association testified in court that they were not responsible for anyone being harmed from the products they recommend, they had no duty to protect the public. If their members pull the license of a dentist opposed to a toxic dental substance, that is not the ADA problem. I trust the ADA to protect their paid members and corporate sponsors. I do not trust the ADA to protect the public at the expense of their members and corporate sponsors. And the CDC OH division responds within days of a change in the ADA's position on items like fluoride. ADA and CDC OH Division are in lock step. Can you give any example where the CDC OHD and ADA have different positions? They move like dance partners with the ADA taking the lead. . . and the ADA protects dentists not the public. "If scientists agree, hang on to your wallet."
May I suggest you consider that when we speak of these corporations and government agencies that we are not speaking of you. Don't read more into the words than written.
I am slowly understanding that you may have no seperation of identity with these organizations. People and organizations make mistakes. Fluoridation is one of their mistakes. Mercury fillings is another, and the list can go on and on. Blind trust is not advised.
Now don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I am not saying everything these organizations do and stand for is wrong. Both the ADA and CDC are essential and vital to the health of our country. But they make mistakes and fluoridation is one of them. And we must not trust them for things they do not claim to have authority for. For example, the CDC has been clear they do not determine the safety of fluoride ingestion.
Remember, 50% of what we scientists think is right is actually wrong. Our job is to find out which 50% is in fact correct and improve, change or abandon the 50% which is wrong. Excess fluoride exposure is wrong and needs to be changed.
Randy, because the ADA and CDC have put so much capital into fluoridation, and defend the practice without careful scientific review of all the evidence, they fail to protect the public by looking outside the box for other better public health measures. Their knee jerk response to dental caries is adding more assurance that fluoride is safe and the ever increasing dosages and use is safe and adding more fluoride to more dental products is safe. Wow . . . when is it too much? They never say. . . at least they never admit when too much is too much.
Comments about the CDC and ADA are not about you. Seperate your ego from those organizations. Think for yourself. Chose your own identity and thinking. God gave you a mind, use it.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Courts: I only know of two court cases where the issue before the court was science. One is currently before the court and has not been decided. The other years ago and the judge ruled that fluoride was a carcinogen, later to be overruled on proceedural grounds. (My understanding).
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Still no answers, only accusations?
Bill. You are accusing me of “name calling, disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric unscientific attacks.”
Please list the specific personal attacks and names I have called you that are “disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric”. I will certainly apologize for any unwarranted personal attacks I have made on you.
However, as I described in my previous comment (10-24-2018 02:23 PM), I stand by my support of the scientific consensus which supports community health measures (like fluoridation, vaccination, community water disinfection, etc.) that are under attack by anti-science activists. I continue to support the majority of science and health organizations and their hundreds of thousands of members who support the consensus.
I am seriously opposed to, and will not apologize for, exposing the fear-mongering and various deceptive tactics of anti-science activists whose agenda is to scam the public into trusting their distortions of the evidence and fearing and doubting the scientific and medical communities.
I repeat – if anti-science activists have legitimate evidence to support their opinions, convince the relevant science and health experts, and the consensus will change – that is how science progresses – not by scamming the public and basing your comments on what you hope will happen in the future – fluoridation opponents have been fighting and claiming they have incontrovertible supporting evidence for over 70 years. Your unsupported, libelous accusations against the science and health professionals in your comments below are the actual unprofessional attacks.
Let’s take a look at your comments that I have responded to and have been trying to obtain clarification of and rational explanations for. I have a similar set of quotes from CarryAnne which I have asked her to clarify without success. Both your comments and those of CarryAnne have all the characteristics of the “attacks” you accuse me of.
(08-19-2018 02:18 AM) “The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.“
(08-19-2018 07:15 PM) “CDC, ADA and proponents of fluoridation think fluoride is a magic element unaffected by other chemicals, everyone benefits and everyone needs more and no one is at risk. That kind of simplistic thinking might be good for first grade, but not science.”
(07-09-2018 09:09 PM) the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC. Circular referencing.”and “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation. None reviewed the science.” and “the credibility of those so called ‘scientific’ organizations [AAP, ADA, CDC] has been seriously tarnished. They do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.” and “They were silent because they never looked at the science.”, and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“
You still have not answered my question about whether you apply these accusations to all the other organizations (and their hundreds of thousands of members) that that continue to publically support CWF or do not publically accept the anti-F opinions. I believe it is safe to conclude from your arguments (unless you publically provide an alternative interpretation) that you would also apply the same descriptions to all members of the 100+ science and health organizations who either support or do not denounce fluoridation. These organizations include the WHO, the AMA, the APA, the CDA, the CMA, the CPS and the other 100+ organizations listed here, 07-04-2018 12:51, by Dr. Haynie.
Until then, be kind, gentle, friendly, and use polite words – are the words you use above (and those used by CarryAnne) examples of what you are recommending?
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
What I've noticed over the years is that fluoridaion promoters continue to be unable to explain how it is that fluoride affects teeth caries. For a long time it was argued that it must do so from the bloodstream by incorporating into developing teeth during childhood to make stronger teeth. This was based on the fact that fluoride indeed incorporates into bone and so it was also believed to incorporate into teeth. But fluoride was not found in the enamel matrix from ingesting fluoridated water, so the CDC published a new argument, that systemic fluoride is not responsible for its (believed) effect and so it must work topically. But since fluoride does not enter teeth enamel upon topical application even at high concentrations in dental gels, the mechanism remained stil unknown for the assumed topical effect.
All the Agencies mentioned on this site that supposedly either promote fluoridation or at least don't formally in writing as an official declaration oppose it, provide no information whatsoever on how fluoride water swallowing works on teeth topically. One reference by Featherstone cited by the EPA claims that fluoride water ingestion incorporates fluoride into plaque on teeth surfaces where it can exude out to help toothpaste fluoride between brushings. But saliva fluoride that bathes teeth continuously is only 0.016 ppm, and this fact was not mentioned in the discussion that was theoretic. Nor was it made clear that most dentists now request that plaque be removed from teeth regularly anyway.
And water fluoride is only present on teeth for seconds during swallowing and is only 0.7 ppm, 2,100 times less concentrated than in toothpaste. .
So I ask you all, how does fluoride affect dental caries?
The answer is that first of all, it doesn't affect dental caries. And second, there is no actual known mechanism by which fluoride could strengthen teeth. Enamel hydroxyapatite is so hard that there is no fluoride -- hydroxide ion exchange, as occurs in bone hydroxyapatite, a completely different allotropic-type form.
And none of these "many supporting" agencies has ever answered the crucial question of even if it did work, how are people who live to advanced age supposed to remove the fluoride that incorporates in their bones during lifelong consumption? How, when it is biochemically irreversibly incorporated into bone? Understand, there is no concentration in blood low enough above zero at which fluoride does not bind bone. So lifelong consumption if one lives long enough will eventually lead to significant bone pathology. Are these symptoms and problems in elderly lilfelong fluoridated poeepe expendable because they are presumed to have been coupled with fewer dental caries? What about people who don't eat sugar and never have dental caries? They are supposed to accept this fate as well?
Where are the answers from these Agencies that supposedly promote lifelong whole body fluoridation for everyone? (Hint: there are no answers from them. So their "support" is essentially meaningless).
Re: Trying to get specific answers from you to my specific questions = pulling teeth?
Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to have a discussion with. . . . impossible.
Attack, name calling, attack, name calling, disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric unscientific attacks. Your response clearly answers your own questions. Not one reference to science, all opinion and attack. Try being professional and see where that gets you.
What about scientific evidence based discussion scares you? Just evidence, not guns or a train going to run you over.
The first stage to change is denial. Of which you are doing.
Lacking evidence to support their position denial is closely followed by attacking the messenger rather than the message. Which you are doing.
In time, those opposed will say it was really their idea in the beginning. Not long from now you will also be opposed to ingesting excess fluoride.
Because, I am confident, good scientists will stop fluoridation in the not distant future. And then what will you say? They are wrong? Or will you start thinking for yourself rather than being faith, trust based.
Ask a scientific question and I will respond with the best science I'm aware of. If you continue with gossip and attack, I won't waste my time.
Until then, be kind, gentle, friendly, and use polite words.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH