Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
637
Views

Start again with one question based on your comments.

637 Views
Message 691 of 1,444

You have ignored most questions completely, and those you claim to have answered have been reinterpreted before “answering” – thus answering your questions and not mine, as demonstrated below. 

 

Let’s start over with one very simple yes or no question: 

Question) Do you believe that ALL the science and health experts in the world who accept the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is safe and effective (or who don’t publically accept the anti-F opinions), don't think for themselves … No conspiracy….  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, haveseriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, arelemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientistsandNone reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.”?  Depending on that answer, I will provide others.  Despite your protestations to the contrary, my questions have everything to do with science-based evidence.

 

This question is in reply to your comments on, (08-19-2018 02:18 AM), (08-19-2018 07:15 PM) & (07-09-2018 09:09 PM)

 

Below are all your previous “un-answers” to my questions (you can read here) that I have found

U-A12) 10-28-2018 12:10 PM, You claim, “I rely on evidence based science.” And then go off on a rant against the EPA. 
That still does not answer one of the primary questions I started with – repeated above.  Answer that single question and then other specific questions can be answered one at a time until you answer questions I ask instead of your interpretation of my questions.

 

U-A11) 10-26-2018 07:03 PM, You claimed, “Instead of focusing on the research, fluoridationists focus on the people talking about the research.
Actually, my concern is that a primary tactic of anti-science activists is to focus on the conclusions of people who are outliers talking about their interpretation of the research instead of the scientific consensus.  For example your interpretation of the 2017 IQ study by Bashash et al. in this comment presents only your personal, biased interpretation of a complex study presented in a public format that is not conducive to discussing and evaluating the conclusions.  You fail, for example, to quote the second paragraph of the conclusion which begins, “Community water and salt fluoridation, and fluoride toothpaste use, substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries and is acknowledged as a public health success story.” And you don’t mention the five long paragraphs of limitations the authors discuss which include their inability to determine whether exposure to toxins, like arsenic, might be responsible for any observations.  In other words you present an excellent example of selective reporting of study conclusions, out of context in a manner deliberately designed to cause fear = Fear-Mongering.  I will defer to several discussions which cover the same study limitations I was able to spot when I read it – and more.  Ken Perrott, Johnny Johnson, Jr. DMD, MS, Steve Slott, DDS, ADA, AADR, Snopes

 

U-A10) 10-25-2018 02:27 PM “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.  … 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?  … ’fear-mongering’  Really?  Scared of science?” 

As I carefully explained in my 10-26-2018 02:17 AM reply, you completely and deliberately misinterpreted my description of ‘anti-science’ as anyone who disagrees with science and ‘fear-mongering’ as moving away from science and “diverging onto people”. 

If you actually read and understood my question and my reply, you would comprehend the fact that my questions to you have EVERYTHING to do with science and the way people with extreme beliefs will ignore science and do anything to protect and promote those beliefs.  Science does not exist without people, and I have seen absolutely no rational explanation from you on why, if the “evidence” you wish to keep dumping onto the public is legitimate, only about 13 alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (along with groups like INFOWARS [Alex Jones] and Natural News [Mike Adams]) oppose CWF.

 

U-A9) 10-24-2018 07:58 PM – You accuse me: “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?  … 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.” 

As I have pointed out repeatedly, my question are not directed against any scientists or health professionals who hold conclusions that differ from the scientific consensus and work as scientists to resolve those differences. 

As I have pointed out over and over, questioning the scientific consensus is one of the fundamental and critical aspects of science – it is the only way science progresses

My questions are about the disingenuous tactics of small bands of anti-science activists who go far beyond legitimate disagreements and normal procedures of working to resolve them.  The tactics of anti-science activists consist of:
a) dismissing the scientific consensus of relevant experts and accepted by virtually all recognized science and health organizations,
b) demanding that their opinions be accepted based on their interpretations of carefully selected “evidence”,
c) instead of working with the scientific and health communities (which is the accepted scientific procedure if legitimate evidence exists) they take their arguments – and interpretations of the “evidence” – to the public (most of who don’t have the training and experience to accurately evaluate the evidence),
d) they employ a variety of techniques including fear-mongering, adjusting/fabricating (evidence), and casting suspicion on the majority of science and health experts who accept the scientific consensus to influence public opinion.

 

I have always been “opposed to ingesting excess fluoride“.  That is the kind of irrational statement commonly employed by anti-science activists to misdirect the public.  Currently, the consensus of organizations like the WHO, ADA, CDC, AAP. AMA, etc. does not define drinking optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) along with other sources of exposure to fluoride ions as “ingesting excess fluoride”. 
Again, my question – if the “evidence” you present is legitimate, obvious and as damaging as fluoridation opponents claim
a) why have a majority of professionals in all (or any) of these organizations (and the 100+ others) not recognized those alleged dangers?
b) why have anti-science activists not worked within the science and health communities to alert them and change the consensus?
c) why have anti-science activists taken the battle to the public using the tactics listed above.

 

When I first became aware of the anti-F arguments several decades ago I became concerned about the possible consequences that I read about, and I began examining the evidence and the conclusions drawn by both sides.   The alleged damage to health presented by fluoridation opponents were initially very troubling, but as I began tracking the anti-F claims back to their sources I began to recognize the same tactics (outlined above) I had seen employed by other anti-science activists.  When FOs demanded that Denver stop CWF in 2015, I decided not to remain silent and began exposing the tactics of fluoridation opponents whenever they attempted to hijack the processes of democracy by employing the disingenuous tactics of anti-science activists.

 

U-A8) 10-23-2018 05:24 PM “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. … I answered your four questions.

Anti-science activists are not evidence based, they WEAPONIZE EVIDENCE.  You have answered none of my questions.  Once you answer my questions about the tactics of anti-science activists, then the specific “empirical evidence” and the way anti-science activists distort it can be discussed.

 

U-A7) 10-23-2018 03:00 PM – In answer to my specific 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."  You repliedBecome "EVIDENCE BASED" rather than ‘human based, individual, organization based.”  and you followed that with a description of your experience, “When the evidence became clear that the cult was based on fraud, lies, and mistakes, I left the cult.That seems to be a not-so-subtle attempt to suggest that all organizations that support CWF are part of a global cult based on fraud, lies and mistakes and all those who accept the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective are members of a cult?  That fits well with your “lemmings/puppets” descriptions that I have been trying to get you to clarify.
People design and implement scientific observations and experiments; people evaluate the resulting evidence and draw conclusions; people develop the scientific consensus based on the best interpretation of the conclusions from all studies and observations. 

I am trying to figure out how you can believe that the hundreds of thousands of people (trained science and health care professionals) who are members of the 100+ organizations that support CWF and who don’t publically accept the anti-F opinions have all completely missed or misinterpreted the “evidence” which you keep focusing on.

 

U-A6) 10-23-2018 01:39 PM  “I have also answered most of your questions but you fail to read, or at least fail to respond to the answers.” 
As noted above and below – your responses were not answers to my questions – they were answers to your rewriting of my questions.

 

U-A5) 10-23-2018 02:15 PM “provides partial answer to some of your questions
This is a copy of Limeback’s opinion piece and answers none of my specific questions to you.

 

U-A4) 10-21-2018 04:14 PM  “Do not cherry pick science to prove a point.   Twisting and manipulating science and claiming it says something it does not, is not scientific.” 
That is the only rational and accurate response to my questions I have read.  However, as I and others have demonstrated repeatedly, it is the anti-science activists who cherry pick any shred of “evidence” they believe can be used to support their opinions, and they are masters at twisting and manipulating science and claiming it proves something it does not.  That is why the major science and health communities follow an accurate and considered evaluation of the entire body of evidence and have concluded nearly unanimously that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay.

 

U-A3) 09-15-2018 08:22 PMI stand by my statements because you do not provide evidence to the contrary.   If you would spend more time checking the endorsements rather than simply regurgitating the mantra, you would be shocked.  Circular referencing is a huge problem.” 

This comment is an excellent example of how you divert the conversation away from providing specific answers to my specific questions by trying to play the “evidence game”.  You provide what you believe to be examples of organizations allegedly cherry picking evidence that only supports CWF and then engaging in the game of “circular referencing” and “endorsing” each other. 

 

You apparently believe, no one in any of those organizations has ever considered and evaluated all the evidence – you seem to believe some individuals simply decided CWF was safe and effective based on their sloppy research, ignorance and a deluded belief that CWF could help reduce dental decay (perhaps an ouija board and tea-leaf readings were involved), and the other science and health professionals blindly followed that conclusion like lemmings or puppets – is that an accurate presentation of how you would describe all members of the 100+ organizations that support CWF who have not rebelled?

 

And, just for the record, how do you differentiate the listing of studies and reviews which support CWF in this comment with the list of references in the IAOMT  “Position Paper against Fluoride Use…” you continually reference.  That paper is simply a blanket condemnation of exposure to fluoride ions from any source at any exposure level and includes newspaper and magazine articles, blogs, etc. provided as “references”.  I discussed that further, 08-29-2018 05:58 PM, Q5

 

U-A2) 09-04-2018 02:04 PM “Lets talk science rather concensus.  The next few posts will be just a touch on one aspect of fluoride, carcinogenicity.  Remember, the masses can be wrong.  Marketing can change public opinion.” 

That begins your Gish Gallop postings of 14 comments packed with “evidence” you seem to believe causes cancer – yet the organizations of experts responsible for understanding cancer have not concluded those studies proved CWF causes cancer.  Do you believe these experts on cancer are all “lemmings, followers, not scientists” who “don't think for themselves or review the research”?  Are they all uninformed puppets with fluoridation opponents the only “experts” on cancer? This is another example of you playing the “evidence game”

Fact alert!  The scientific consensus depends on the legitimate interpretation of scientific evidence by expert scientists – You can’t “talk science rather than consensus” they are inseparable.

 

U-A1) 08-27-2018 01:40 AM “The title here is "Scientific Consensus; however, your comments are about ‘Endorsement Consensus.’” and “Yes, like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to support fluoridation.

Irrelevant nonsense – Whatever you mean by “Endorsement Consensus” is based on the Scientific Consensus!

If the public support of CWF by the 100+ science and health organizations does not demonstrate the scientific consensus (along with the lack of support of the anti-F opinions), then please explain your understanding of the Scientific Consensus as it relates to three public health measures – community water disinfection (and other water treatment processes), vaccination, and CWF. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
637
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
643
Views

Fluoride and the EPA

643 Views
Message 692 of 1,444

Randy,

 

I rely on evidence based science.  I am a professional scientist and not as you label me, "anti-science."  Stop telling lies about me.  Do not be a Trump bully.  

 

You have asked questions and I have answered them and will add more to my answers here.  You have not even attempted to answer my questions.

 

I rely on evidence based science and you rely on consensus from organizations. . . and at one time, so did I.   And then I asked a basic question, "who at these organizations are the pharmacologists, toxicologists and epidemiologists charged with jurisdiction to determine the efficacy at a specific dosage which is safe?   I couldn't find those people.  Would you please provide the names of those people.  

 

Lets look at the EPA for an example.  The EPA has a Maximum CONTAMINANT Level Goal for fluoride of 4ppm.  Who at the EPA determines the efficacy at a specific dosage which is safe for the fluoride contaminant?  They don't exist.  EPA does not determine the efficacy at a specific dosage which is also safe.  We might as well rely on the Federal Aviation Administration or the Department of Commerce.  EPA does not determine the efficacy at a specific dosage of fluoride which is also safe.  Congress has not charged the EPA to determine the efficacy at a specific dosage which is safe for fluoride or any chemical.  That job is the FDA's.

 

But lets dig deeper into the EPA.   

 

When I read what the EPA scientists are saying about fluoride, I was shocked.

 

1)   "In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."

-Dr. J. William Hirzy, Senior Vice-President, Headquarters Union, March 2001
 
I was confident I could see the benefits of fluoride in my patients.  How could these good scientists call fluoride into question?  The EPA scientists statement was very troubling to me, so I looked further and found the science supported their conclusion.
 
2)  Congress requires the EPA to review contaminants in water, as I remember, about every 10 years.  EPA charged the National Research Council to review fluoride.  The NRC 2006 reported in 2006 that EPA's MCLG for fluoride was not protective.  EPA has essentially ignored the NRC 2006 report.  MCLG is still 4 ppm.
 
3)  EPA's Dose Response Analysis (DRA) and Relative Source Contribution Analysis  2010 (RSCA), used the 90th percentile water ingestion.  NRC 2006 p. 379 reports the median water intake is about 1 liter/day.  90th percentile about 2.3 L/day, 99th percentile 4.8 L/day and 100th percentile over 10 L/day.   EPA ignores the 10% of the public which consume the most water.
 
4) EPA does not include infants in their DRA and RSC.   Why are infants, the most vulnerable, ignored by the EPA?  Because those on formula with fluoridated water are way above safe dosages.  There is no excuse, rational, scientific evidence to suggest those massive dosages are safe for infants.  Mother's milk in most samples contains no detectible fluoride.
 
5) Excluding infants, 10% of the population drinking the most water, and proposing to increase the "safe" RfD for fluoride by 33%, still puts a third of children over EPA's "safe" dosage. See Figure 8-1 of EPA RSCA 2010  Yet EPA has failed to lower their MCLG.
 
6)  SDWA: “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. ”   Fluoride does not treat water contamination.
 
7) When an independent judge reviewed fluoride post-harvest fumigant approval by the EPA, the judge ruled against the EPA on all accounts.  (see previous posts for details)
 
8)  In 2013, Steven Neugeboren, Associate General Council, Water Law Office responded to Gerald Steel's question, "Your first question is whether, from the viewpoint of EPA, the purpose of a 1979 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) was "to take away from the FDA , and give to EPA, responsibility for regulating public drinking water additives intended for preventative health care purposes and unrelated to contamination of public drinking water?"  EPA legal counsel responded, "No."  
 
Randy, you are trying to persuade me to trust the EPA to regulate the public drinking water additive fluoride, intended for preventative health care purposes and unrelated to contamination of public drinking water, when the EPA explicitly denies that is their job.
 
Randy, you have failed to persuade me to blindly trust the EPA.  Calling me derogatory names is not persuasive.  Show me the science or direct statements from the EPA that they regulate the dosage, efficacy, and safety of adding fluoride to public water.   However, at one time I did trust the EPA and I don't fault you for thinking the EPA should be trusted. . . because they should, but they cannot be trusted for fluoridation.  Stop trusting the EPA for fluoridation.  That is not their job.
 
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
 

                                                       
 
 
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
643
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
708
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

708 Views
Message 693 of 1,444

This urine study also agrees with previous studies published demonstrating the progressive lowering of IQ as a direct function of progessive increases in fluoride concentration in the blood. At fluoride levels found in blood of consumers of 1 ppm fluoride in water, the IQ reduction is significant compared to those with a lower blood fluoride level in people in non-fluoridated areas.

Unlike the problems that plague dental researchers, where tooth brushing habits and sugar eating habits confound any attempt to interpret small samples studies on fluoride and dental decay, blood fuoride levels and brain IQ are far removed from environmental diffrences taking place in the oral cavity and are thus more clearly interpreted. 

See the Journal of Environmental and Public Health #439490 (2013)  and the upgraded version in Chapter 8 of Top 10 Contrilbutions on Environmental Health (2018).

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
708
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
729
Views

Re: Lets move on to the science - and away from anti-science

729 Views
Message 694 of 1,444

Environmental Health Perspectives in September 2017.

 

This 12-year-long government-funded study showed significant reductions in children’s IQ when their mothers were exposed to fluoride during pregnancy. In this carefully-controlled study of Mexican mother-offspring pairs by American and Canadian researchers, mothers were receiving the same fluoride doses as mothers in the US who live in communities that add fluoride dental treatment to their water.

The results of the 2017 study by Bashash et al. included up to 299 pregnant women and their offspring. Fluoride exposure was determined by measuring fluoride in the urine of the pregnant women because that is a very reliable measure of total fluoride exposure. The researchers found a correlation between the urine fluoride of the pregnant mothers and a loss of up to 6 IQ points in their children when the children were tested at age 4 and again between 6-12 years of age. 

 

The authots state:  "In this study, higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure) that are in the range of levels of exposure in other general population samples of pregnant women as well as nonpregnant adults were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 6–12 y old."

 

The new study found a very large effect. An increase in urine fluoride of 1 mg/L was associated with a drop in IQ of 5 to 6 points. To put this into perspective with the fluoride levels ingested by the Mexican mothers and the levels ingested in fluoridated parts of the USA, the average fluoride intake in the Mexican mothers was about the same as that in women in the USA. It was not substantially higher. The range of fluoride levels in Mexico also corresponded closely to the range found in most of the USA. The higher levels were similar to what is found in areas in the USA with fluoridated water, and the lower levels were similar to what is found in most unfluoridated parts of the USA.

Most of the Mexican women had urine fluoride between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L.

 

Studies have found that adults in the USA have between about 0.6 and 1.5 mg/L, almost exactly the same range. From the low end of that range to the high end is a difference of 1 mg/L which is what caused the 5 to 6 IQ point difference in the children of the study mothers.

 

This new study had fluoride exposures almost the same as what is found in fluoridating countries like the USA.

 

Instead of focusing on the research, fluoridationists focus on the people talking about the research.  

 

Randy, I have answered your questions several times.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
729
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
738
Views

Re: Lets move on to the science - and away from anti-science

738 Views
Message 695 of 1,444

Bill, the WHO reference cited by RossF clearly stated, “The World Health Organization (WHO) World Oral Health report 2003 noted (p2-3) that dental caries can be controlled by the joint action of communities, professionals and individuals aimed at reducing the impact of sugar consumption and emphasizing the beneficial effect of fluorides. …At the 60th World Health Assembly, Member States agreed on an action plan for oral health – Oral health: Action plan for promotion and integrated disease prevention. The resolution calls upon countries that do not have access to optimal levels of fluoride, and have not yet established fluoridation programmes, to consider the development and implementation of such programmes, giving priority to equitable strategies through automatic administration of fluoride (i.e. in drinking water, salt or milk), and to the provision of affordable fluoride toothpaste. ... Population-wide automatic fluoridation measures are effective and are the most equitable ways to prevent dental caries. However, some degree of unsightly enamel fluorosis results when children are exposed to fluoride above optimal concentrations.

 

And, of course, there is the 2015 World Health Organization report, Fluoride and Oral Health I referenced in my previous comment – and these other studies and reviews I have referenced previously, here and here, which clearly support the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure.

 

The fact, which you have completely failed to address, is that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize and support community water fluoridation (CWF) as an effective public health measure to reduce dental decay.  The challenge is balancing the well-known benefits of CWF with the slight, well established, non-health-related, risk of dental fluorosis – most significant dental fluorosis can be traced to swallowing toothpaste, rinses, etc.

 

It is very clear now that you believe the CDC, ADA and AAP and their members actually “don't think for themselves”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, haveseriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, arelemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientistsandNone 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)

 

Q) I am still waiting for an answer to my ongoing question –– Do you apply your description above (of the CDC, ADA and AAP) to the authors of both WHO reports cited – and to all members of the World Health Organization and the 100+ other science and health organizations referenced in previous comments who accept the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective? If not, provide your alternative explanation for why members of all the organizations that accept the current CWF consensus don’t rebel and publically accept the anti-F opinions?

 

Q) I am still waiting for an answer to other ongoing questions –– If you believe you have legitimate evidence that supports your opinions, why do you abandon the practice of working with the majority of relevant experts to adjust the consensus? Why do you (and other anti-science activists) take your ‘adjusted’ interpretation of the available evidence to the public in a manner designed to influence public opinions by creating an illusion of serious, significant disagreement within the science and health communities, sow distrust of the scientific and health communities among members of the public (for example, your comments referenced below) and irresponsibly and disingenuously spread unwarranted fear into the public consciousness by misrepresenting the actual scientific evidence – fear-mongering. 

 

The “two powerful concepts” you just spent several paragraphs describing (while dodging my questions) is another example of bringing discussions that should be taking place among relevant experts in the relevant scientific fields onto the public stage where few readers will be able to understand or care about the “evidence” and accusations against the scientists and health professionals you presented. 

 

Readers will, however, be taking another hit from the arrows of doubt fired by anti-science activists against the very science and health organizations that are trying to protect and improve the health of citizens worldwide using the collective wisdom of real experts who have evaluated the body of evidence and formulated the best, most accurate conclusions possible.

 

The newest “evidence” I have seen presented by FOs does not appear any more conclusive of anything (same significant limitations) than the previous “evidence” trotted out by fluoridation opponents for decades as conclusive “evidence” that “proves” CWF causes cancer, lowered IQ, hives, etc.  However, it is up to the relevant experts to evaluate any new evidence in context with all the other evidence to improve the scientific consensus.

 

Anti-science activists deliberately skip the critical consensus-building part of science because they are aware of the severe limitations of their so-called “evidence”, and they are aware that their only hope of changing public policy is by hijacking the democratic process and scaring the public into forcing the changes they Demand.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
738
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
742
Views

Re: Lets move on to the science - and away from anti-science

742 Views
Message 696 of 1,444

Ross,

 

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

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
742
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
834
Views

CONCLUSION: Too much fluoride exposure. . . stop fluoridation.

834 Views
Message 697 of 1,444

Ross,

 

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

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
834
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
825
Views

Re: Lets move on to the science - and away from anti-science

825 Views
Message 698 of 1,444

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?

 Relevant Conclusions:
—> “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?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
825
Views
Conversationalist
4
Kudos
836
Views

Re: Lets move on to the science - and away from anti-science

836 Views
Message 699 of 1,444

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
836
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
837
Views

Lets move on to the science - and away from anti-science

837 Views
Message 700 of 1,444

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”, haveseriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, arelemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientistsandNone 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.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
837
Views