Reply
Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

 

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

50,518 Views
1449
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

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                        

 

 

 

 

1,700 Views
14
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

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.

0 Kudos
1,693 Views
13
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

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.

1,692 Views
12
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

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

 

1,518 Views
9
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

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.

0 Kudos
1,472 Views
8
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

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)
 
😎  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
 

                                                       
 
 
1,363 Views
6
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

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. 

0 Kudos
1,357 Views
5
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

 Randy,

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."  

 

Do not expect the EPA to regulate or approve the dosage, efficacy or safety of adding fluoride to public water.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

1,397 Views
4
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

Bill, How does your most recent comment answer my very simple Y/N question that I have been trying to get you to answer since mid August.  Since I had previously asked multiple questions which apparently confused you, I thought a single question using your own words would help you formulate a relevant answer.  Apparently not.

 

Whatever conclusion you came up with in your most recent comment about the EPA, FDA and regulations, take it up with the appropriate authorities. 

 

Your comment had absolutely nothing to do with my question which is directed at trying to understand your reasons for absolutely rejecting the scientific conclusion that community water fluoridation is safe and effective (which is accepted by virtually all of the science and health organizations worldwide) and failing to work within the scientific and health communities to convince the actual experts (instead of the public) that your interpretation of the evidence is valid.

 

I'll try asking my question again - if you would like me to clarify any part of the question, just let me know.

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)

0 Kudos
1,391 Views
3
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Randy,

I hope you did not treat your high school students with such loaded questions and expect unreasonable answer.   Your questions are not "Yes" or "No" questions.  

 

Let me turn the question around to you.  .

 

Q. Do you support the US Public Health Service and the US Centers for disease in all of their positions and actions including the Tuskegee Syphilus study https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm on African Americans without their consent, and are you an anti-science person who believes in conspiracies by government agencies harming the public?  Yes or No.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

1,447 Views
2
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Dr. Osmunson, are we clear that you believe community water fluoridation is the ethical equivalent of the Tuskegee Syphilis study?
1,382 Views
0
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

 

 

Bill, No! 

 

I am amazed and astounded that you believe governmental agencies (and apparently the WHO, AMA, ADA, AAP and other science and health organizations) today are following the same unethical, immoral behavior exhibited in the Tuskegee Syphilis study?

 

Now answer my question, modified with your most recent beliefs.

 

Modified 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 and exhibit the morality of those responsible for the Tuskegee Syphilis study.”?

 

For those just reading these comments, the question above is based on Bill’s previous accusations – in his own words.  It is obvious he believes those charges apply to the specific organizations mentioned (and presumably their members).  I am simply asking him if he applies the same explanation to all of the other organizations that publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation and their members who don’t publically support the anti-F opinions as well.  Since Bill made the claims in his own words, if these are “such loaded questions”, then he loaded them.

(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 publicThey 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

1,430 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

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

1,449 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

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

 

1,689 Views
0
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

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?

0 Kudos
1,680 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
1,493 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

"I was conned by a powerful lobby.” - Richard G. Foulkes, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Calgary, AB and former Canadian fluoridationist  (1992)

 

The topic is fluoridation. No one is right about everything and everyone is limited to the information available to them at any given point in time - especially in the beginning of exploration of a topic. Heck, doctors used to recommend smoking and earned money advertising for various cigarette brands. My dad took up smoking because of his doctor's recommendation.

 

Over the decades, more and more well-educated experts looking at both the sum of research and the latest research available to them have determined that yes - fluoridation is a public harm policy that should stop.

 

Fluoridationists depend heavily on denigration & endorsement because fluoridation has been proven ineffective and dangerous. 

TobaccoAdPG.jpg

DentistsDoctors2.jpgDentistsDoctors1.jpgIQf.jpgDentalMentalDamage.jpg

1,158 Views
1
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

CarryAnne,

 

You have made some excellent posts on this thread.  I would like to emphasize your comments on an article in Environmental Health Newshttps://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:

  1. Iodine deficient adults with higher urine levels of fluoride have a greater risk of hypothyroidism
  2. Pregnant women with higher urine fluoride levels give birth to children with higher ADHD rates (funded by NIH)
  3. 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.   

 

1,705 Views
0
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

370 Johy Yiamouyiannis - Aids - HIV doesn't Cause it.JPG

Dr. Sauerheber, Yiamouyiannis wrote a book claiming that a virus was not the cause of AIDS.   Individuals promoting ideas totally opposite to reality as he did disqualify themselves from serious consideration.   A copy of the book cover is attached.  It can still be purchased on Amazon.

0
Kudos
10635
Views
0 Kudos
1,125 Views
3
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
1,465 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
0 Kudos
1,457 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

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

 

1,384 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

The idea that compromised immune system function by systemic fluoride might prevent resistance to AIDS and other infectious,diseases was his opinion. But im not talking about that. Im talking about the,data itself that clearty indicated, no significant effect of fluoridation on tooth decay in all age groups from children to the  elderly.

His,expertise,was in epidemiology as a biochrmust. And the opinion he held btw,was based on the array of enzymes that are inhibited by fluoride at concentrations found in blood of 1 ppm fluoride,water consumers.

His work was confirmed by ziegelbecker and by teotia and teotia and also the study in CA of 39000 pchildten that cost 3.5 million in taxpayer money that found,ingesting fluoride water has no effect on dental decay.

This is also consistent with the biochemistry where fluoride cannot incorporate into enamel but can inhibit enzymes responsible  for removing proteins in the developing stage of enamel formation.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
1,134 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

“I was speaking with a public health dentist on the phone about 10 years ago regarding fluoridation.  He said, ‘we will promote fluoridation until a judge tells us otherwise.’  I asked about scientific evidence.  He responded, 'I don't care about science and I don't care if it is right or wrong, I only care if a judge tells me the policy is wrong.'"- Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2018)

 

“When I tried to raise the issue with the Australian Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and in integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers….” - Dr.  Andrew Harms, BDS, former fluoridation promoter and former President of the South Australian division of the Australian Dental Association (2013)

 

"It is my best judgement, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation is invalid in theory and ineffective in practice as a preventive of dental caries. It is dangerous to the health of consumers.” - Dr John Colquhoun, former chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand (1993)

 

I read everything. I answered all of the fluoride proponents questions multiple times here and elsewhere already. Their goal is to bury science and rational answers in order to discourage new readership of this thread and intimidate the uneducated into silence. 

 

All three ot those quoted above promoted fluoridation until they actually did their homework. John Colquhoun was the leading dental officer for the country of New Zealand. His experience makes fascinating reading.  http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm

 

Honest & intelligent people oppose fluoridation. Just north of us, Parry Sound, Ontario  voted fluoridation out 2:1 this week. Vive le Canada! However, fluoridationists will continue to do what they do motivated by power, prestige and paychecks. 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
1,155 Views
6
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne You claim to have answered my specific questions: (10-20-2018 05:45 PM) & (10-20-2018 01:56 PM) (09-03-2018 10:26 PM), (08-30-2018 04:12 PM), (08-26-2018 05:47 PM) (08-21-2018 09:36 PM). 

 

I have been unable to find those specific answers.  Provide links to those specific answers as I have done below (or simply copy/paste your answers), because unlike fluoridation opponents (FOs) and other anti-science activists I do not wish to quote you out of context or make unjustified, unsupported comments about your claims.  I would like to see your specific answers to my specific numbered questions in your specific words – that way there will be no confusion or misunderstanding.  If you do not understand a specific question I will try and clarify it for you.  Some questions ask essentially the same thing in different ways – again, so there is no confusion about your answers.

 

Q1 – Please clarify your rather broad accusations – do you believe your description of CWF supporters as “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” is descriptive of all CWF supporters &/or those who do not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate or only the ADA, EPA and most dentists? The descriptions can be found in context here: (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) (07-25-2018 11:30 PM)
 If your description is not inclusive of all CWF supporters, describe exactly which of the 100+ organizations and their members fall into which categories and why?


Q 2 – If your description above does not cover all CWF supporters then please explain why there continues to be support by all the major science and health organizations if any of the alleged “evidence” proved that CWF was harmful to health. Why would the majority of scientists, dentists, MDs and other professionals around the world continue to support a public health measure that obviously (according to your claims) caused the type and degree of harm to their patients and fellow citizens you and other FOs allege?


Q 3a – Do you accept that there is a 70+ year scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure? If not, please explain what the scientific consensus regarding CWF is and how it is determined. 
Q 3b – If you don’t accept that there is a scientific consensus regarding fluoridation, please describe exactly what you would replace it with when deciding which mutually contradictory conclusions to believe regarding a complex scientific topic like pro- vs. anti-vaccination positions, for example. 
The only “answer” of yours I could find was on (08-21-2018 01:14 PM) where you stated, “Consensus is a political construct that validates there are no substantial objections.  There  is and has always been substantial scientific objections to fluoridation. Therefore, there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety.”  
That hardly answers my question – if there “is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety” regarding the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation then I ask yet again, how do you explain the FACT that the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF?

Q 4 – Why did you leave out the final two sentences in the US Public Health Service review you quoted on 09-13-2018 03:44 PM  & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM which concluded, “Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations” and completely contradicted the point you were apparently trying to make in your quote.  Unless you can provide another explanation, I will keep in in my list of examples of how anti-science activists deliberately distort evidence to try and scam the public.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf (P 162-163)

 

Q 5a – How do you explain the fact that, if the alleged evidence provided by FOs in these comments (and elsewhere) has been even remotely presented accurately, FOs have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years as evidenced by nearly universal support from the science and health communities?  If you don’t believe there is such support, then provide specific, verifiable evidence that proves the majority of relevant experts actually agree with the anti-F opinions – all I have seen are quotes from some professionals and a list of .

Q 5b – If the evidence against CWF is legitimate, obvious and compelling, explain the fact that only about 6 alternative health organizations, 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (according to lists provided by you and BillO) plus other groups like INFOWARS (Alex Jones) and Natural News (Mike Adams) support the anti-F interpretations of that evidence.

 

Q 6 – If you mean what you said in your (10-22-2018 09:52 AM ) comment, “Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion” then please explain why you and other FOs go to extraordinary lengths to try and change public opinion instead of using what you believe to be legitimate, conclusive, obvious scientific evidence to change the majority consensus of relevant scientists and health care professionals. 

The progress and knowledge gained in every field of science was made possible by challenging a current scientific consensus with new, legitimate evidence with conclusions different from the consensus.  That legitimate evidence, if evaluated and tested by experts and found to be valid, eventually led to changes and advances in all areas of science and health care.  The issue of CWF is no different – there has been no significant change in the consensus in over 70 years because the majority of relevant experts have found no legitimate evidence to abandon it. 

As noted elsewhere, the conclusions of studies that show a possible suggestion of potential correlations between low levels of fluoride ions and some health issue do not evaluate or adequately consider relevant potential confounding factors (other potential reasons that can explain the possible correlation), and they do not provide sufficient evidence to change the expert consensus.  Those study conclusions, however, are sufficient in many cases (particularly when the study limitations are ignored and health effects inflated) to create unwarranted fear and change public perceptions.  Also, studies that confirm the effectiveness of fluoridated toothpaste, rinses and other fluoride treatments do not disprove the effectiveness of CWF as an effective public health measure for reducing the risk of dental decay in communities – particularly in those individuals who may not have access to good dental care.

 

Q 7 – Provide specific links to the comments where you claim I went “on and on about the legality of fluoridation”.

 

Your philosophical/moral bias is evident when you arbitrarily claim (‎08-21-2018 03:40 PM) that “even if fluoride did prevent cavities and did not cause dental fluorosis, fluoridation policy is still immoral medication“, and your statement highlights the importance of personal, non-scientific beliefs to anti-science activists when evaluating and interpreting the evidence.  By your “logic” those who demand that drinking water chlorination be halted because chlorine has been used as an immoral chemical weapon (and creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts which have not been proven by randomized controlled trials to be completely safe) have a legitimate argument.
 
Q 8a – At what point with public health measures do you agree that benefits outweigh the risks, and what criteria do you employ to make your decisions?  Do you use your personal opinions or the consensus of relevant science and health experts??
Q 8b – Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy could be legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral poisoning??

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/chlorine-a-dangerous-addition-to-everyday-life/

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/anti-chlorine-activists-hope-politics-will-trump-science

Q 8c – Do you believe that even if vaccination does help prevent diseases, vaccination policies could be legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral poisoning??

 

There are more specific questions that I would like to have your specific answers on, but this will do for now.

 

Bottom Line:  So far, after over 70 years of effort, you and other FOs have been unsuccessful at changing the scientific consensus.  Your only option then, is to carefully select and “adjust” the evidence so it is successful at scamming the public into fearing fluoridation and demanding fluoridation be halted.  You just stated (10-23-2018 07:34 AM), that “Honest & intelligent people oppose fluoridation.  Parry Sound, Ontario voted fluoridation out 2:1 this week.”  That sounds suspiciously like a change made by public opinion instead of empirical data. 


Unfortunately fear is an extremely strong motivating factor – Honest and intelligent people who are not scientists or health professionals and don’t understand the limitations and suggestions of weak possible correlations the actual empirical data, would have every reason to be scared to death if a group of vocal activists presented exaggerated claims as “scientific evidence” that “proved” CWF lowered IQ, caused cancer, thyroid problems, arthritis, diabetes ADD stained and brittle teeth, etc.

 

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

0 Kudos
1,162 Views
5
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

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

 

 

 

1,214 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

I have also answered most of your questions but you fail to read, or at least fail to respond to the answers.  I understand there is a mountain of info here and I too am unable to devote full time to reading and responding.  Perhaps if you picked one question, we could focus on one, but you would need to respond.  I don't want to simply play intellectual exercises.  I'm too busy.  

 

If you get one question, it is fair that I should have one.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
1,149 Views
3
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

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.

0 Kudos
1,311 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
1,500 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

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

0 Kudos
1,454 Views
0
Report
Reply