Do you or your loved ones suspect a scam? Report it now to the AARP Fraud Watch Network.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
999
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

999 Views
Message 411 of 1,248

The only safe concentration of artificial fluoride lacking calcium is zero. This is because many people live 30 years longer than the expected average of 70-75 years. Fluoride accumulation in bone for an extra 30 years is not considered in the EPA allowed daily intakes.

And that is because the, EPA has no ability to monitor fluoridation for lifelong safety or its ineffectiveness on caries. The,EPA is not a dental or a health organization. They are an environmental group.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
999
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
984
Views

Re: B & CA - Can You Answer Simple, Yes or No Questions?

984 Views
Message 412 of 1,248

Dr. Chuck,

 

Further to my question on total fluoride exposure, Erdal et al https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253719/ in 2005 is over the 10 years I suggested, but is of interest.  "A Quantitative Look at Fluorosis, Fluoride Exposure, and Intake in Children Using a Health Risk Assessment Approach"

 

In their Figure 1, and assuming EPA's RfD, Infants are receiving excess fluoride from just water or formula made with fluoridated water.  And children 3-5  yr olds are receiving excess from toothpaste.

 

In the discussion the authors include, "a significant finding of our analysis is that, for both age groups living in nonfluoridated areas, although under the CTE scenario the cumulative intake is within the optimum range (0.06 mg/kg-day for children, 0.08 mg/day for infants), under the RME scenario the cumulative intake estimates are higher (0.21 mg/kg-day for children, 0.11 mg/kg-day for infants), exceeding the optimum range. This raises questions about the continued need for fluoridation in the U.S. municipal water supply to protect against the risk of fluorosis."

 

And I would dispute their assumption that "optimum" range is 0.06 mg/kg-day for children, 0.08 mg/day for infants.   After all, mother's milk has no detectible fluoride in most samples.

 

There is no evidence infants benefit with more fluoride than children or that the developing brain, thyroid, and bones are safe at those dosages.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
984
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
956
Views

Re: B & CA - Can You Answer Simple, Yes or No Questions?

956 Views
Message 413 of 1,248

Dr. Chuck,

 

Thank you for bringing in research with these discussions.  I’m so tired of talking about people and opinions.

 

Randy has asked tabloid convoluted questions which are partly yes and partly no and leave out substantive aspects which end up making no sense.  He would like to divert the discussion away from science and onto people.  

 

Randy assumes everyone who has not called for a cessation of fluoridation has spent hundreds of hours in careful review of the science.  He assumes scientists in other countries not fluoridating are stupid and have no credibility.  His questions make no sense and cannot be accurately answered with yes or no..   Endorsements are of tabloid interest and not science.

 

So lets get back to science.

 

Li's research you referenced seems reasonable and should be considered as one of the streams of evidence.  

 

Question:  Do you know of any research within the last 10 years which indicates all individuals on artificial fluoridated water when all sources of fluoride exposure are included are not ingesting too much fluoride?  

 

When I read the literature, either the issue of excess is not addressed or the evidence confirms there is excess fluoride exposure for at least part of the population.  

 

Too often our minds focus on the "mean" or "median" or "average" or "90th percentile" or "concentration" rather than fully appreciating most are not at the mean and concentration is not dosage.

 

Any primary research you can think of which addresses total exposure of fluoride would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
956
Views
Highlighted
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
948
Views

B & CA - Can You Answer Simple, Yes or No Questions?

948 Views
Message 414 of 1,248

For those just reading these comments, the specific questions below are based on Bill’s and CarryAnne’s previous specific accusations and explanations – in their own words – for why they believe several specific organizations (CDC, ADA, AAP and EPA) accept the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is a safe and effective public health measure.  These organizations are among the 100+ science and health organizations worldwide that all agree CWF is safe and effective.

 

It is obvious to me that they believe those libelous charges and explanations apply to the specific organizations mentioned and all members who don’t accept the opinions of fluoridation opponents (FOs) as valid. 

 

However, I do not wish to use out-of-context quotes, so I have requested confirmation and/or clarifications of their specific accusations many times without success. 

 

Bill and CarryAnne.  I have asked you both numerous very specific questions to clarify understanding of specific anti-fluoridation claims you have made (you can find and read them here).  You have either not answered my questions, or you have re-interpreted and answered your interpretation of my question – then you buried the entire set of questions and un-answers under piles of Gish Gallop nonsense.

 

Both of you have made libelous and completely unsupported claims about why you believe specific organizations and their members continue to support CWF as a safe and effective public health measure, yet you will not answer highly relevant questions related to those claims. 

 

I will try again with some very simple Yes or No questions that are related specifically to your explanations of why virtually all relevant science and health organizations support CWF and only a few outliers hold the opposing opinion.

 

Question 1) Do you accept the fact that over 100 reputable science and health organizations, like the World Health Organization, AMA, AAP, ADA (that represent hundreds of thousands of members worldwide) publically recognize the health benefits of CWF for Preventing Dental Decay?   YES or NO?

https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridat...

 

Question 2a) Do you agree that the only organizations (not governmental or municipal decisions based on political or public opinions) you have been able to list that accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate are roughly 6 alternative health organizations and 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations posted by FOs in these comments, (Bill, 07-09-2018 09:09 PM & CarryAnne, 06-28-2018 07:32 AM)?   YES or NO?   

Question 2b) Do you accept the fact that the FAN Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation, initiated in 2007, had collected about 4,700 signatures worldwide by March, 2015, and by November 2018 a whoppin’ 4,804 signatures had been collected out of the millions of working and retired medical, dental and scientific professionals in the world?  For example:

** 378 dentists worldwide signed the petition – that is less than 0.02% of the 1.8 million practicing dentists in the world.

** 582 physicians signed the petition – that’s less than 0.005% of the 10-15 million practicing physicians in the world.

** 106 pharmacists signed the petition – that’s less than 0.005% of the more than 2 million practicing pharmacists world-wide.

** 860 nurses signed the petition – that’s less than 0.005% of the more than 19 million practicing nurses in the world.

YES or NO? 

 

Question 3a) Do you accept the scientific consensus that exposure to fluoride ions when applied topically in toothpaste, rinses, dental treatments, etc. at recommended levels is effective at reducing the risk of dental decay?   YES or NO? 

Question 3b) Do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of all other water treatment methods (disinfection, pH adjustment, corrosion control and coagulation/flocculation), regardless of how they work, far outweigh the risks – even though they all require the addition of chemicals (many of which are highly toxic poisons) and create other contaminants like disinfectant byproducts (chloroform, trichloromethane, trichloroacetic acid, etc.)?   YES or NO?

 

Information from World Health Organization publications is frequently used out of context by FOs (Ross, 10-26-2018 04:28 AM & Bill, 07-26-2018 12:57 PM).

Question 4a) Do you believe the WHO, which represents 191 countries, is a reputable, trustworthy science-based health organization with the goal of improving and protecting health worldwide?   YES or NO?

Question 4b) Do you agree with the very clear, in context conclusions of the World Health Organization reports on the effectiveness and safety of CWF quoted here?   YES or NO? 

 

I have asked the specific questions below to Bill (most recently 10-30-2018 09:42 AM) and CarryAnne (most recently 10-30-2018 11:23 AM) repeatedly without receiving any answers.  The questions are compiled from their specific accusations against specific science and health agencies quoted in context below.

 

Bill, Question 5a) Is an accurate summary of your explanation for why the CDC, ADA and AAP and their members continue to recognize the benefits and safety of CWF that they all “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”, 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”, YES or NO?
BQ5b) Based on your (10-30-2018 12:49 AM) comment/question, to which I answered NO!; do you actually believe community water fluoridation is the ethical equivalent of the Tuskegee Syphilis study?  YES or NO?
BQ5c) Do you believe your explanation above applies to all science and health organizations in the world (described in Q1 above) that recognize the benefits of CWF and their hundreds of thousands of members who have not rebelled?  YES or NO?
If you believe your description applies only to the CDC, ADA and AAP, what are your specific explanations you believe account for the acceptance of CWF by the other 100+ organizations that support the public health measure?

BQ5d) Do you accept CarryAnne’s description below that explains why she believes science and health organizations support CWF is accurate?   YES or NO?

 

CarryAnne Question 5a) Is an accurate summary of your explanation for why the ADA and EPA and their members continue to recognize the benefits and safety of CWF that they are all “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” willing to , “protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” ?   YES or NO? 

CAQ5b) Based on your (10-22-2018 09:52 AM) Comment, “In my youth, abortion was illegal in the U.S. Then it became legal. It might become illegal again.  Regardless of your opinion on abortion law, it is obvious that laws change. Moreover, laws have remarkably little to do with truth and justice. In that way they are like fluoridation and tooth decay“, do you actually believe scientific conclusions currently supported by virtually all science and health organizations and based on the evaluation of 70 years of scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of CWF are in any way like political decisions or religious beliefs about abortions based entirely on ethical opinions and considerations?   YES or NO?

CAQ5c) Do you believe your explanation above applies to all science and health organizations in the world (Described in Q1 above) that recognize the benefits of CWF and their hundreds of thousands of members who have not rebelled?   YES or NO?

CAQ5d) Do you accept Bill’s description above that explains why he believes science and health organizations support CWF is accurate?   YES or NO?

 

If you believe your accusations don’t adequately, accurately or fully explain why virtually all the major, recognized science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the safety and benefits of CWF (or don’t accept the anti-F opinions) then provide other specific explanations – preferably with evidence that proves your accusations, and not just your personal opinions.

 

I can only think of three reasons why hundreds of thousands of trained and experienced scientists and health professionals would either continue to support CWF or not speak out against the public health measure if the “evidence” presented by anti-science activists was even remotely as damning as they allege. 

  • They do understand and have witnessed the serious health dangers to their patients and fellow citizens and have chosen to ignore them and keep silent for some reason(s). FOs have suggested they have been bribed to keep silent, they are too scared or embarrassed to admit their mistake and simply continue to promote a harmful public health measure, or they are sociopaths who enjoy causing pain and watching people suffer.
  • They have chosen to just blindly follow tradition without bothering to scrutinize and evaluate any of the actual evidence. They completely ignore and dismiss any claims that the evidence actually proves CWF is ineffective and dangerous without bothering to examine the evidence.  Evidence is meaningless to them – they are happy just earning their paychecks.  If their patients and/or fellow citizens are suffering, so what.
  • They are too ignorant to understand the evidence and simply misinterpret it – concluding the body of evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of CWF when it doesn’t.

 

I don’t accept any of those reasons, or any variations anti-science activists choose to employ.  I accept the alternate explanation that the vast majority of scientists and health care professionals have the best interests of their patients and fellow citizens in mind, they use their training and experience to improve the condition of humanity to the best of their collective abilities, they invest the time and effort to investigate serious claims that conflict with the scientific consensus, and in the case of CWF, they have determined that the overall body of evidence continues to support the safety and effectiveness of the public health measure.

 

As noted before, anti-science activists are a relatively small group of outliers who have extremely strong beliefs which prevent them from impartially understanding or evaluating scientific evidence.  Most anti-science activists don’t have scientific training or experience, don’t understand how science works and depend exclusively on the proclamations of an even smaller group of “scientists” whose passionate beliefs give them the right to ignore whatever scientific principles and practices to achieve their goals of promoting their beliefs.

There are three particularly disingenuous practices employed by anti-science activists:

  • The use of malicious, unsupportable slander to cast doubt on mainstream science and health care professionals, organizations and any scientific consensus or conclusions they disagree with.
  • Since anti-science activists have no legitimate scientific evidence to support their outlier beliefs, they don’t work within the scientific community and, instead as noted above, work tirelessly to sow distrust of mainstream scientists and health care professionals into the public consciousness.  Legitimate scientists who disagree with an established consensus, and have legitimate conflicting evidence, work within the relevant scientific communities to change the consensus.
  • Since there is no legitimate evidence sufficient to change the scientific consensus, anti-science activists must try and convince the general public to start a revolt and bring down the evil science and health care empire. They do this by manipulating (and fabricating) the evidence and presenting it to the public using disingenuous fear-mongering techniques to scare the people into accepting their twisted version of reality instead of the version accepted the vast majority of scientists and health care professionals.

 

Length limits prevented including some references, including the actual quotes from Bill and CarryAnne, but they can be found here

.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
948
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
970
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

970 Views
Message 415 of 1,248

 

Dr. Chuck,

 

Thank you for bringing in research with these discussions.  I’m so tired of talking about people and opinions.

 

You suggested we look at Li from my alma mater, good suggestion. 

 

Li reported an increase in “hip” and “all” bone fractures at dosages of fluoride received in the USA. Li's study confirms my claim that many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

Think “dosage” rather than comparing water fluoride concentrations between China and the USA. 

 

 Let me explain further:

  1. Li’s study does add to our understanding of fluoride and bone fractures. The concept does make sense because most fluoride is stored in bones and teeth, although the pineal gland has the highest concentration of fluoride.
  2. Li’s first sentence, “Findings on the risk of bone fractures associated with long‐term fluoride exposure from drinking water have been contradictory” acknowledge the issue of bone fracture is controversial.
  3. What about TOOTH fracture. Comparing 3 studies (not very reliable) the concern is valid. (outside this studies scope and has never been seriously studied)
  4. When looking at “overall” bone fractures, the study found a slight lower risk at 1 ppm fluoride in water, which equates to about half the dosage received in the USA.
  5. The study was done in China in an area where little other fluoride was reported. This is similar demographics to the neurotoxic studies which reported lower IQ with increased fluoride.  If we are going to suggest this study has merit, we should also accept some merit for the brain studies.
  6. Estimating fluoride exposure from water is not as good as measuring urine or serum fluoride concentration or even dental fluorosis, but the data should still be considered.
  7. When applying the China cohorts with the USA, keep in mind estimated dosages rather than measured fluoride concentration in water. USA residents use much more fluoride toothpaste, fluoride medications, fluoride dental products, fluoride post harvest fumigants, fluoride pesticides, etc.  Li’s study is good, just remember that in rough numbers, half the fluoride consumed (study suggests 60-70%) in the USA is from water.  Therefore, we ingest in dosage closer to what the Chinese study cohorts ingest with 1.45-2.19 ppm fluoride in their water.  However, our increased dental fluorosis rates to 60% raise the concern that these estimates are seriously low.  The authors confirm this concern, Thus, it is erroneous to use the community water fluoride level as the sole indicator for longterm fluoride exposure.”
  8. All Bone Fractures. Li’s findings show a significant decrease in all bone fractures at a “sweet” spot of about 3.37 mg F/Day.  At  0.7 ppm in water or 1.62 mg F/Day and all bone fractures increase and increase the dosage above 3.37 mg F/Day and all bone fractures increase.  How does that apply to the USA?  3.37 mg F/Day is what many people get without artificial fluoridation. 
  9. When looking at hip fractures, consumption of fluoride above 1 ppm reported an increase in fractures but lower than 1 ppm did not report increased fractures. Again, comparing with the USA total exposures, to reduce hip fractures in the USA, fluoride ingestion would need to be reduced.   
  10. EPA RfD (Reference Dose sort of their term for safe) is 0.06 mg/kg/day with proposal to increase that to 0.08 mg/kg/day. A 80 kg person should be OK with 5.6 mg of fluoride a day, the same dosage as Li reports an increase risk of bone fracture and all fractures.
  11. Li considered alcohol consumption, smoking and exercise. A highly significant increase in bone fractures takes place with extremely strenuous exercise.  Slight increase with alcohol and being male.  (However, the extremely strenuous exercise may have been more males).
  12. The paper appropriately does not have a “Conclusion” because no “conclusion” can be made from this study, but rather a Discussion section.
  13. Authors agree the number of hip fractures was relatively small and not possible to review all confounding factors.
  14. Self reported fractures.
  15. No serum, urine, bone or dental fluorosis measurements.

The significant value in this study does demonstrate an increase in bone fractures with fluoride exposures for many in the USA on fluoridated water.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
970
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
933
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

933 Views
Message 416 of 1,248

The work of Kumar cited did not conclude that fluorosis causes fewer dental caries. The article merely made the suggestion. Other studies of Kumar also typically report mean differences that are not even outside measurement error so the suggestions have little power. On top of that, these studies on teeth are plagued by the fact that the oral cavity is so directly affected by the environment. There are so many confounding variables as to make such studies nearly meaningless. No one can force children to all eat the same kind and amount of sugary foods or beverages, nor can one control all groups for toothbrushilng time and duration, etc.  It is not possible to put children in cages to control stuch studies.


The facts are obtained from well-controlled animals which indicate that ingesting fluoridated water has no effect whatsoever in decreasing dental caries.  And the massive studies over 30 years time by Teotia and Teotia show that caries iincidence is highest in populations where fluoride is high and calcium in the diet is low; and the large population studies of Ziegelbecker showed no effect on caries when ingesting fluoride in wter even up to 6 ppm natural levels; and the large studies of Yamouyiannis showing no effect in populations at all age groups studied;and the very large NIDR study of CA children showing no difference in caries incidence between fluoridated vs nonfluoridated cities. There are no detectable decreases in dental caries due to ingesting fluoride.  The original correlation by Dean of a small number of cities that suggested this to him turned out to be a false correlation. Correlation does not causation make.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
933
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
907
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

907 Views
Message 417 of 1,248

Richard is absolutely correct! Time will tell the inevitable arthritic pain of those people consuming ‘optimally’ fluoridated water for a full 75 years. I am now 65, lifelong ‘optimal’ fluorided water consumer up to 60 years old. I have veneers on my fluorosed front teeth. A hip replacement in 2013, produced an ashed bone sample at 1500 ppm F. I have much arthritic pain being diagnosed with degenerative hip and spine on xray also with documentation of calcification of interosseous membrane of the forearm (also diagnostic for F poisoning).

 

Richard rightly states water fluoridation programs are better called bone fluoridation and I might add: arthritis enhancement programs.

 

AARP should speak out against fluoride harm continuing to be done to seniors and encouage an investigation including rates of bone fractures and joint failure in water fluoridated vs non fluoridated regions including analysis of fluoride content of bones. 

 

Fluoridation advocates, please provide me with a medical laboratory to send human bone and kidney stone samples for fluoride analysis. Why is this not readily and routinely available to joint failure patients?

 

Susan Kanen

Biochemist

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
907
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
846
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

846 Views
Message 418 of 1,248

The density of bone, that first begins to be fluoridated, is temporarliy increased, yes. But the strength of the bone due to this effect is not increased. That has been amply studied by NIH investigators. The crystal structure that forms is abnormal. And the effect is overshadowed by the decrease in bone strengh as fluoride continues to accumulate during lifelong intake. We have no person in the U.S. yet who has consumed fluoridated water for the average full lifetime of 75 years.

Some individuals experience bone pain at only 1,700 mg/kg fluoride in bone. The NRC has reviewed the work on the effects of fluoride on bone in the more complete context of all other studies that demonstrate no improvement in bone strength due to fluoridation. Some people are known to have stage II skeletal fluorosis at fluoride bone levels expected after lifelong drinking of fluoridated water, especially since other sources of fluoride in bone are also present including toothpaste, foods, beverages made with fluoridated water, etc. .

The longer the fluoride exposures occur, the more flujoride incorporates into bone because it is not a vitamin-like physiologic effect; it is a pathologic effect of the cumulative poison that incrporates into bone that is biochemically not reversible.

As far as dental fluorosis goes, a fluoridation advocate dentist published that all cities that fluoridate have increased incidence of dental fluorosis-- there are no exceptions and not all cases are "mild". And at the same time fluoridation of bone is also occuring of course at this young age.Fluoride's pathologic effect on causing this formation of abnormally thin enamel (enamel hypoplasia) only occurs during teeth development, but bone fluoridation continues to accumulate lilfetime. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
846
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
851
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

851 Views
Message 419 of 1,248
I have not followed the thread re the embarrassment but both of your assertions here are false.

Fluoride exposure from the concentration of water fluoridation decreases the risk of fracture. This is one of the few times that harm of any degree is reliably disproven for community water fluoridation because it has been shown that low fluoride and high fluoride in drinking water are both harmful; the best skeletal health is associated with optimized drinking water fluoride.

see:
J Bone Miner Res. 2001 May;16(5):932-9. Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. Li Y, et al; Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, California 92350, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11341339

The enamel fluorosis which can reasonably be attributed to community water fluoridation is almost all mild and less in degree. Teeth with all degrees of enamel fluorosis have fewer cavities than those without. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, this effect is considered by many to not even be undesirable, much less harmful as you believe.

see:
J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):855-62. The association between enamel fluorosis and dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren. Iida H, Kumar JV. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

Further analysis of the effect of enamel fluorosis and cavities on objective measures quality of life show that cavities severely harm the quality of life yet even severe fluorosis which is never due to community water fluoridation carries no harm to quality of life assessments.

see: J Dent Res. 2014 Oct;93(10):972-9. U Onoriobe, et al

and

Risk of Fluorosis in a Fluoridated Population. David G. Pendrys, The Journal of the American Dental Association 12/01/95 (126)1617-1624 http://jada.ada.org/content/126/12/1617.abstract

C. Haynie, M.D.; FACS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
851
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
820
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

820 Views
Message 420 of 1,248

Ha Ha. Very funny.

Statements of facts are not embarrasing.

And yes people have been harmed drinking fluoridated water. We've already gone over that. Altering the structure of bone is harm. Dental fluorosis is harm.

I think someone else needs some rest, not me.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
820
Views