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

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1371
Views

Re: Fluoride Lowers IQ

1,371 Views
Message 601 of 1,444

Dr. Chuck, Dr. Johnson, Randy, et al,

 

Dental fluorosis and lower IQ appear to be related as is urine fluoride concentration and lower IQ, especially for the high IQ individuals. (Other studies evaluated low IQ). 

 

Fluoride lowers IQ and there does not appear to be a lower threshold for either dental fluorosis or urine fluoride concentration. 

 

Concensus of scientific studies, both human and animal, appears to be that excess fluoride causes brain damage.  Of the 60 human studies on fluoride and the brain, 53 report harm.   Naturally, "excess" has not been determined, is patient specific, includes age, amount of water consumed, other sources of fluoride, synergistic chemicals and health of the patient.  One size does not fit all.  Mean is not protective of all. 

 

 

Consider one of those studies by Yu et al.

Yu X, Chen J, Li Y, Liu H, et al. (2018). Threshold effects of moderately excessive fluoride exposure on children’s health: A potential association between dental fluorosis and loss of excellent intelligence. Environment International, Jun 2; 118:116-124.

 

Location of Study:  In endemic and non-endemic fluorosis areas in Tianjin, China.

 

Age of Subjects:  7 to 13 years

 

Size of Study:  2,886 resident children

 

Source of Fluoride: Drinking water

 

Water Fluoride Level: The water fluoride concentration ranged from 0.20 mg/L to 1.00 mg/L, with a mean value of 0.50 ± 0.27 mg/L in the normal fluoride exposure group, and from 1.10 mg/L to 3.90 mg/L, with a mean value of 2.00 ± 0.75 mg/L in the high-fluoride exposure group (Table 1).

 

Type of IQ Test:  We examined the dose-response effects of low-to-moderate fluoride exposure on dental fluorosis (DF) and intelligence quotient (IQ), and evaluated the potential relationships between DF grades and intelligence levels using piecewise linear regression and multiple logistic regression, respectively.IQ scores were measured using the second edition of Combined Raven’s Test–The Rural in China (CRT-RC2) (Liu et al., 2009) for children aged 7 to 13 years. The CRT-RC2 is a validated test for basic cognitive abilities, and has been widely adopted in China after modifications, as it is non-verbal and less affected by language, and cultural and ethnic differences (Sun et al., 2015).Dean’s fluorosis index (WHO criteria) (Molina-Frechero et al., 2015) was used to estimate the prevalence and severity of DF. Each participant was examined by two qualified and independent experts, who had rich experience on examination of dental fluorosis… The final diagnosis was made only when judgments from the two experts were in agreement; if not, a third expert would join in and offer suggestion. For repeatability, 10% of participants were double checked and the Kappa value was 0.82.

 

Results: The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of DF were 2.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.02 to 2.48) for every 0.1 mg/L increment in the water fluoride concentration in the range of 0.80 to 1.50 mg/L, and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.32 to 2.93) for every 0.5 mg/L increment in the urinary fluoride level up to 1.80 mg/L. Every 0.5 mg/L increment in the water fluoride level was associated with a reduction of 4.29 in the IQ score (95% CI: -8.09 to -0.48) in the range of 3.40 to 3.90 mg/L, and a decreased probability of developing excellent intelligence (IQ ?130, OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.77) in the range of 0.20-1.40 mg/L, respectively. Every 0.5 mg/L increment in the urinary fluoride level was related to a decrease of 2.67 in the IQ scores (95% CI: -4.67 to -0.68) between 1.60 mg/L to 2.50 mg/L. Excellent intelligence decreased by 51% in children with higher urinary fluoride, and by 30% with each degree increment of DF.

 

Conclusions:In conclusion, chronic exposure to excessive fluoride, even at a moderate level, was inversely associated with children’s dental health and intelligence scores, especially excellent intelligence performance, with threshold and saturation effects observed in the dose-response relationships. Additionally, DF severity is positively associated with the loss of high intelligence, and may be useful for the identification of individuals with the loss of excellent intelligence. Thus, it is important to monitor water quality, and supply fluoride-free drinking water to safeguard children’s health.

 

(Emphasis added.)

 

Ethically, the promotion of adding fluoride to public water must stop.  We are frying our children's brains.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1371
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1405
Views

Fluoride Science

1,405 Views
Message 602 of 1,444

Randy,

 

I am in favor of evidence based science.  You are in favor of consensus based science, as long as the consensus agrees with your opinion (leave out the Europeans, etc). 

 

We disagree and I'll leave it there.  

 

A new study came out which is worth considering.  Again, many are ingesting too much fluoride.

British Journal of Nutrition   Fluoride retention in infants living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas: effects of weaning    Zohoori, et al.   Published online: 05 November 2018

 
"Abstract
Limited knowledge is available on total fluoride exposure, excretion and retention in infants, despite the first year of human life being the critical period for dental development and risk of dental fluorosis. This study investigated total daily fluoride intake (TDFI), excretion (TDFE) and retention (TDFR) in infants living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated water areas at pre- and post-weaning stages of development. Healthy infants, aged 0–12 months, were recruited and their TDFI (mg/kg body weight (BW) per d), from diet and toothpaste ingestion, was assessed over a 3-d period using a dietary diary and tooth-brushing questionnaire. TDFE (mg/kg BW per d) was estimated by collecting 48-h urine and faeces. TDFR (mg/kg BW per d) was estimated by subtracting TDFE from TDFI. A total of forty-seven infants completed the study: sixteen at pre-weaning and thirty-one at post-weaning stages, with a mean age of 3·4 and 10·0 months, respectively. TDFI was lower in the non-fluoridated area (P<0·001) and at the pre-weaning stage (P=0·002) but higher in formula-fed infants (P<0·001). TDFE was mainly affected by type of feeding, with higher excretion in formula-fed infants (P<0·001). TDFR was lower in the non-fluoridated area (P<0·001) and at the pre-weaning stage (P<0·001) but higher in formula-fed infants (P=0·001)In conclusion, a relatively large proportion of fluoride intake is retained in the body in weaned infants. This is an important consideration in fluoride-based prevention programmes, with goals to maximise caries prevention while minimising the risk of dental fluorosis."  Emphasis added.
 
This research is consistent with other studies and appears reasonable.  The authors do not go into the elephant in the room questions.   
 
What is the optimal fluoride urine fluoride concentration for infants to prevent caries later in life?  I have not seen studies on the question.
 
What urine fluoride concentration is too high for infants and shows harm to brain, thyroid, teeth, bones, etc. later in life?  No studies here either.
 
Fluoridation may appear safe if questions are not answered and answers are not required.
 
The authors report, "Limited knowledge is available on total fluoride exposure, excretion and retention in infants, despite the first year of human life being the critical period for dental development and risk of dental fluorosis."
 
With limited knowledge, we cannot call fluoridation "safe."
 
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
 
 
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1405
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1398
Views

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

1,398 Views
Message 603 of 1,444

In response to your 11-04-2018 03:57 PM mostly non-answers to my specific questions 11-04-2018 10:11 AM & 11-04-2018 02:38 PM.

 

Bill – You really don’t get it, do you?

 

I would recommend you pay attention to what you should have learned in your basic science courses – not to mention graduate courses.  Of course you “don’t have time to get into it”, you are too busy trying to push your interpretation of evidence onto the general public and scare them into distrusting all major science and health organizations and fearing community water fluoridation (CWF) ––  a safe and effective public health measure.

 

You claim to be a scientist trained in public health and yet you violate every principle that makes the processes of science work by employing these tactics:

  • You completely ignore the scientific consensus because of your strongly held beliefs.
  • You claim to have legitimate scientific evidence to support your beliefs, yet you don’t work with other scientists and use that evidence to change the consensus. The reason you don’t work within the relevant scientific communities is because your “evidence” does not support your beliefs.
  • Since your “evidence” does not convince the relevant experts to change the scientific consensus, you take your battle to the public with the knowledge that most will not understand the science, but many will respond to deceit and fear.
  • You blur the border between ethics and science to set up false moral arguments – for example, dismissing fluoridation because you believe it is an unsanctioned form of mass medication. That is not science – that is not even a supportable belief – yet it fuels the chaos you promote.
  • You make public, libelous claims against the scientists and health care professionals who disagree with you, sowing confusion and encouraging public distrust of the scientific processes and the science and health communities, as evidenced by your most recent comment (11-04-2018 03:57 PM) I address below and many others I have referenced.
  • You cite inconclusive studies and deliberately distort conclusions of legitimate scientific evidence – as demonstrated repeatedly – before spinning it out to the public.
  • You utilize fear-mongering techniques to try and change public opinion and spread discord.
  • You manipulate your followers, who don’t fully understand the complexities of science, to Trust in You, Only You, and not the overwhelming majority of other scientists and health care providers who don’t accept your interpretation of current scientific evidence.
  • You utilize Gish Gallop to create questions that require textbooks worth of explanations to answer and dump piles of meaningless content into the discussion (like your 14 comments of so-called “cancer evidence”) to bury any rational dialog and the fact that you fail to answer specific questions.
  • You focus all attention on mistakes made by scientists and health care providers (to create distrust), and you seem not to realize that it is precisely the processes of recognizing and correcting mistakes and integrating legitimate, new scientific evidence into the consensus that is the foundation of how knowledge in all scientific fields progresses.

 

You claim that none of the 100 organizations or their members that support CWF can be trusted.  You state “They support fluoridation for various reasons, but not current scientific facts.”  None have done primary research, none are qualified to interpret the primary research, none have skin in the game, none have done careful scientific evaluation of artificial fluoridation, all employ faith rather than science to reach conclusions.

 

Is that the “science” you learned in graduate school?  It is my opinion and experience that those are the deplorable tactics of anti-science activists, not legitimate scientists.  

 

Legitimate scientists and health care professionals don’t employ the tactics outlined above in their efforts to educate the public on the benefits and risks of science-based conclusions – in any area of science or health care.  Consequently, they are at a serious disadvantage when forced to confront and counter fear-inducing claims based on whatever presentation of the “evidence” will grab people’s attention and scare them into accepting the claims.

 

I remembered your story (10-23-2018 03:00 PM), “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.”, and I realized where you had probably learned your Tactics Of Persuasion.

 

In that same comment you stated, “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.”  That is a most ironic admission. 

 

Most members of the public who have not spent their lives studying and working in science and/or health care fields are effectively blind when it comes to accurately understanding and interpreting the complexities of an entire body of scientific evidence (no disrespect intended).  They must, to varying degrees, trust, believe in and accept the interpretations of the evidence as presented by a trusted authority. 

 

Most legitimate scientists and science-based health care providers exchange and discuss the mountains of evidence relatively quietly, informing politicians, regulatory bodies, the public etc. of their conclusions and evidence-based suggestions as required.  They, often mistakenly, assume their authority will be accepted and trusted by those affected by their conclusions because of their relevant training and experience – which is not shared by most of those receiving their conclusions and recommendations. 

 

Anti-science activists take advantage of the complexity of the scientific evidence, the processes of science and the fact that legitimate scientists don’t employ the tactics outlined above to scare and scam the unwitting public into accepting them as legitimate Authorities.  

 

Bill, those members of the public you successfully convince to accept your opinions will NOT have become “EVIDENCED BASED”, they will have become “BILL OSMUNSON BIAS BASED” by blindly following your dogmatic proclamation of Your Truth.

 

I know those facts are true all too well.  It took until I was in graduate school to understand enough about science for me to finally shatter the protective armor around extremely strongly held beliefs I had considered “science-based”.  I knew for years my beliefs conflicted with the scientific consensus but vigorously defended those beliefs and disparaged my undergraduate science mentors.  After several decades of study and soul-searching, I finally realized my beliefs were actually completely anti-science dogma.  Turns out I had blindly followed a Trusted Authority that used many of the tactics above to misrepresent the actual scientific evidence.  Personal, deep-rooted beliefs are extremely powerful and can cause severe focused blindness even in scientists, but particularly in non-scientists, no matter how intelligent, caring, and honest they are.

 

I would have expected your experiences to have immunized you against cults of all kinds, but here you are decades later, one of the leaders of a group of anti-science activists, using the same tactics you probably experienced in your youth, trying hard to convince the public to Trust in You, Only You and not those pesky “lemmings, followers, not scientists” who pretend to be scientists and health care providers and pretend to care for your well-being, but really, “They do not protect the public ” and they “don't think for themselves or review the research”.

 

Despite the fact that fluoridation opponents in these comment sections have tried to not answer any questions and bury examples of their disingenuous tactics under more irrelevant comments, it is fairly easy to go back and read explanations of the scientific support of CWF and examples of how the anti-science activists have distorted it.  These are science promoters and educators who recognize and try to expose the tactics of anti-science activists and their distortions of science.

David F, Chuck Haynie, MD, Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS, Randy Johnson, MS, Joe Mullen, BDS,  Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

I wrote more regarding your most recent non-answer to my questions, but the comment above will do for now.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1398
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1432
Views

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

1,432 Views
Message 604 of 1,444

Randy,

 

You really don't get it, do you.  I would recommend some basic science courses and I don't have time to get into it, but let me use an example.

 

Would you agree, 2+2=4????   A simple math equation.  That is math, not people.   Do we need to ask 100 reputable scientific organizations their opinion?  Or are we as individuals smart enough and have enough background to confirm the equation and at least answer?   Yes, in my experience.   And if you provided all the reputable scientific organizations in the world which said 2+2=3, then I would question those organizations.  Neither these organizations nor Trump has the final word on "truth" for me.

 

You have a mind, use it.  Science is (should be) factual, empirical, evidence based.  Yes, some science is memorization of names and the language of science and thought process of science, but those are the tools and language which help us communicate scientific concepts.

 

Science is not faith or belief based.  Science is facts and when there are no facts we need to admit the lack of facts.  Science is not defined by concensus.

 

Science is not a democracy nor dictatorship, science is facts, data, numbers, math.  Good scientists, if given the same set of facts, should come to similar conclusions.  If the facts are cherry picked and biased, there will be greater scientific controversy.

 

If science were based on a vote, the world would still be declaired flat.  Instead a few individuals spoke out against the majority and said the world was not flat.  Neither the majority nor tradition are always reliable. 

 

Science is not settled and not unanimous and should always be questioned and "never "(not a scientific word) carved in stone.  Remember, 50% of what we scientists know to be "true" is actually false.  Our job and challenge is to discover which 50%.  Sometimes a theory can be partly true and with research improved.

 

So lets look at one of your questions of which I have repeatedly answered and you have failed to understand.

 

You asked,

  1. "Yes, over 100 reputable science and health organizations support community water fluoridation (CWF)."

The knee jerk reaction is, " yes, maybe, sort of, in a crude non-scienetific sort of way and who cares?"  They support fluoridation for various reasons, but not current scientific facts.  None.  None have skin in the game.  None will individually place their professional license on the line.  They do not provide quality supporting research for their faith based marketing endorsement because no such research exists.  Pick five (not ADA AMA CDC PHS) of the 100 and lets look at it closely at the primary research which supports their position.   Each relies on others.  Even the ADA, AMA, CDC, PHS, SG, and EPA rely and reference each other and not primary research.

 

And Randy, what about the fact that most developed countries do not add fluoride to their water?????  Fewer than half the developed countries in the world, most of them English speaking, promote and support artificial fluoridation.

 

If you are going to have a faith based health care practice, who are you going to trust, the few countries supporting fluoridation or the majority who do not?  But neither the minority nor the majority are scientific evidence.  

 

You mistakenly assume these organizations have done careful scientific evaluation of artificial fluoridation.  Well, I had the exact same trust as you for years and I promoted fluoridation, fluoride supplements, fluoride topical, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride pesticides, fluoride post-harvest fumigants, fluoride etc. etc.  I was wrong for trusting.  I felt, certainly these reputable scientific and health organizations could not all be wrong.  Then I read both sides of the science for myself and asked basic scientific questions which these organizations do not answer and cannot answer.   For example, what government agency accepts jurisdiction for determining dosage, safety, and benefit?  Where do they list the safety studies for fluoride exposure?  Is 60% of children with dental fluorosis too much?

 

Randy.  Once again, remember, my Masters Degree is in Public Health.  I am one of them.  And in my courses, which they still teach, they are firm and clear that we Public Health Officials are NOT to question the policy and science policy.   That is not our job.  We are to educate and ensure the public follows policy.  Our job as public health experts is marketing, not science evaluation.

 

We must ask, "who evaluates the science policy and practice?"    Good question.  In many cases corrections do not come out until the courts or media wind up the public.  Tradition takes generations to change.

 

For example, we have known for decades that tobacco use was harmful and second hand smoke harmful, and other countries limited public use of tobacco long before the USA.  We in the USA are sometimes very slow to protect the public.

 

You asked if I felt the Tuskegee study and Fluoridation study are comparable.  Yes, indeed, there are some comparisons and some not.  Lets compare.  

 

Tuskegee study had about 400 African Americans.  

Fluoridation has about 220,000,000 African Americans and mostly other races.

 

Tuskegee study had individual consent, but not informed consent.

Fluoridation does not have individual consent.

 

Researchers lied to the cohorts in both studies.

 

Tuskegee study was started by the US Public Health Service/SG about 1932.

Fluoridation study was started by the US Public Health Service/SG about 13 years later.  Same mind set.  

 

"The strategies used to recruit and retain participants were quite similar to those being advocated for HIV/AIDS prevention programs today."https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.81.11.1498

The strategies used to recruit and retain participants were quite similar to those being advocated for fluoridation. (Help the disadvantaged)

 

Tuskegee study did not continue to evaluate the research nor stop the study when the research no longer had value.

Fluoridation study has continued dispite research showing excess exposure and harm to teeth, bones, brains, thyroid, enzymatic systems, mitochondria and all tissues and lack of benefit to teeth.

 

The intent of the Tuskegee study was in part to learn about the risks of syphalis.

The intent of fluoridation is the mitigation of dental caries.

 

The USA taxpayers are still paying for damage to the families of those sharecroppers, at least a generation later.

The USA taxpayers will pay for the damage of excess fluoride (based on the animal study I read a few years ago) for at least one generation after fluoridation stops.  

 

The similarities turn my stomach.  We in dentistry and public health must have better scientific ethics.

 

So the answer to your question is an incomplete yes.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1432
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1413
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,413 Views
Message 605 of 1,444

“Dental dogma and authoritative pronouncements aside, fluoride is not a nutrient of any kind - essential, non-essential or micronutrient. Consumption does not provide any dental benefit, and there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency. Fluoride is best characterized as a poison that is used as a drug in a misguided attempt to prevent cavities.” - prologue to “Open Letter to Nutritionists About the Fluoride Deception” published October 26, 2018 by GreenMedInfo LLC 

 

Fluoride trolls who overwhelm social media with confusing rhetoric are experts in just one thing - deception. On the other hand: 

 

  1. Scientists are increasingly speaking out against fluoridation based on scientific evidence of harm. Here and here and here.
  2. Legal experts and ethicists have found fluoridation policy to be an infringement of constitutional rights and violation of human dignity, although U.S. courts have upheld the legality of fluoridation policy based on ‘police powers’ using ‘rational basis’ examination. 
  3. About 30 seniors on the AARP forum have testified to the personal harm caused them by fluoridation policy. 

What is most in short supply is organizational integrity. AARP, based on emerging science, evolving medical opinion and personal testimony, it is time for you to do your due diligence and draft a resolution opposing fluoridation policy as an immoral medical mandate that compromises the health of millions of your constituents.  

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1413
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1342
Views

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

1,342 Views
Message 606 of 1,444

Bill – It didn’t take long for you to not-answer my Y/N questions and provide yet another set of weaves and dodges to escape having to answer what are not at all convoluted questions and can easily be answered Yes or No. 

 

For example, I have no problem answering my extremely straightforward questions:

  1. Yes, over 100 reputable science and health organizations support community water fluoridation (CWF).
  2. Yes and Yes
    • Yes – the only organizations (not governmental decisions) I have seen you or CarryAnne list are about 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 – I got the numbers from the FAN website today, and although the number of practicing dentists, MDs, pharmacists and nurses in the world might be off a bit, that will not change the miniscule percentage of professionals who publically accept the position of anti-science activists.
  3. Yes and Yes
    • Yes – I accept the scientific consensus that exposure to fluoride ions when applied topically reduce the risk of dental decay
    • Yes – I accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of all non-fluoridation water treatment processes far outweigh any known or suspected risks. I also accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of CWF far outweigh any known or suspected risks.
  4. Yes and Yes
    • Yes – I 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 – I agree with the very clear, in context conclusions of the World Health Organization reports on the effectiveness and safety of CWF referenced below.
  5. Yes – From everything I have read, I believe my summary of your explanations for why specific science and health organizations publically support CWF is accurate and you would happily apply them to all science and health organizations in the world – If you disagree, please feel free to explain.  Your specific comments are referenced below.

 

Your turn.

 

If you believe I have provided “tabloid convoluted questions which are partly yes and partly no and leave out substantive aspects which end up making no sense”, please be a bit more specific.

 

If you believe I “would like to divert the discussion away from science and onto people” then please explain who it is that evaluates the scientific evidence.  Last time I checked it was people. 

 

If I were to depend on an accurate evaluation of the evidence, the people I would trust would be the scientists and health professionals represented by the 100+ organizations that support CWF as a safe and effective public health measure.  I would not trust a bunch of outlier anti-science activists or members of the public, most of whom don’t have relevant science or health care training and who have been scammed into accepting the anti-science propaganda by deceptive and disingenuous tactics like misrepresentation of the evidence and fear-mongering.

 

As referenced many times previously, the World Health Organization 2016 report, Fluoride and Oral Health, concluded, in part,
~> “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)

https://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf?ua=1

 

A 2016 editorial by Petersen and Ogawa in Community Dental Health, described the 2016 WHO study and stated,

~> “The use of fluoride for population based prevention of dental caries has been endorsed officially by WHO since the late 1960s.”, and concluded, “Based on the modern conception of evidence for public health the report emphasizes the effectiveness and appropriateness of different fluoride administration forms in communities and specifies the practical impact of implementation of combined administration of fluoride.”
http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/2016_prevention_dental_caries_through_use_fluoride.pdf

 

Bill’s specific explanations:  I have made every attempt to quote them accurately and in context, and I have previously requested clarification if I missed something – and received no reply.

(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

 

CarryAnne’s specific explanations:  I have made every attempt to quote them accurately and in context, and I have previously requested clarification if I missed something – and received no reply.

 (08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

(08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [big bucks earned from treating dental fluorosis].  Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks

 (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates

(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.”  Provide specific evidence of your claim these professionals are “cowards”. 
You provided a link to a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics.  The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water fluoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition, “In closing, given the fluoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontarioand other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be filed, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientific integrity and professional ethics. We suggest the ATA speak for themselves…”

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1342
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1167
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,167 Views
Message 607 of 1,444

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
1167
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1132
Views

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

1,132 Views
Message 608 of 1,444

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
1132
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1104
Views

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

1,104 Views
Message 609 of 1,444

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
1104
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1099
Views

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

1,099 Views
Message 610 of 1,444

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
1099
Views