Are you as smart as a high-tech car? Take this quiz and test your knowledge.
Reply
Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
394
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

394 Views
Message 11 of 861

Once again, lets look at the EPA's graph almost a decade old.  Most children ingest too much fluoride during part of their life.  

 

Remember, this graph represents the 90th percentile.  10% of the public is ignored.  Infants are ignored.  No margin of safety is included.  The graph is based on a 33% increase in the so called safe dosage.  And the so called safe dosage of fluoride is the same mean exposure which research is now showing to cause harm to the brain with lower IQ, thyroid, cancer, bone fractures and more.  

 

The percentage of children above the black line are over exposed by the EPA's definition of too much.

 

The best place to reduce over exposure is a cessation of fluoridation.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

EPA graph-page-001.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
394
Views
Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
391
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

391 Views
Message 12 of 861

Dr. Chuck, Dr. Johnson, Randy, and my Fluoridationist Friends,

 

The last time I posted research, my fluoridationist friends went silent for several days.

 

This time when I posted research, my fluoridationist friends have once again gone silent for a few days.

 

Something about research is hard for fluoridationists to digest.  Research does not support the flawed theory of fluoridation.

 

What is your advice when the research and the endorsements are at odds?  Yes, you have suggested to change those endorsing and recommending fluoridation, in other words, those with jurisdiction over fluoridation.   Problem.  No agency recommending fluoridaiton takes responsibility for reviewing the dosage being ingested, the safety along with the possible benefit.    Hard to hold  someone accountable when there is not that "someone" or agency.  They all point to others.  

 

Remember in history, the authorities said the world was flat.  They endorsed a flat world as fact.   With time the evidence became strong that the world was not flat.   Who should a person trust, the facts or the authorities?  Verify, verify, verify.

 

We have many more research studies reporting harm from very low levels of fluoride.  If there were just the two I last posted, we would not have significant grounds for concer.  However, there are hundreds of studies reporting harm, enough to take action and reduce exposure.  

 

Should we blindly follow tradition or improve on tradition based on evidence?

 

Many are ingesting too much fluoride.  Over 60% showing a biomarker of excess fluoride.  It is past time to reduce so much exposure.  What is the best source of exposure to reduce?????

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
391
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
498
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

498 Views
Message 13 of 861

 The reason the FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended to be ingested by pregnant women in the U.S. is because of lack of effectiveness on caries in offspring.

  I argued with a local dentist about this fact when she placed an ad in the public newspaper for women to bring in their newborn infants so that fluoride gel could be applied to their gums.

  I explained that sodium fluoride is a poisonous substance and putting it into the mouth of an infant would cause it to be swallowed since infants cannot be told to spit it out.

  She responded by saying that the fluoride treatments were to "prepare the gum tissue for the upcoming eruption of the teeth," to "get a head start on protecting teeth from caries."

  I forwarded much scientific data demonstrating the LD50 for sodium fluoride orally ingested (only 65 mg/kg) and described in more detail that even fluoride treatment of teeth directly does cause incorporation of fluoride into the enamel matrix but rather forms calcium fluoride globules on teeth surfaces that are later swallowed, among other facts. 

   Eventually the advertisement was pulled from the paper thank God.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
498
Views
Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
500
Views

Re: Fluoride Science

500 Views
Message 14 of 861

Randy,

 

You wrote, "It is remarkable, based on my comments that you can conclude I am not in favor of evidence based science. . . ."

 

You are correct.  Because your questions and comments involve sponsors and endorsements of proponents and I do not remember when you quote science, I find no basis in your postings that you rely on science.   You are correct, your actions speak loudest.  

 

Please, if I am wrong, correct my missunderstanding by commenting on the two research articles I have just posted.  Or post your own research on which you rely for confidence that people are not ingesting too much fluoride, that the dosage they are receiving is beneficial and no risk to the tissues and cells of the body.     

 

If you favor evidence based science, as you suggest, provide the research.  Not advertisments or belief statements, primary research.   

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
500
Views
Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
507
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

507 Views
Message 15 of 861

It appears we 45 published peer reviewed studies on fluoride . . . so far this year, 2018.  And the flood gates of fluoride research are just beginning, almost all reporting harm and little or no benefit. 

 

We are rapidly learning that even small amounts of fluoride cause harm to some or many people.  Although there is much to learn, we know many are ingesting the same amount of fluoride research has shown to be harmful. 

 

Richards et al, should never have started their research of fluoride supplements on pregnant mothers.  We have enough research fluoride ingestion during pregnance crosses the placenta and lowers the infant IQ. 

 

And Richards should understand that very little of the developing dentition is forming during pregnancy.  Fluoride during pregnance does not really have the potential to help the infant's teeth resist caries.   

 

However, the question remains, does fluoride benefit the baby's teeth?  If a person felt their children's teeth are more important than brains, they could ingest fluoride, if there was benefit. 

 

Richards lowered the cohorts' IQ and reported no benefit to teeth. 

 

"Conclusions: There is no evidence that fluoride supplements taken by women during pregnancy are effective in preventing dental caries in their offspring."

 

"Abstract

Data sources: Cochrane Oral Healths Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Medline, Embase, LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library CINAHL US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases.

Study selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including quasi-randomised and cluster-randomize trials of fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) given to women during pregnancy with the aim of preventing caries in the primary teeth of their children were selected.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. No data synthesis was possible.

Results: Only one RCT met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistical difference in decayed or filled primary tooth surfaces (dfs) or % of children with caries at three years or five years. Risk ratio (RR) at three years = 1.46, (95% CI; 0.75 to 2.85) and RR at five years = 0.84, (95% CI; 0.53 to 1.33). At five years the incidence of fluorosis was similar between the groups.

Conclusions: There is no evidence that fluoride supplements taken by women during pregnancy are effective in preventing dental caries in their offspring."

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
507
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
517
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

517 Views
Message 16 of 861

If the posed questions were from a friend I might spend some time answering them. But knowing their source, spending the time will likely be a waste of time.  The very first question has an obvious answer but the questioner will not likely accept the answer.  The answer is yes, healthcare workers are not scientists.  

Does that mean healthcare workers who do not oppose fluoridation are "lemmings?". That's an entirely different question within the question and cannot be answered without knowing the particular health care worker.

The discussion could be endless just on the material buried in the first question.

 

Moving on, the comparison of fluoridation with chlorination is laughable. Chlorine at least works and does its assigned job of killing pathogens in public water systems. The whole body fluoridation of people however doesn't even work. It does not reduce caries incidence (as published in the best and largest human studies we have, not the anecdotal small samples with means that are not outside experimental error, and as found in perfectly controlled caged mammals). Fluoridation does not lower dental caries significantly but does indeed harm bone and increases the incidence of dental enamel hypoplasia in all treated cities without exception. 

And by the way the lowering of IQ that progressively enlarges with increasing blood fluoride concentration is not likely an accidental correlation. For example Mullenix first observed the brain altering effects of fluoride in controlled studies of mammals with blood fluoride concentrations comparable to that in fuoridated humans. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
517
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
486
Views

Re: Fluoride Science

486 Views
Message 17 of 861

Bill, I am still astounded and nauseous that you would equate the Tuskegee study with community water fluoridation (CWF) (11-04-2018 03:57 PM.)  You are absolutely correct - we disagree on almost everything when it comes to the responsible practice of evaluating scientific evidence, drawing conclusions and presenting those conclusions to the public.

 

It is remarkable, based on my comments that you can conclude I am not in favor of evidence based science, but that is another perfect example of your bias blindness

 

As my comments clearly demonstrate to those who actually read and understand them, I am in favor of evidence based science, and I am in favor of consensus based science.  A legitimate scientific consensus can only be based on a careful and unbiased evaluation of all the evidence (evidence based science).  The two are inseparable as any scientist clearly understands. 

 

Where did you say you went to school? 

 

Your statement of 08-19-2018 02:18 AM (link is one page off) is most interesting:  “My mentor reminded me, "50% of what we know in health care is wrong, but we do not know which 50%.  Always be a humble student of science, we are wrong and need to find out where."

 

You should request a refund, because your mentor apparently did not provide effective guidance on how to honestly and impartially evaluate “what we know in health care”, or how to work collectively to formulate a consensus, or how present a considered, accurate representation of the evidence to the public.  According to your anti-science claims, when contrasted with the scientific consensus and the agreement of over 100 national and international science and health organizations (which you ignore), what you now “know” and accept about fluoridation has gone from 50% wrong to more than 95% wrong.

 

You made an interesting claim about me (11-04-2018 10:43 AM ), “He would like to divert the discussion away from science and onto people.”  I am not sure exactly what you mean by that, but it is my understanding that it is people who examine and evaluate the scientific evidence and formulate conclusions.  It is people who must determine who to trust when making decisions based on science or health care conclusions they do not fully understand – people who have relevant training and experience (experts) who have formed conclusions based on a considered evaluation of all the evidence or anti-science activists who selectively present “edited evidence” and employ the tactics I described in my previous (11-06-2018 11:49 AM) comment.

 

The only “evidence” you seem to be in favor of and accept as worthy of consideration, as I mentioned in my previous comment, and as you clearly demonstrate in most of your comments, has been carefully selected, edited, presented and interpreted by youThat is not evidence based science, it is BILL OSMUNSON BASED BIASED anti-Science.

 

For example, the abstract you just presented (11-06-2018 04:23 PM) does not make or confirm any claims of damage to the health of infants, and it concludes, This is an important consideration in fluoride-based prevention programmes, with goals to maximise caries prevention while minimising the risk of dental fluorosis."  That has been the stated goal of scientists and health care providers for over 70 years. 

 

Question 1) Do you believe authors didn’t “think for themselves or review the research” when they wrote that statement and were just “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists”?  YES or NO? 

 

You concluded your previous comment with a typical anti-science activist statement, “With limited knowledge [only 70+ years], we cannot call fluoridation ‘safe”  That, of course, brings up the “elephant in the room questions” I have been repeatedly trying to get you and other anti-science activists to answer. 

 

Question 2) Can you cite any study that has been performed that proves the disinfection byproduct (DBPs) created by adding chlorine, chloramines or any other disinfection method are perfectly safe?  YES or NO?

 

DBPs are found in drinking water and in food. and there is evidence they can cause cancer and other harm when ingested.  Unlike fluoride ions, however, there are absolutely no studies that show they are beneficial to health or “safe” – as used in the context of anti-science activists.  I have read of no random controlled trials on the health effects of DBPs.

 

By your “logic” and your apparent definition of “evidence based science”, 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. 

Question 3a) Do you agree??  YES or NO? 

Question 3b) 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 believe the scientific consensus of relevant science and health experts  or the so-called  “evidence based science” of anti-science activists??  YES or NO? 

Question 3c) Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy could be legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral mass poisoning??   YES or NO? 

They certainly have a right to promote their “evidence based science”, and demand the cessation of disinfection, don’t you agree?

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

https://www.infowars.com/12-toxins-in-your-drinking-water/

https://www.naturalnews.com/025996_water_chemicals_toxic.html

Question 3d) Do you believe that even if vaccination does help prevent diseases, vaccination policies could legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral mass poisoning??  YES or NO? 

 

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” (11-04-2018 10:43 AM), please be a bit more specific. 

 

I believe my questions of (11-04-2018 10:11 AM) and others I have asked are extremely simple and straight forward like those I am asking now.

 

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 never trust a bunch of outlier anti-science activists who denigrate legitimate scientists by labeling them lemmings, puppets, not scientists, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards, sociopaths, etc.

 

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 below?   YES or NO? 

 

As referenced 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

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
486
Views
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
381
Views

Re: Fluoride Lowers IQ

381 Views
Message 18 of 861

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
1
Kudos
381
Views
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
418
Views

Fluoride Science

418 Views
Message 19 of 861

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
1
Kudos
418
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
421
Views

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

421 Views
Message 20 of 861

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
421
Views