Looking for a part-time job? AARP's online career fair Jan. 24 can help! Register for free.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
930
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

930 Views
Message 141 of 996

Thank you for the Canada study. It looks very well done, considering that one cannot place people in cages to control all potential confounding variables. The sampe size was large and the difference between groups were clearly between non-fluoridaed (0.2 ppm fluoride in water average) and fluoridated (0.6 ppm) and the urine fluoride measured reflected these levels accurately.  The elevated TSH due to iodine deficiency plus fluoride exposure was, as stated, very likely an underestimate because those with clinical hypothyroidism (likely most vulnerable to fluoride toxicity) were excluded from the study.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
930
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
2
Kudos
962
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

962 Views
Message 142 of 996

Thank you Dr. Sauerhaber, Dr. Osmunson, and CarryAnne! I agree that these fluoride promoters, who apparently have never done any fluoride research themselves, take the audience as fools. They merely rely on the corrupt opinions of some authoritative bodies only, which have neither done any fluoride research themselves, nor take any responsibility for the harms caused by fluoridation, such as the ADA.

Since there has been multiple recent peer reviewed studies regarding fluoride harms, these fluoride promoters are nothing but science deniers, who think their opinion is somehow more valuable than science. Opinions, let alone lay opinions, do not stand in court, since they are worthless. Science speaks for itself and is not just an opinion, even if an opinion by some brainwashed dentist.

Here is a brand new study from Canada, which clearly shows a causal link between fluoridation and thyroid damage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30316182/

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
962
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1030
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,030 Views
Message 143 of 996

To my Fluoridation Friends:

 

Consider tobacco smoking.   Certainly you would agree smoking tobacco has risks.

 

On the other hand, smoking has benefits.  One must weight the benefits vs risks.  My position, smoking is very bad.  Risks=cancer, death, and more.

 

Like fluoride has benefits/risks, lets look closer at the benefits of tobacco smoking.  

 

Smokers may have fewer knee surgeries, perhaps due to less obesity.

Smokers may have less Parkinson's.

Smokers may have less obesity.

Smokers may react better to angioplasty.

Smoking may help the heart drug clopidogrel work better

Smoking reduces bleeding gums.

 

Most reasonable people would NOT accept the risks of smoking to achieve the possible benefits.  However, I've known dentists who promoted smoking to reduce bleeding gums.

 

Given the vast amount of research on both smoking and fluoride, most reasonable people would not accept additional fluoride with fluoridation for everyone throughout their lives:

 

when the potential benefit is up to age 8,

other methods of dispensing fluoride are simple and cheaper,

60% are showing signs of too much fluoride (an enzymatic reactor),

freedom of choice is lacking,

and the risks of lower IQ, damaged thyroid, fractured hard tissue, damage to mitochondria, etc etc etc are serious.  

 

An unbiased researcher looking at all streams of evidence would never accept fluoridation anymore than forcing tobacco on everyone because tobacco may have some benefit.

 

Fluoridation must be stopped, at least until quality research is provided on safety, efficacy and dosage.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1030
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
958
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

958 Views
Message 144 of 996

CarryAnne,

 

The research you provided is once again supporting the concept that too many are ingesting too much fluoride, especially infants and children.    It does not take a special scientist to understand that if over 60% of our young have dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure, that we must reduce exposure.  

 

Fluoridation is contributing to the 700,000 children with SEVERE dental fluorosis as reported by HHS sponsored NHANES 2011-2012.    

 

Where is the MEASURED evidence that infants and children need fluoride supplementation in their water and that it is effective or safe?     

 

Yes, marketing has produced endorsements but the endorsements are not supported with peer reviewed measured evidence. 

 

Fluoride treatments will soon be relegated to the dust bin of insane medical treatments, such as:  

 

Mercury for the treatment of dental cavities, syphalis, vaccines, etc.  (mercury may have worked, but not safe)

 

Children's soothing syrups great for quieting a baby or child with various forms of narcotics.  (may have worked, but not safe)

 

Bayer's over the counter Heroin for caugh supression.  (may have worked, but not safe)

 

Lobotmies for depression  (may have worked, but not safe)

 

Bloodletting 

 

Tape worm eggs for diet pills

 

Trepenation for head aches.

 

Tobacco for mitigation of periodontal disease

 

Fluoride supplements or fluoridation (may have worked, but not safe)

 

And the list could go on and on.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
958
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
961
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

961 Views
Message 145 of 996

Vulnerable subpopulations who are more susceptible to adverse effects from low dose exposure to 'optimally' fluoridated water include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, the elderly and those with chronic health conditions. 

 

Studies have predicted a majority of bottle-fed babies are fluoride overdosed. The ADA disingenously suggests parents not use tap water every time as if poisoning their babies sometimes is acceptable. The most recent U.S. 2018 study that actually tested indiviudal infants found 37% of infants 0-12 months were overdosed above the presumed safe upper tolerable fluoride limits (UL) and likely are at risk for dental fluorosis, which dentists cavalierly dismiss as 'mostly mild' and only 'cosmetic.'

 

The most recent U.S. 2018 report using government data documented that over half of U.S. teens have dental fluorosis. One in five American teens has moderate to severe dental fluorosis on at least two teeth, which will likely result in costly veneers or crowns. Dental fluorosis is visible evidence of cell death in developing teeth and is associatd with increased incidence of learnig disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease. As an enzyme poison that easily passes the blood brain barrier, has an affinity for bone, and is a known 'burden to kidneys,' fluoride is a biologically plausible cause for all these conditions. 

 

A few studies relevant to bottle-fed babies. 

  1.  Harriehausen CX, Dosani FZ, Chiquet BT, Barratt MS, Quock RL. Fluoride Intake of Infants from Formula. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. October 2018. 
    • American study: “This study aimed to assess fluoride intake in infants from formula reconstituted with water, with fluorosis risk in mind… All infants consumed formula reconstituted with minimally fluoridated water (0.0– 0.3 ppm). 4.4% of infants exceeded the recommended upper limit (UL) of 0.1mg/kg/day. … with optimally fluoridated water (0.7ppm) resulted in 36.8% of infants exceeding the UL. Conclusions: Optimally fluoridated water may increase fluorosis risk for patients younger than six months.”

  2. Zohoori, F., Omid, N., Sanderson, R., Valentine, R., & Maguire, A. (n.d.). Fluoride retention in infants living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas: Effects of weaning. British Journal of Nutrition. November 2018. 
    • UK study of healthy infants 0-12 months. Pre-weaning, the only positive fluoride retention was for formula-fed babies living in fluoridated communities. Study found that although the breast milk of mothers living in fluoridated regions had five times more fluoride, fluoride concentration was still quite low and the breast-fed infants had a negative fluoride balance, i.e. they excreted more than they took in, apparently purging themselves of fluoride absorbed during pregnancy as fluoride crosses the placenta and is stored in fetal tissue.

  3. Rácz R, Földes A, Bori E, et al. No Change in Bicarbonate Transport but Tight-Junction Formation Is Delayed by Fluoride in a Novel Am.... Frontiers in Physiology. 2017; 8: 940. 
    • Laboratory study: “Enamel fluorosis is a developmental disturbance caused by intake of supraoptimal levels of fluoride… We can hypothesize that fluorosis is due to a combination of direct cytotoxic effects causing cell death, the delayed development of tight junctions, which are necessary to form a sealed barrier between apical and basolateral surfaces, and a direct inhibitory effect of fluoride on vectorial calcium and/or bicarbonate transport.”

  4. Cressey P. Dietary fluoride intake for fully formula-fed infants in New Zealand: impact of formula and water fl.... J Public Health Dent. 2010 Fall;70(4):285-91.
    • New Zealand study of bottle-fed babies found, “Infants fully formula-fed on formulae prepared with optimally fluoridated water (0.7-1.0 mg/L) have a high probability of exceeding the UL for fluoride and are at increased risk of dental fluorosis.”

  5. Siew C, Strock S, Ristic H, Kang P,  et al. Assessing a Potential Risk Factor for Enamel Fluorosis: A Preliminary Evaluation of Fluoride Content.... J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140;1228-1236. 
    • American study found “most infants from birth to age 12 months who consume predominantly powdered and liquid concentrate formulas are likely to exceed the upper tolerable fluoride limit if the formula is reconstituted with optimally fluoridated water (0.7 to 1.2 ppm); however, the validity of this upper tolerable limit in protecting against moderate-to-severe fluorosis is uncertain.” 

  6. Shiboski CH, Gansky SA, Gomez FR, Pollick H. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity among California Preschool Children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 63(1):38-46 · February 2003.  
    • California Head Start study of cavity experience: Ethnicity, diet and habits made a difference but, ”Our analysis (of caries) did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water.” 
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
961
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
811
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

811 Views
Message 146 of 996

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
811
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
810
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

810 Views
Message 147 of 996

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
810
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
917
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

917 Views
Message 148 of 996

 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
917
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
920
Views

Re: Fluoride Science

920 Views
Message 149 of 996

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
920
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
926
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

926 Views
Message 150 of 996

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
926
Views