AARP and the photographers of Magnum Photos look at older people living in new ways around the world in A New Age.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1503
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,503 Views
Message 511 of 1,364

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
2
Kudos
1503
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1430
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,430 Views
Message 512 of 1,364

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
3
Kudos
1430
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1452
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,452 Views
Message 513 of 1,364

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
4
Kudos
1452
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1319
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,319 Views
Message 514 of 1,364

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
3
Kudos
1319
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1324
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,324 Views
Message 515 of 1,364

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
3
Kudos
1324
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1430
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,430 Views
Message 516 of 1,364

 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
4
Kudos
1430
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1481
Views

Re: Fluoride Science

1,481 Views
Message 517 of 1,364

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
3
Kudos
1481
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1480
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,480 Views
Message 518 of 1,364

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
3
Kudos
1480
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
1480
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,480 Views
Message 519 of 1,364

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
5
Kudos
1480
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1442
Views

Re: Fluoride Science

1,442 Views
Message 520 of 1,364

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
1442
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark