Reply
Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

 

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

15,600 Views
1449
Report
Conversationalist

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

Conversationalist

“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.  

Bronze Conversationalist

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.
Bronze Conversationalist

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


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

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

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

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

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

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

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Susan Kanen

Biochemist

 

 

 

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

And flujoridce ion is not a food. It has no digestible caloric content.

Fluoride is not a vitamin. There is no physiolgoic function or enzyme that fluoride modulates in a reversible dose dependent manner that all vitamins have.

Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient. There is no adverse pathology that develops in any human or animal birthed, developed, and grown lifetime in the complete absence of fluoride. 

Fluoride is not a water purifying agent. Fluoride in water does not kill microbes or decrease any known water contaminant or have any other desirable effect that water is required to have. . .

 

Fluoride is a toxic calcium chelator. Whether it is concentrated enough in the blood to lower the activity of ionized caclium, or whether it is so low a concentration in blood that its main effect is to attach to calcium in bone hydroxyapatite, it associates preferentially with calcium, causing adverse sequelea as a result.

Some claim it is a drug for valid reasons. Others argue it is a contaminant used as though it were a drug but without being an official drug. Who cares?  Its ingestion is useless, harmful, and is not endorsed or officially approved or required in water by the FDA or the EPA. The CDC requests it but knowws full well the SDWA prohibits them from requiring it. Any such Federal or State mandate requiring it is unlawful.   

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

I looked at the facts on salmon in Sacramanto, made a deduction and since that was against a fluoridation belief system I was called "a liar." Carry Ann clarified a post so that it would not be misinterpreted again by someone who wants to misinterpret it, and she is also called "a liar."

Now Dr.Osmunsen who correctly states that the U.S. Pharmacopia lists fluoride if ingested as a drug (since it is not a normal bodily component), and Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics lists fluoride in water as a drug, and the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, and yet he also is called "a liar."

Between us and this criticizer, I know who is trying to pull the wool over readers.

And the Office of Water most certainly wrote that adding chemicals to treat people, rather than the water, as for fluoride, is the resonsibility of the FDA, not the EPA. The joint MOU between the EPA and FDA, that FDA requested to attempt to avoid regulating fluoridation, was dissolved long ago.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, please.

 

"I looked at the facts on salmon in Sacramanto, made a deduction and since that was against a fluoridation belief system I was called "a liar.""

 

No, you were claiming to be making a declarative fact, not a deduction.  You call yourself a scientist and you make outrageous claims with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.  No fluoride levels measured in the river, no fluoride levels measured in the fish, no measurement of fluoride levels in effluent discharge . . you just know it.  Ok, I won't call you a liar, but you're no scientist either.

 

"Carry Ann clarified a post so that it would not be misinterpreted again by someone who wants to misinterpret it, and she is also called "a liar.""

 

Response:  No, I called out "Carrie Anne" because of an error of fact that she had made.  "Carrie Anne" then edited her original post to cover up her original statement and then attacked me for pointing out her error of fact.  That's about as dishonest as it gets.

 

"Now Dr.Osmunsen who correctly states that the U.S. Pharmacopia lists fluoride if ingested as a drug (since it is not a normal bodily component), and Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics lists fluoride in water as a drug, and the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, and yet he also is called "a liar.""

 

Response:  No U.S. Federal Agency calls optimally fluoridated water a "drug" - Period.  No matter how much you twist and squirm and try to spin it, that is the simple fact.  We are talking about water fluoridation here.  Anything else is irrelevant.  

 

Your quote:  "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,"

 

Response:   Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA?  Are you saying this is the FDA's official position?  If so, show me the link.  If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
892 Views
22
Report
Conversationalist

David, 

 

You wrote,  "Your quote:  "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,""

 

You responded, "Response:   Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA?  Are you saying this is the FDA's official position?  If so, show me the link.  If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive".

 

Sorry.  I don't remember giving you a quote from the head of the FDA in 1983.  Other quotes, but I don't remember that one.  My memory is not good, but I don't hide my own Easter eggs. . . yet.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Bronze Conversationalist

billo, your comment:

 

"You wrote,  "Your quote:  "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,""

 

You responded, "Response:   Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA?  Are you saying this is the FDA's official position?  If so, show me the link.  If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive".

 

Sorry.  I don't remember giving you a quote from the head of the FDA in 1983.  Other quotes, but I don't remember that one.  My memory is not good, but I don't hide my own Easter eggs. . . yet."

 

Response:  That was a response to Dr. Sauerheber.  Please look at the top of a comment, to whom it is addressed, if you feel confused.

0 Kudos
758 Views
15
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The insinuaiton is that somehow I'm not only guilty of making false claims but also a liar. I have the letter from the FDA head Edna Lovering in my posession. The reason her claim is important, that fluoride added into water is an "uncontrolled use of a drug" is because of the claim on this site that no Federal agency labels fluoride a drug, as though no one in the FDA or EPA argues that it is.

There are many people in the FDA and the EPA who define the use of toxic industrial fluorides for the treatment of caries as a drug. Just because there is no official announcmenet on their websites does not mean no one has made the statement.  

The insinuation that we have no right to make the statement that fluoride in water can be labeled a drug because there is no evidence for it from Federal agencies is false. The head of the FDA wrote it. But we are not allowed to write it? 

Preposterous.

And again, I don't care if fluoridation is labeled a drug or if it is labeled a toxic substance, or a contaminant, or a mineral used for some perceived benefit to tissue. What matters is that it is not a nutrient and in fact exerts chronic toxicity especially in bone.

No one has rights to make the claim that it is not a drug AND at the same time claim it is not a calcium chelator or a poisonous substance with longterm side effects. It cannot be said to have zero adverse side effects in the entire population who ingests it during their entire lifetime. 

Don't call it a drug, fine. Then call it a poisonous substance because it is a contaminant of the bloodstream, not a physiologic ingredient in normal blood.  You can't have it both ways.

Either state that it is a drug with side effects, or state that it is not a drug and instead is a calcium chelator with side effects. The idea of not calling it a drug so as to claim it is either a food or a nutrient or a vitamin, etc. is false. It is either a taxic contaminant used as a drug, or it is a contaminant used as a mineral for believed effects on teeth.  Either way it is not innocent from side effects though fluoridation promoters claim so.  Again, what are we supposed to tell elderly people who have consumed fluoridated water lifetime when their bones are painful? Lie and claim that fluoridated bone has no ability to cause or exacerbate that?  No way.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard Sauerheber, get some rest.  You are embarrassing yourself.  

0 Kudos
944 Views
13
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Ha Ha. Very funny.

Statements of facts are not embarrasing.

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

I think someone else needs some rest, not me.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

I have not followed the thread re the embarrassment but both of your assertions here are false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

C. Haynie, M.D.; FACS

1,313 Views
11
Report
Conversationalist

 

Dr. Chuck,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 Let me explain further:

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

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

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

1,522 Views
10
Report
Trusted Contributor

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

.

 

0 Kudos
1,501 Views
9
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

 

Trusted Contributor

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…”

0 Kudos
1,862 Views
6
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

 

 

 

Trusted Contributor

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.

 

0 Kudos
1,998 Views
4
Report
Conversationalist

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
 
 
Trusted Contributor

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

0 Kudos
2,089 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

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

Conversationalist

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

 

 

 

Conversationalist

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

 

;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conversationalist

David,

 

You call three people liars.  Stop it.  We are not liars.

 

You sound like Trump, a bully.   Be professional.

 

And you "call out" Carry Anne because she changed her statement.  Well, read your statements.  You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list.

 

Then you change your statement and say "US Federal Agency. . . ."    Look in the mirror David.  You changed your statement.  OK, give others the space to change their statements if need be.  But that does not make anyone a liar.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

billo, your comment:  

 

"Well, read your statements.  You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list."

 

Response:  In the context of this discussion . . you guys are making up stuff about the EPA, the FDA, the CDC, NSF, even the USDPH . . in the context of this discussion, to respond with something like "Japan," is reaching for an answer.  I think you know that.

0 Kudos
784 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

And the next post was EPA legal counsel place responsibility for the addition of fluoride on the FDA.

 

 

 

You were clear, Federal Agency and did not specify USA. 

 

Now, give me one agency which acknowledges they have responsibility for determining the dosage, safety at that dosage and efficacy at that dosage? None exist, so you will remain silent again.

 

You have fun picking other people apart, but refuse to answer which agency accepts jurisdiction.   Remember, you want everyone to be given extra fluoride regardless of their choice, how much they get from other sources, regardless of any government Federal agency accepting responsibility for determining dosage, efficacy and safety.  Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence of safety, dosage, efficacy, not mine (the patient).

 

 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, your comment:  "And the next post was EPA legal counsel place responsibility for the addition of fluoride on the FDA."

 

Response:  I don't know what that means or how it is relevant.

 

Your comment:  "You don't acknowledge when you are wrong.  You have no intent to learn, just argue."

 

Response:  For some reason, you seem to believe you have a monopoly on knowledge.  You are condescending in your remarks.  You refuse to admit the reality that no Federal Agencey (and we know what this means) considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.  You are straining to make an argument against the face of reality.  Please, open your mind and get real.

 

Your comment:  "You were clear, Federal Agency and did not specify USA.  I'm not a mind reader.  Comments were specific and then you made a broad generalizing comment which was blatently wrong, and you know it.:

 

Response:  Dr. Bill, I have, in previous comments used the phrase "U.S. Federal Agency."  That is just a fact, and you are free to re-read my unedited comments to verify that fact.  You are harping on one instance in which I did not include the adjective "U.S."  That is pathetic, in the context of this discussion, in which no foreign entities have been mentioned, you are claiming that you believe the nation of Japan is a Federal Agency and that you are not a mind reader - How could you have known that I didn't mean "Japan" when I requested a Federal Agency that didn't consider optimally fluoridated water a "drug?"  

You accuse me of being "trump-like?"  There is no way, in the context of this discussion, that you could have interpreted my request for an example of a "Federal Agency" as meaning a foreign country.  And now, you are playing the victim who is "not a mind reader."  Pathetic.  Who are you trying to fool?

 

Your comment:  "Now, give me one agency which acknowledges they have responsibility for determining the dosage, safety at that dosage and efficacy at that dosage? None exist, so you will remain silent again."

 

Response:  Sure, I'll give you two.  1.)  The EPA has set the Maximum Contaminant Level for Fluoride in drinking water at 4 parts per million.  If any person were ever to have been harmed because they drank water with 0.7 ppm F (the optimal level - i.e., water fluoridation) the EPA itself would be responsible for that harm.  No question about it.  But there has never been even one authenticated, documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed by drinking water with 0.7 ppm F. 

 

2.)  States.  In my state, The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality oversees and enforces strict guidelines for Community Water Fluoridation.  If a local municipality were to "overdose" its citizens with fluoride, a few things would happen.  First, the MDEQ would have to be notified . . It then would oversee proceedures for informing citizens and flushing water mains.  It would be illegal, per the SDWA, for citizens not to be notified.  This is in the SDWA.  Don't you know that?  

 

If any person was harmed, that municipality would be liable.  If negligence was found to be the cause, the guilty party would be held accountable.

 

Do you imagine this is just a Helter Skelter setup with no one in charge?  Because that's the picture you're trying to paint.  That's why I say you are "deceptive," to say the least.

 

Your quote:  "Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence of safety, dosage, efficacy, not mine (the patient)"

Response:  Your comment implies that optimally fluoridated water is a "drug."  That's what you're saying.  You are being deceptive.  In fact you are lying.  In the United States of America, where this discussion is taking place, optimally fluoridated water is not considered a "drug," a "medicine" or anything that would prompt you to claim to be a "patient."  There is no reason for you to call yourself a "patient" because you drink optimally fluoridated water, other than your ambition to generate paranoia about safe tap water.  

 

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

 

0 Kudos
931 Views
0
Report