Is your 'stuff' stressing you out? TV personality Matt Paxton has tips for downsizing and decluttering in our free, two-part webinar! Register now.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1513
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,513 Views
Message 451 of 1,311

'If you can't explain something in an honest manner on one page, you don't understand it.' - Paraphrasing many scientists 

 

In reaction to Randy's 2,075 word comment in which he redirects readers to both his personal blog and other wordy combative posts he's made on this AARP site, I have two things to say. 

 

  • Fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that benefits corporate players by forcing a contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of harm caused to either the environment or the millions with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid or kidney diseases for whom fluoride is medically contraindicated or to vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, bottle-fed babies and senior citizens for whom fluoride consumption can lead to neurological damage and chronic illness. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1513
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1506
Views

Re: The Scientific Consensus vs. Anti-Science Activists

1,506 Views
Message 452 of 1,311

Randy,

 

I'm beginning to understand more about your position on fluoride.  Tabloid items, not primary research.

 

Please provide one primary research study (US National Library of Medicine is a good example, https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/pmresources.html) and give a short summary of what you like about that research, what rings true to you, what the limitations you find in the research.  Lets talk research, not newspaper editorials and tabloid opinions.

 

Cybernook, Forbes, Science Based Medicine, Skeptical Raptor are tabloids, news, and not science research. 

 

Instead of long cut and paste, simply present ONE study, primary research, which you have read and why you agree with it.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1506
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
1495
Views

Re: The Scientific Consensus vs. Anti-Science Activists

1,495 Views
Message 453 of 1,311

I have never met a single person who is opposed to fluoridation who also supports smoking or opposes sterilization of water supplies. So the accusation that those opposed to fluoridation are "anti science" is simply false. 

I also know of no one opposed to fluoridation who argues that the WHO should not be trusted for health advice on other issues. Since when however is any organizaiton totally immune to any error whatsoever?  Everyone makes mistakes. And the WHO position that supports fluoridation is not accepted by most countries in Europe. Are those countries opposed to science? Of course not. These countires want the truth, like everyone should want the truth.

How long did it take for scientific evidence that smoking is harmful to be accepted? About 60 years, that's how long.  And the scientific method has existed since Isaac Newton in 1665, and yet this is how long it took to finally achieve a scientific conssensus that smoking is harmfl The reason this took so long, as is also true of fluoridation, is that adverse effects from a diluted, chronic, cumulative poison is difficult to prove beyond doubt in humans with scientific investigation.

The WHO, and other health agencies that typically do not do their own direct scientific experimentation and instead rely on others, will take a long time to come to the truth on the issue of fluoridation, but this does not change the truth.   

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
1495
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1375
Views

The Scientific Consensus vs. Anti-Science Activists

1,375 Views
Message 454 of 1,311

Bill, you wrote on (11-07-2018 06:57 PM), “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.” and again on (11-10-2018 03:06 PM), “This time when I posted research, my fluoridationist friends have once again gone silent for a few days.  Something about research is hard for fluoridationists to digest.

 

It is remarkable that you are now a ”psychic mind reader”, presuming to know why I and others have not answered your comments.  Actually, I have been waiting to see if your memory had returned and whether you were willing to admit that I had, in fact, presented evidence that clearly supports the scientific consensus.  However, It appears that your memory is as selective as your remarkable ability to not answer my questions (or to only “answer” your reinterpretations of my questions).

 

I provided links to some of the evidence (several hundred studies and reviews) you and other fluoridation opponents have ignored, and I requested you provide specific evidence of why the studies should be ignored on 10-20-2018 01:56 PM and 10-21-2018 09:44 PM.  I’ll re-reference them along with some other resources I’m working on that will help readers who are attempting to make sense of this carefully staged illusion of a "fluoridation debate" understand the tactics employed by fluoridation opponents and other anti-science activists to scare and scam the public.

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationReferences.htm

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Consensus.html

 

Unlike you and other anti-science activists, who seem to think providing your interpretation of carefully selected evidence in a public discussion forum is somehow proof that your version of reality is correct, my goal is to highlight the importance of the scientific consensus and expose the disingenuous tactics used by anti-science activists to con the public into accepting their outlier interpretation of the few studies they believe support their anti-consensus conclusions. 

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-AntiScienceTactics.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/06/24/what-does-scientific-consensus-mean/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hostility-towards-scientific-consensus-a-red-flag-identifying-a-cra...

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/developing-supporting-scientific-consensus/

 

Thank you for your two recent comments which highlight the critical importance of evidence based health care and the scientific consensus – and not individual interpretations of evidence.  I’m not sure what you are trying to demonstrate by your 11-11-2018 07:20 PM smoking comment except that in this one instance you apparently accept the scientific consensus that the risks of smoking far outweigh any benefits – Congratulations.  

Q1a) Do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of vaccinations far outweigh any risks?  YES or NO?

Q1b) Do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of water disinfection (the addition of poisons to the water and the formation of disinfection byproducts) outweigh the risks?   YES or NO?

 

It is wiser to accept the scientific consensus in all areas of science and evidence based health care than to blindly believe the highly biased opinions of anti-science activists like those who support tobacco use and who deny the benefits of water disinfection, fluoridation, and vaccination outweigh the risks.  All anti-science positions are completely contrary to the scientific consensus.

 

What you have clearly demonstrated in your 11-11-2018 02:11 PM comment (selectively and disingenuously excluding early smallpox treatments and slippin’ in your out-of-context mercury and fluoride references) is that a bunch of very early “medical treatments” (narcotic syrups, heroin, lobotomies, blood letting, tape worm eggs, trepanation & tobacco) were, in fact, debunked by the evolving processes of science.  These were all basically uncontrolled, unregulated experiments initiated long ago, before there existed any supporting scientific consensus; before there were uniform scientific processes in place to rigorously test the safety and effectiveness of any “medical treatment”; before there were effective monitoring and regulatory organizations.  The negative consequences of those “treatments” were, in fact, revealed by the processes of science to be far more harmful to health than beneficial and they were eliminated.  Similarly, the apparent effectiveness of some early non-scientific alternative health practices like homeopathy were revealed by the processes of science to be placebo effects – as are many claims made today by anti-science practitioners.

 

The discovery of vaccination is an excellent example of how a scientific consensus changes based on constantly evolving scientific knowledge.  While Edward Jenner’s experimentation at the turn of the 19th century on smallpox (a horrific killer) prevention would be considered unethical today, his discoveries and the eventual development of the smallpox vaccine has saved countless lives.  Should Jenner be hailed as a savior or condemned as an unethical smear in the history of health care?  By the time Dr. Jonas Salk began working on a polio vaccine in the first half of the 20th the body of scientific knowledge (scientific consensus) surrounding disease-causing organisms and possible treatment methods had evolved significantly – and the knowledge continues to evolve.  Like community water fluoridation (CWF), the scientific consensus is clear that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/scientific-method-vaccine-history

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/salk-announces-polio-vaccine

https://futurism.com/the-evolution-of-medicine-a-history-of-life-and-death

Oh, and as an example how the scientific consensus evolves based on actual evidence, you might want to read:
https://www.webmd.com/heart/news/20040628/leeches-cleared-for-medical-use-by-fda  

 

Unlike your question dodging, I will answer your questions – I believe that all of the so-called scientific evidence you and other anti-science activists have dumped into this comment section have been presented and interpreted completely out of context – of the study itself and of the entire body of evidence as has been pointed out repeatedly.  When the studies are read and understood in their entirety and in context, they (like your most recent deceptive description of historic so-called “medical practices”) do not provide any evidence that proves your opinions that CWF is ineffective or unsafe are true. 

 

Again I ask:

Q1a)  If you believe your interpretation of the evidence is valid, why did you dump 14 comments of what you believe to be fluoride-related “cancer evidence” into the discussion instead of working with cancer experts to change the scientific consensus?   As noted previously, cancer organizations such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Canadian Cancer Society, Ireland National Cancer Control Programme, Australian Cancer Council have not concluded CWF causes cancer?
Q1b)  Do you believe you have more training and experience in the causes of cancer than members of the listed organizations?  YES or NO?
Q1c)  Do you really believe most members of the public ever read your version of “evidence” and/or have the training and experience necessary to understand the entire body of cancer evidence and reach well informed, accurate conclusions?  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).

 

I have specific questions for Bill, CarryAnne, Richard, and other anti-science activists related to just one specific organization which I have asked several times (11-07-2018 11:36 AM, 11-04-2018 02:38 PM, 10-26-2018 11:13 AM) without a reply

 

Q2a)  Do you believe the World Health Organization, which represents 191 countries, is a reputable, trustworthy science-based health organization with the goal of improving and protecting health worldwide?  YES or NO?

 

Q2b)  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? 

 

The 2014 World Health Organization document, Assessment of Renal Fluoride Excretion in Community Prevention Programs for Oral Health was referenced  by RossF 10-26-2018 04:28 AM, in an apparent attempt to try and support some anti-F opinion.  However, if one examines the context of his deliberately misleading comment, one will quickly (in the first 3 paragraphs of the introduction, p6) recognize the disingenuous anti-F tactic of selective extraction.

Fluoride is a natural constituent of all types of human diet and is present, in varying amounts, in drinking water throughout the world. Because of its value in preventing decay (i.e. formation of dental caries), fluoride is increasingly being used for this purpose in several countries. Enamel fluorosis (unsightly mottling of the teeth) is the only untoward effect of the use of fluoride, and the condition is known to occur in regions worldwide wherever drinking water contains high levels of fluoride naturally. ... The goals of community-based public health programmes should be to implement measures that raise the fluoride concentration in as many mouths as possible as often as possible, using the most appropriate method.  Effective methods are water, salt or milk fluoridation either alone or in combination with fluoride-containing toothpaste, all of which make fl uoride available to the population in a manner that does not require cooperative effort or direct action.”

 

As noted 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) 

 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

 

You continue to avoid answering this question: 

Q3a)  Explain why, if there were no scientific consensus that fluoridation was safe and effective (or if there was legitimate evidence to support anti-F opinions) the World Health Organization and virtually all of the major, respected scientific and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits and safety of fluoridation – and their hundreds of thousands of members have not rebelled.

Q3b)  Explain why there are no reputable science or health organizations that accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate.

 

The most disturbing thread running through your long diatribes, and the main point of my comments, is to highlight how you (like other fluoridation opponents and all anti-science activists) try to influence public opinion by your disingenuous misrepresentation of the actual science in an effort to support your strongly held beliefs – yes, that is hacking the democratic process.

 

Democracy depends on an accurately informed public.  Democracy is sevelely compromised by all duplicitous fear-mongering tactics employed by all anti-science activists.  These tactics are carefully designed to scare and scam caring members of the public, who do not have the science and/or health care training and experience to accurately evaluate thousands of complex scientific studies, into distrusting the overwhelming majority of science and health care organizations and their members and blindly accepting the illusion of their carefully constructed anti-science alternative.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1375
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1371
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,371 Views
Message 455 of 1,311

And of course when people are whole body fluoridated with a toxic, calcium-free, fully soluble source for fluoride, then toxic effects occur. Why would anyone expect somehow a total lack of toxicity due to artificial community water fluoridation?  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1371
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1362
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,362 Views
Message 456 of 1,311

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

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1362
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
3
Kudos
1391
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,391 Views
Message 457 of 1,311

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

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

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

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1391
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1466
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,466 Views
Message 458 of 1,311

To my Fluoridation Friends:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Smokers may have less Parkinson's.

Smokers may have less obesity.

Smokers may react better to angioplasty.

Smoking may help the heart drug clopidogrel work better

Smoking reduces bleeding gums.

 

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

 

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

 

when the potential benefit is up to age 8,

other methods of dispensing fluoride are simple and cheaper,

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

freedom of choice is lacking,

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

 

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

 

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

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1466
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1396
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,396 Views
Message 459 of 1,311

CarryAnne,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Bloodletting 

 

Tape worm eggs for diet pills

 

Trepenation for head aches.

 

Tobacco for mitigation of periodontal disease

 

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

 

And the list could go on and on.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1396
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1416
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,416 Views
Message 460 of 1,311

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

 

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

 

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

 

A few studies relevant to bottle-fed babies. 

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Shiboski CH, Gansky SA, Gomez FR, Pollick H. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity among California Preschool Children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 63(1):38-46 · February 2003.  
    • California Head Start study of cavity experience: Ethnicity, diet and habits made a difference but, ”Our analysis (of caries) did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water.” 
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1416
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

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


multiple white question marks with center red question mark