Take the AARP Smart Driver course and you could save on auto insurance! Sign up today.

Reply
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1201
Views

Re: Arthritis Reversed after Fluoride Avoided

1,201 Views
Message 441 of 1,306

This patient did not have a fluoridated public water system.  (first paragraph next to last sentence) This case, if indeed the symptoms were from fluoride in tea and toothpaste is consistent with recent data which shows that enamel fluorosis rates are the same in fluoridated and not fluoridated towns

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608443

 

and from New Zealand

 

https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/our-oral-health-key-findings-2009-new-zealand-oral-health-sur... .. page 1 of summary, bullet point #10

 

The data is that community water fluoridation prevents cavities in both baby and adult teeth.  Further, the effects of too much fluoride come from the inappropriate use of fluoride containing products, toothpaste, mistakenly prescribed supplements and tea (especially green tea) being at usual sources.

696 New Zealand Oral Health Survey no difference in fluorosis v2.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1201
Views
Conversationalist
4
Kudos
1204
Views

Arthritis Reversed after Fluoride Avoided

1,204 Views
Message 442 of 1,306
A 79-year-old's joint pain markedly decreased after stopping fluoride ingestion from tea, fluoridated water & toothpaste and her mobility considerably improved enabling her to have a long-awaited trip overseas.
 
 
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1204
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1205
Views

Animal Study suggests ways Fluoridation contributes to Dementia

1,205 Views
Message 443 of 1,306

 “One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” -  Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)

 

This is an excellent animal experiment that finds there are observable differences in the brain tissue of rats who consumed relatively moderate amounts of fluoride 'long term' which for an experimental rat is 10 weeks. These changes were observed in the part of the brain having to do with memory and learning. 

 

The risk assessment rules for determining a 'safe reference dose' for human populations using a no observable effect level (NOEL) in an animal experiment is reducing the concentration by a factor of 100 for occassional exposure and by 1,000 for chronic exposure. So, for 50 ppm in an animal experiment, we could predict that any fluoride in drinking water above 0.05 ppm is harmful to senior citizens - except that this wasn't a NOEL. They did observe an ill effect at 50 ppm, so that concentration should be further reduced, cut in half or more... so any fluoride in drinking water concentration above 0.02 ppm consumed long term is  potentially damaging to brains

 

Chronic fluoride exposure induces neuronal apoptosis and impairs neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity: Role of GSK-3b/b-catenin pathway. Pei Jiang, Gongying Li, Xueyuan Zhou, Changshui Wang, Yi Qiao, Dehua Liao, Dongmei Shi.  Chemosphere. Volume 214, January 2019, Pages 430-435. [Online ahead of print]  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653518317508 

 

NINJA EDIT: I originally calculated an uncertainty factor of 100 to get 0.5 ppm, but that would be for occassional exposure. In drinking water, the reference dose would be 0.05 ppm for chronic exposure. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (1)
2
Kudos
1205
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1332
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,332 Views
Message 444 of 1,306

In Southern California where our water is very alkaline (pH 8.3), aluminum filters do not function well since aluminum binds hydroxide ion more efficiently than it does fluoride under these conditions.. I am also concerned about aluminum leaching from such units, so having a reverse osmosis unit installed for drinking and cooking water is good. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1332
Views
Gold Conversationalist
3
Kudos
1236
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,236 Views
Message 445 of 1,306

We must fight FLUORIDE, it's more than proven that it is toxic. We need to demand action.
Meantime, we must protect ourselves with installation of a REVERSE OSMOSIS system, and if you can afford it a Whole house system with an ALUMINA ( not just carbon) Filter. I was fortunate to get an Aqualistic system a few years ago. Even my showers are fluoride free.
You can also research other filter systems, like distillation systems.
You can also help your body detox it with good supplements. Chlorella and Fresh Cilantoro are good inexpensive options.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1236
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1511
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,511 Views
Message 446 of 1,306

'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
1511
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1502
Views

Re: The Scientific Consensus vs. Anti-Science Activists

1,502 Views
Message 447 of 1,306

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
1502
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
1491
Views

Re: The Scientific Consensus vs. Anti-Science Activists

1,491 Views
Message 448 of 1,306

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
1491
Views
Highlighted
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1371
Views

The Scientific Consensus vs. Anti-Science Activists

1,371 Views
Message 449 of 1,306

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
1371
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1367
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,367 Views
Message 450 of 1,306

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
1367
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet