Content starts here
CLOSE ×

Search

Reply
Bronze 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! 

355,745 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

19,921 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

18,665 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

10,342 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

 

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

 

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

 

Really? 

 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

 

 

View solution in original post

6,220 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"CarryAnne" says:   "This AARP forum . . . is about the harm caused to senior citizens due to chronic exposure . . . It is also about the hubris of self-proclaimed experts who deny the evidence of harm and disregard the ethics . . "

Response:  It is also about the dishonesty and deception of anti-water-fluoridation folks.  For example, i
n another thread on this AARP website I asked your own anti-fluoride spokesman, Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

 

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

 

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

 

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

 

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

0 Kudos
5,962 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The egregious dishonesty and deception I see is from those who demand water be tainted with industrial fluoride, a toxic calcium chelater in a program that is the bone fluoridation of masses of people without consent.

And here we have one such person, complaining about "deception" from innocent people who merely want clean water not intentionally infused with an EPA contaminant.

Totally nuts.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,216 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The sarcasm is mistaken. The two articles describing experiments disproving time dilation were published in physics essays and in optics. The idea has been disproven theoretically, mathematically and,experimentally. This ,was brought up to remind readers that even regarded  experts make mistakes. 

But continuing with a mistake, such as fluoridation, in the,face of facts proving so, is harmful bias.

Einstein was a scientist who today would correct the idea.  Unfortunately CDC fluoridationists teject facts and refuse to correct their problem. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,923 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The careful controlled stidies by Spittle and those by Burgstahler and others. My own work on racehorse breakdowns . And the NRC report describing that 1 ppm F water causes elevated TSH in iodine deficient consumers and elevates both PTH and calcitonin at the same time pathologically, the only known substance tlthat does this bizarre IIIaction, and consumers who have bone pain at F levels in bone of only 1700 mg/kg.

What other effects would you like to discuss?.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
5,671 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I don't have a problem with the studiy. It is what it is. My conclusion is justified.

The point I made about IQ is that fluoridationists are so busy trying to prove a useless substance effective that they have little time to consider its chronic toxicity.

Ive seen many effectiveness studies by kiumar but little from him of chronic toxicity studies to justify the fluoridation of people he, so widely defends. 

Bone fluoridation is not harmless.

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,583 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

And what peer-reviewed studies about the dangers of optimally fluoridated water do you have to offer?  It seems you have no problem criticizing other peer-reviewed scholars for what they haven't done when you, yourself have nothing to offer.  

Oh yeah, I forgot, you do have a scholarly work in which you argue that Einstein got it all wrong about Time Dilation.  My bad.

0 Kudos
5,647 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

For some time I've tried to understand what you are saying, but I'm at a loss.  I can't figure out what Time Dilation has to do with excess fluoride exposure.   Makes no sense.

 

You ask a good question about peer-reviewed studies and "optimally fluoridated water."  

 

Several problems.  

 

1.   What concentration of fluoride in water is marketed "optimal"?   A moving target, wouldn't you agree?  0.7-1.4 ppm, 0.7 ppm, ???? 

 

2.  Fluoride added to water is just one source of fluoride.  No research would only considering one source of fluoride.  If they did, the peer-reviewers would throw it out.  

 

So both your research question makes no sense.   If your question refered to total fluoride exposure, then we could start to discuss. 

 

3.  Who's responsibility is it to provide the research on any product?   The patient/consumer?  The government? Or the manufacturer marketing the product?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

5,685 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Bill O, 

 

This comment is addressed to you.  It begins with your name.  You may chime in on this:

 

Allow me to illustrate the type of deceptive behavior that anti-fluoridation folks employ.  In another thread on this AARP website I asked your own Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

 

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

 

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

 

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

 

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

0 Kudos
5,717 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The insanity is mind boggling. Promote dental fluorosis thin enamel, to attempt to fght dental caries, when enamel is what protects underlying dentin ftom caries in the first place.

A cavity is the destruction of enamel by bacterial acid. Enamel does not cause a cavity. It is the absence of enamel that is a cavity.

So absence if fluoride doesn't cause a cavity. It is not brushing after eating sugar that does. This is,ancient news.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
5,071 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

How convoluted can one person be? Here we have a fluoridation advocate blaming toothpaste for dental  fluorosis, but who then admits that "mild fluorosis" is caused by water fluoridation without toothpaste. What?  Both toothpaste and fluoridated water contribute together to cause the current fluorosis endemic. That is precisely what I have been saying all along.  And that is precisely why you cannot sue and win against a water district because they will say the straw that broke the camel's back was toothpaste which came later (as this person here claims). While toothpaste people continue to sell their wares by assuming as long as you don't intentionally or accidentally swallow it, then water fluoridation is the main culprit. Again, they are both contributors, and it's mainly water, as published by the NRC. The toothpaste people are correct. Why argue with the exposure data the NRC tabulated and published? Original studies by Ziegelbecker indicate that fluoride in drinkng water causes dental fluorosis which increases progressively as the fluoride a concentration in water increases. Even fluoridationists accept that all fluoridated cities have increased incidence of dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia. There are no exceptions.

And the data on fluorotic teeth and caries are dismal. The notion that they have fewer caries is ludicrous because the studies published are limited, and the means have standard devations that always overlap. There is no significnat decrease in caries due to fluorotic enamel hypoplasia (as one would expect with thinned enamel.) This is a waste of time since we've gone over this stuff over and over.It's a joke.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,056 Views
6
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard,

 

"CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

 

No doubt you won't accept this study, you will have some problem with it, because it contradicts your pre-established bias.  Some scientist.

0 Kudos
5,067 Views
5
Report
Conversationalist

IidaIida

David,  

 

You said,

"CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

 

No doubt you won't accept this study, you will have some problem with it, because it contradicts your pre-established bias."

 

Iida's data does show an increase in dental fluorosis with increased water fluoride concentration.  However, when the data is graphed (see above), the claim of benefit you make is hard to detect.

 

Your claim of benefit lacks serious consideration, based on this study.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

5,484 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I accept studies that present good data. I reject those that don't. So what?

Another fact that dentists seem to not consider is that people with fluorotic spots on teeth usually brush their teeth more rigorously and thoroughly than those who do not have fluorosis. Thiis is a common finding since people can mistakenly think that it was poor dental care that led to the spots in the first place, or that if better care were used perhaps the teeth would be improved or at least will not worsen in structure. So the study you presented, where fluorotic teeth had a lower average caries incidence than nonfluorotic (but with error bars that overlap) is also degraded because brushing habits and diet do affect caries incidence. It is not the fluorosis, but the brushing habits and frequency of consuming sugars, etc. that actually affect caries incidence. Neither of these were controlled. or are controllable since humans cannot be caged like animals to conrol these variables. Animals have so been examined in perfectly controlled experiments, and fluorosis does not lower caries incidence. Fluoridated water is useles in fighting caries. It is great at causing bone fluorosis. One need not be a scientist to understand..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,103 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber,

 

I love how you just say things without presenting a shread of evidence to support your claims.  This for example:  " . . people with fluorotic spots on teeth usually brush their teeth more rigorously and thoroughly than those who do not have fluorosis. Thiis is a common finding . . . "

Well, you said it so it must be true.  That's good enough for me.

 

Why am I not shocked that you have problems with the Kumar Study.  But this was the unexpected part that I liked the best which perfectly demonstrates the odd lengths you will go to for some kind of argument that supports your viewpoint:

"And by the way no discussion is made of the overall health, bone strength, IQ, thyroid status, etc. of these individuals."

 

Yes, that is a great observation, because as everyone knows when studies were conducted that proved Asbestos leads to Lung Cancer, the first thing they checked was bone strength and the IQs of the subjects.

0 Kudos
5,112 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed ten comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

0 Kudos
5,580 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

  Yes I'm happy to be an actual scientist. And I can tell you that the biased views of fluoridation promoters cause gross misinterpretation of data. The study you cited is one I've looked over before and it proves nothing. The confidence intervals for caries incidence in the fluorotic and nonfluorotic molars grossly overlap. The lower end of the interval for the nonfluorotic is 0.74 and the uper interval end for the fluorotic is 0.89. The profluoride ingestion comments are therefore insignificant. As always.

  And by the way no discussion is made of the overall health, bone strength, IQ, thyroid status, etc. of these individuals. Of course, because of the pre-occupation of those who agree with fluoridation to convince others that fluoridation works.  It does not work, nevr has,and neer will. Fluorosis develops in childhood from the blood-borne ion interfering with normal enamel formation. Normal enamel is devoid of fluoride, which is a contaminant of the bloodstream. It is entirely possible that fluoridationists might never understand this. A total mess.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,727 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Yet another website by Crest toothpaste manufacturers arguing that dental fluorosis spots on childrens' teeth are from drinking water

https://crest.com/en-us/oral-health/life-stages/kids/white-brown-spots-baby-teeth

Need more?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,544 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, please . . . 

 

Your quote:  "Excuse me? On what basis does this person claim a "lie"?"

 

Excuse me. this is where I used the word lie:  "Either admit you were mistaken, you misspoke, or you lied.  And then we can move on."  

 

I know it must be enjoyable to play the injured victim . . but it is not warranted in this case.  

So, you said:   'Toothpaste makers argue the bulk of blame goes to fluoridated water.'   No they don't.  You made the original claim in the context of lawsuits - toothpaste manufacturers blame water distributors, water distributors blame toothpaste . . and no one can get sued.  That was the context of your mis-statement. 

 

This is from the link you just provided:  "Another possible culprit of white spots on baby teeth is fluorosis, the white staining that develops when children’s developing teeth are overexposed to fluoride via drinking water or oral care products such as toothpastes and rinses."

 

Again:  "Oral care products such as toothpastes and rinses."  Crest is taking responsibility.  Crest is not "putting the bulk of the blame" on fluoridated water.  

 

Now either admit that you misspoke, you were in error, or you lied, and then we can move on.

Your link also says, "However, there’s a surprising silver lining to excess fluoride intake. According to the American Dental Association (ADA), experiencing fluorosis as a child can actually make your teeth better equipped to avoid future decay."

As you know, teeth with mild and very mild fluorosis are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Your own link says that.  Mild fluorosis, which is associated with CWF, does not diminish quality of life.  Dental decay does.  So this paranoia that you want to generate is meaningless.   One can only surmise what your reasons for doing it are.

0 Kudos
6,588 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Richard,

 

Thank you for looking up the links.  On how to prevent the white spots, Crest suggests,

 

" Fostering proper brushing habits with Crest Kids Cavity Protection Sparkle Toothpaste, paying attention to fluoride intake, curbing the consumption of sugary liquids, and maintaining a balanced diet will all contribute to keeping your child’s smile healthy and beautiful for years to come."

 

Vague platitudes.  "Paying attention to fluoride intake."   Exactly what does that mean?  No practical advice and one step above worthless advice.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

6,589 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Allow me to illustrate the type of deceptive behavior that anti-fluoridation folks employ.  In another thread on this AARP website I asked your own Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

 

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

 

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

 

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

 

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

0 Kudos
6,713 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The facts are that 85% of the fluoride in the bloodstream of a fluoridaed community of consumers comes from fluoridated water consumption, not from toothpaste. Toothpaste use accounts for about 15%, as published in detailed exposure studies published by the NRC in 2006. Or are the NRC reviewers lying too?.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,549 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Continuing, there is no link or paper or official statement anywhere I know of that states water fluoridation ends up being a bone fluoridation program. But that is, indeed what water fluoridation is because 98% of  swallowed fluoride ends up permanently in peoples' bones. So I refer  to water fluoridation as actually bone fluoridation. Is there a link I can provide for that? Of course not. It is a factual deduction..no links, and so what?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
7,724 Views
8
Report
Conversationalist

Richard and David,

 

You both raise interesting concepts which I would like to consider further.

 

For benefit, the manufacturers always say, "look at me."

For risks, the manufacturers almost always say, "not me, someone else is responsible."   No one likes to take responsibility for harm, risks, damage, hurt.

 

Obviously, if fluoride toothpaste is not swallowed, the toothpaste would not be a highly significant source of excess fluoride.  Unfortunately, research (Dec. 2010 HHS) indicates the directions are not usually followed and children swallow their toothpaste.   

 

However, David, the question also screams, what do you think about the latest research that 60% of adolescents in the 2011-2012 NHANES survey had dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe?

 

What is/are the source or sources in the population at large for the excess fluoride causing so much dental fluorosis for most children?

 

And the more important question, "what do we do to reduce the excess exposure of fluoride for children?"   Where do we cut back on the fluoride exposure? 

 

The clear, obvious answer is to stop water fluoridation and cut back on other sources of fluoride.

 

However, bias prevents metacognition and critical thinking. 

 

Market the benefits, blame others for the risks. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

6,566 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Richard and David,

 

You both raise interesting concepts which I would like to consider further.

 

I have not seen advertisements of toothpaste with a full brush of paste on them for a long time.  Advice to use smaller amounts of toothpaste are more clear.  And the advice not to swallow is clear.  If people actually did not swallow the toothpaste, they would have limited absorption of fluoride.  And research on the benefits of topcial fluoride treatment from toothpaste is certainly stronger than ingested fluoride.  And FDA has approved fluoride in toothpaste but not fluoride supplements.

 

If the directions are followed, which research shows is usually not followed and children swallow their toothpaste, then toothpaste should not be a significant source of fluoride exposure.   And it follows that water would be the greatest source of fluoride. 

 

However, David, the question also screams, what do you think about the latest research that 60% of adolescents in the 2011-2012 NHANES survey had dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe?

 

What is/are the source or sources for the excess fluoride causing so much dental fluorosis?

 

And the more important question, "what do we do to reduce the excess exposure of fluoride for children?"   Where do we cut back on the fluoride exposure?  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

7,716 Views
6
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Two things, Dr. Bill.  First this from you:  "If the directions are followed, which research shows is usually not followed and children swallow their toothpaste, then toothpaste should not be a significant source of fluoride exposure.   And it follows that water would be the greatest source of fluoride."

 

You are saying if you brush your teeth with toothpaste, which has about 2000 times the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, spit it out, . . . then you won't be exposing yourself to a significant amount of fluoride.  Correct?  

 

By "significant" I think we can agree that we mean - not enough to cause any effect, negative or positive.  Correct?

 

Ok.  Try this.  Brush your teeth with something that has 1500 ppm arsenic in it, spit it out, do it two times a day, every day for your entire life, and let me know how you feel in ten years - if you're still alive.

 

You also asked, "what do you think about the latest research that 60% of adolescents in the 2011-2012 NHANES survey had dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe?"

I think we are seeing something that we have never seen before.  We didn't see it in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s . . . we didn't see it during the period of growth for water fluoridation in the U.S., which doesn't support what you were getting at.

 

What is different today than during those decades is that now toothpaste manufacturers and marketers make toothpaste flavors that cater to the tastes of kids.  Why?  So that they will brush their teeth. 

 

So now we have grape flavored, cotton-candy flavored, bubble-gum flavored toothpaste.  It stands to reason that an unsupervised 2-year old who gets his hands on a tube of this stuff will think it is some kind of candy and eat the entire tube - because it tastes good.  And it stands to reason that no parent can watch their toddler every minute of every day, and some parents are likely to leave a tube of toothpaste on a bathroom sink within reach of a toddler.  

 

That's what I think about it.  I hope this answers your question.

0 Kudos
7,637 Views
5
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

Sorry for double posts.  My computer said it did not go through the first time.

 

Thanks for asking for futher elaboration.  Yes, the FDA requires the label to say, "Do Not Swallow" fluoride toothpastes.  Seems clear.  And the amount of fluoride absorbed from the toothpaste without swallowing is minor.  However, some chemically sensitive people will have bad reactions to fluoride toothpaste touching their skin or mouth, but the FDA considers the risk for most to be acceptable.  The problem is spitting all the toothpaste out.   Is that reasonably possible?  Research shows most people swallow some or most.   

 

David, you asked, "You are saying if you brush your teeth with toothpaste, which has about 2000 times the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, spit it out, . . . then you won't be exposing yourself to a significant amount of fluoride.  Correct?"

 

Bill:  Yes, FDA has approved toothpaste.  

 

David continues, "By "significant" I think we can agree that we mean - not enough to cause any effect, negative or positive.  Correct?"

 

Bill: No.  For some there might be a positive effect with mitigation of dental caries.

For some there will be risks such as swallowing, skin irritation (achne), apoptosis of cells, and for chemically sensitive individuals more problems.  In science, the words "always" and "never" are red flags and should not be used.  

 

Your illustration of arsenic is interesting.  I'm not an authority on arsenic absorption through the oral mucosa.  Nor has the FDA approved arsenic, but I would expect the arsenic would reduce dental caries.  Mercury does.    So my answer to your statement is, "I don't know."

 

Regarding your response to excess exposure, I agree.  Flavored toothpastes are highly suspect.  Unsupervised use of toothpaste is a serious concern.  I lean towards all fluoride toothpaste to be by prescription only. 

 

And I don't see where you bring up the fluoride added to water.   Do you think the toothpaste is a problem but not fluoridated water?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

6,569 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

BillO, your quote:  "Yes, the FDA requires the label to say, "Do Not Swallow" fluoride toothpastes.  Seems clear."

 

Not quite.  My tube of Crest says, "If more than the intended amount used for brushing is accidentally swallowed . . "  More than the intended amount, which is a pea-sized drop.

 

So the question is:  Why would someone swallow more than the amount that would be on a toothbrush?  Because they wouldn't be taking it off of a toothbrush.  They would be taking it directly from the tube.  And if a parent walked in on his or her toddler with an empty tube of toothpaste, then you might have an overexposure to fluoride . . since toothpaste has about 2000 times the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water.  

 

"And I don't see where you bring up the fluoride added to water.   Do you think the toothpaste is a problem but not fluoridated water?"

 

I've already addressed that.  Since we weren't seeing the sharp increases in moderate fluorosis in the 1960s - 1990s, a period in which water fluoridation was on the rise, but we do see more moderate fluorosis now, when toothpaste marketers are catering more to the tastes of children, with bubble-gum or cotton-candy flavored toothpaste, then, no, fluoridated water does not appear to be a contributing factor to the rise in moderate fluorosis.  

0 Kudos
6,624 Views
3
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

You are so obsessed with proving me wrong, you don't read carefully.  

 

Please, slow down.  Think.  If your Crest toothpaste does not say, "Do Not Swallow" then I'll buy it from you.  Read it again.

 

Yes, the FDA permits variable wording, such as  "If more than the intended amount used for brushing is accidentally swallowed . . "  More than the intended amount, which is a pea-sized drop.  

 

Now THINK, David.   The amount used for brushing is a different concept than "Do Not Swallow."  Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  The reason for a small amount is so that if the person swallows, it will not be so much.  

 

Would you agree, neither Crest nor the FDA suggest it is safe to swallow toothpaste?  No.  I think we agree.  

 

Now take the next step in reasoning.  How much fluoride is in a pea size of toothpaste?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

6,730 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Bill O.  Thank you for your condescing remarks.  Did it ever occur to you that you might be the one who needs to slow down and think?  Go back, re-read my comment stating what it actually says on a tube of Crest toothpaste, why it would say that, and what it means.  

 

Then before you act on your knee-jerk reaction to prove me wrong, reflect.

0 Kudos
6,735 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed six comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

0 Kudos
6,770 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know

NEW: AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays! This week, achieve a top score in Atari Asteroids® and you could win $100! Learn More.

AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays

More From AARP