Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
812
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

812 Views
Message 511 of 1,448

And to think that there are people who actually believe that fluoridation is a democratic procedure is absolutely moronic.  The city of San Diego voted twice, --two separate elections over a multi-year period -- against fluoridation and later also passed city ordinance section 67 that prohibts the addition of fluoridation chemicals into our water supplies. And yet when money was placed in front of the city council, all that was ignored and fluoridation was forced on the city anyway in 2011.

Democratic voting most often is opposed to fluoridation as long as a fair campiagn is conducted that includes actual data.  And yet this bone fluoridation program is actually mandated in many states including CA where there was no State wide public vote at all.

Democratic? You've got to be joking.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
812
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
822
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

822 Views
Message 512 of 1,448

Absolute horse puckey. Most of the fluoride in the bloodstream of consumers in fluoridated communities is from fluoridated water consumption. The rest is from foods and toothpastes, etc. (NRC 2006).  Dental fluorosis increases in incidence in every fluoridated city. There are no exceptions. This is old  news.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
822
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
853
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

853 Views
Message 513 of 1,448

Hi Bill,

 

Historic data is what you are referring to.  But humor me for a moment.

 

To say that conclusions are cherry picking is quite humorous.  The 2006 NRC looked back at 10 years of literature on fluorides when they evaluated the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG).

 

The Committee considered three toxicity end points for which there were sufficient relevant data for assessing the adequacy of the MCLG (4 mg/L) for fluoride to protect public health:

1. severe enamel fluorosis

2. skeletal fluorosis

3. bone fractures.

(NRC Report, page 346)

 

Conclusions:

1. ONLY adverse health effects at 4mg/L of fluoride in water was severe enamel fluorosis.  No other organs, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, carcinogenicity, endocrine.....nothing!  This is a level 6 times higher than water fluoridation, 0.7ppm

 

2.  At 2mg/L, severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero.

 

US Community Preventive Services Task Force: (2013)

Community water fluoridation does not cause severe dental fluorosis.

 

It baffles me that you still can't wrap your head around the fact that severe dental fluorosis isn't caused by community water fluoridation.  But that's ok.  I've backed up my material with references that opponents use frequently to cherry pick from, the 2006 NRC Review.

 

Thanks for the exchange, Bill.  Have to go defend another community under attack from the opponents of community water fluoridation.

 

Johnny

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
853
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
847
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

847 Views
Message 514 of 1,448

Thanks carryanne. Indeed , the safe drinking water act was written specifically to halt the  spread of artificial fluoridation of peoples' drinking water. Fluoride promoters not only deny this, they misinterpret the law the way they want. And the CDC dentists who assume it is useful and somehow harmless promote it, knowing it cannot be legally required.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
847
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
810
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

810 Views
Message 515 of 1,448

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson (1787)

 

This is about individual human rights and medical science, not a simplistic majority rule interpretation of democracy. Individual biological integrity is a fundamental principle of law. Yet, fluoridationists politicized community fluoridation policy in an effort to confuse and deceive the public. My neighbor should not have the right to add a known enzyme poison to municipal drinking water - the water I drink and in which I bathe because they believe it might  'prevent cavities' in some poor kid who doesn't brush his teeth when that substance threatens my thyroid, compromises my kidney and inflames my gut.

 

That there are very profitable business plans behind fluoridation practice and fluoridation promotion which fund the political campaigns to fluoridate is immaterial to ethics and evidence of harm. 

 

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 

 ”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”  - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)

 

Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” -  Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523)

 

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
810
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
800
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

800 Views
Message 516 of 1,448

In the cited link notice on page 5 that states "these data are preliminary". Of course they are preliminary because humans cannot be controlled, as animals can in cages, for variables such as sugar consumption, brushing habits, etc. In short the data have no reliable meaning, as has always been the case with fluoridation-promoting literature.

It is immoral to approve infusing a non-nutrient substance into water to treat humans, especially as for fluoridation, without double blind controlled studies AFTER conducting well-controlled animal studies. The fluoridation of Grand Rapids MI and Newburgh NY took place in 1945 without EITHER of these pre-conditions. It later became a government sponsored program and the case has been closed since then. But now we have controlled animal studies that prove fluoridated water does not reduce the incidence of spontaneous dental decay. For ingestible substances, the purpose of human studies is to confirm a positive outcome from animal studies. But we don't have a positive outcome from animal studies--they are negative, so the idea that human studies need to be done to prove that the decision to fluoridate in 1945 was correct is simply preposterous.

In fact, we have the Ziegelbecker epidemiologic data indicating that decay is not affected significantly even up to 6 ppm fluoride in water.

Meranwhile, there is no blood fluoride concentration low enough to prevent incorporation into bone in a pathologic process that, if continued lifelong and one lives long eough, leads to bone pain and other adverse consequences.

Don't fluoridate peoples' bones. The cited reference admits that "more studies are needed" on the accumulation of fluoride from fluoridated water into bone. What the authors don't appear to realize is that we have massive amounts of scientific data already on this problem and it is not good. Bone fluorosis symptoms are known to develop in some individuals at bone fluorde levels as low as 1,500-1,700 mg/kg. And this level, comparable to the concentration of fluoride in toothpaste but in bone where it does not belong, is reached typically after about 20 years consuming fluoridated water.

Get rid of it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
800
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
815
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

815 Views
Message 517 of 1,448

Dr. Johnny,

 

Your data is historic.  The 2011-2012 NHANES reports about 2% of adolescents with SEVERE dental fluorosis, at the time 2% would be several hundred thousand adolescents and with time that will grow to millions of people in the USA.

 

When fluoridation started the public was assured the mildest form of fluorosis would not exceed 10% or maybe 15% of the population.  We are looking at 60% and don't have the more recent numbers from NHANES surveys.  

 

And severe dental fluorosis is an adverse risk, NRC 2006.

 

Johnny, read the NRC 2006, especially the section by Thiessen on exposure, not just cherry picking the conclusions.

 

Based just on the public health iatrogenic epidemic of dental fluorosis, we need to reduce fluoride exposure.

 

Then look at urine fluoride concentrations, much too high.  The same in the USA/Canada as reported with lower IQ.  

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride from too many sources.   Total exposure must be considered, not just one source.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Proud advocate for less toxic fluoride in our water.  

Attacking the fake facts, not individuals. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
815
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
827
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

827 Views
Message 518 of 1,448

Hi CA,

Stick to the topic. Systematic Reviews conducted by Credibly Recognized Scientific Panels. 

 

Per 2006 NRC Panel: “At 4mg/L of fluoride in water, no health issues whatsoever except severe dental fluorosis. At 2mg/L severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero”. That included ALL HEALTH ISSUES. 

 

Per U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force:  

”Although bone fractures and skeletal fluorosis have been associated with lifetime exposure to higher naturally-occurring fluoride concentrations (e.g. 4 mg/L), no association has been observed at levels used for CWF. The broader literature speculates about harms associated with higher levels of fluoride in water (e.g., cancer, lowered intelligence, endocrine dysfunction). Research evidence, however, does not demonstrate that CWF results in any unwanted health effects other than dental fluorosis. While harms have been proposed, most have no biological plausibility or insufficient evidence to draw conclusions”

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Oral-Health-Caries-Community-Water-Fluo...

 

Please read the conclusions of these documents. Don’t cherry pick tidbits from the entire reports. The 2006 NRC Committee all signed off on the conclusions above, including Dr. Hardy Limeback. 

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

 

Proud President of the American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit organization of healthcare professionals who do not accept a penny for our work. We are funded by a grant to travel to communities to defend, protect, and initiate water fluoridation based on the overwhelming body of 70+ years of evidence and Systematic Reviews which continue to demonstrate water fluoridation is effective and safe. That company is Delta Dental Foundation of California. 

 

We will NEVER let you and your group invoke fear and scare tactics to mislead the public into thinking water fluoridation is harmful in any way. It is a public heath initiative that benefits the entire public. All public policies exist for the the entire community and cannot be tailored to the whims of a few people who do not want it. We live in a democratic society, not one in chaos. The greater good is what this country is built on. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
827
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
820
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

820 Views
Message 519 of 1,448

“It’s clear to anyone who has looked at this in any depth that tooth decay is linked to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and access to health care, not to water fluoridation… Fluoride science is BS (bad science)!” - Dr. Stan Litras, BDS, BSc, Past President NZDA Wellington Chapter  (2016)

 

Whether they are opposed to or in favor of fluoridation, dentists focus on teeth. Fluoridationist Johnny Johnson neglected to include in his signature that he is the president of a fluoridation advocacy group he founded in 2015 with a small group of vocal  & vitriolic social media commenters who have trolled online platform for years. They specialize in rhetorical deceits.  

 

This isn't about teeth and this isn't about opinions. This is about the science, data, and testimony that fluoride in drinking water worsens the health of millions with inflammatory, autoimmune, thyroid and kidney disease. Fluoridation illnesses include arthritis, psoriasis, learning disabiities & dementia. 

 

The Children's Health Defense Team led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a condemnation of fluoridation policy on Jan. 9, 2019. Although they don't say it in their statement, the CHD is well aware that fluoridation is not only harmful to people, but also pollutes the planet. 

 

RFK is an environmental attorney whose most recent high profile win was the 2018 multi-million dollar case against Monsanto for colluding with the U.S. EPA to hide evidence of cancer caused by the weed killer Round-Up. EPA insisted it was safe. RFK also led the battle against the pollution of the Hudson River and won against General Electric (GE). 

 

This isn't about teeth. This is about the need for professional & organizational integrity in order to protect people & planet. AARP - are you listening? 

 

See 100+ citations in this October 2018 letter signed by leadership at 8 organizations with integrity or check out the image below with 6 citations from 2018 about fluoride as a brain poison - womb to tomb.  

http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/icim/nutrition.pdf

 

BrainPoison2018.jpgBrain Poison

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
820
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
839
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

839 Views
Message 520 of 1,448

Bill,

Still pushing the fluorosis angle?

 

Statistics on moderate and severe dental fluorosis are combined as severe fluorosis is so low in the US that it essentially non-existent 

 

Per NRC 2006 Report: “At 2mg/L of fluoride in water, severe dental fluorosis is virtually zero”. 

That is 3 times the fluoride level in optimally fluoridated water, 0.7mg/L (ppm). 

 

Per U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force:

”Task Force Finding (April 2013)
The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends:

1. Community water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dental caries across populations.

2. Evidence shows the prevalence of caries is substantially lower in communities with CWF. 3. In addition, there is no evidence that CWF results in severe dental fluorosis.


Evidence indicates the economic benefit of CWF is greater than the cost. In addition, the benefit-cost ratio increases with the size of the community population.”

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Oral-Health-Caries-Community-Water-Fluo...

 

The studies used by the U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force were reviewed and approved by the Cochrane Oral Health Group, the exact same members that wrote the review on water fluoridation. 

 

No severe fluorosis, Bill. None. Two widely respected scientific health organizations. 

 

If you disagree, obtain funding to conduct a Randomized Control Trial that the opponents to water fluoridation so urgently want. You and Dr. Limeback should have no problem securing this funding. 

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry 

Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
839
Views