AARP and the photographers of Magnum Photos look at older people living in new ways around the world in A New Age.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
575
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

575 Views
Message 421 of 1,372

Dr. Johnny,

 

Wow, we are on the same page.  I'm impressed.  Finally a fluoridation promoter who is willing to evaluate research rather than tradition.

 

However, my point is, "too many are ingesting too much fluoride."   You failed to address that key point.   Pick any measurement of dosage you want and many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

 EPA "Dose Response Analysis 2010, ignores 10% of the population drinking the most water, all fetuses and all infants and still about a third of children are ingesting too much fluoride even with their calculations of 33% more dosage (RfD). (See 2010 EPA)  Too much fluoride for too many.  

 

Changing the subject to the studies. 

 

Urine fluoride concentrations in the USA are commonly above 0.85 mg/L which is where we find risk.  As we focus more on possible risk of fluoride dosages considering age, gender, measurement methods and types of neurologic harm,we are finding more harm at ever lower dosages.  The research is over 50 human studies reporting harm and few having found no harm.  

 

To expect the trend in the research to start to claim fluoride is safer and safer is simply unrealistic.

 

What consitutes proof in science.  Several high quality studies. 

 

BENEFIT has lower quality and historical studies with mixed conclusions.   

SAFETY has not been seriously studied safety (until recently) and likewise, studies are lower/moderate quality but the quantity showing harm at ever lower dosages raises concern.  A public health intervention without adequate evidence either on efficacy or safety.  Amazing marketing of tradition. 

 

Think about that Johnny, everyone dosed with a highly toxic substance (low but uncontrolled dosages) and no careful safety evaluation.  Even EPA admits no neurotoxicity evaluation has been done on fluoride in public water. (Legal review of EPA fluoride Post-harvest fumigant)

 

Ethically, risk/safety evaluation is much more complex than benefit because we cannot ethically intentionally cause harm. 

 

Nor can we claim "all safe because we don't know." 

 

Lack of evidence is not proof of safety.

 

If you are willing to accept poor/moderate quality of evidence as "proof" of fluoridation's efficacy, then you must accept poor/moderate quality of evidence as "proof of excess fluoride's risk and lack of safety.  

 

Specifically to the Bashish studies.  I talked to a co-author who claimed the research was good although not applicable to the USA.  The major fault was that we had no national USA data on urine fluoride concentrations, "we don't know what we have here."  That makes zero sense on several fronts, especially administering without consent because we don't know how much we are getting.   Crazy public health logic.

 

True, not everyone in the USA has had urine fluoride concentration measured, but public health policy is not made on everyone in the USA being tested.  And reverse the logic.  If we call fluoride safe until everyone is tested, should we not avoid administering the fluoride until everyone is tested.   Do NOT administer or call it safe when we don't know.  

 

We have studies in the USA on urine fluoride studies with controls and subjects and the controls sometimes have over 0.85 mg/L. No lower maternal fluoride urine concentration threshold for the fetus has been shown.  Maybe one day we will, but I would put money it is below 0.3 mg/L urinary fluoride concentration.

 

Yes, we always need more studies, but more than 50 human studies reporting harm should be a big red public health flag for AARP, water purveyors, HHS, EPA, CDC, PHS, FDA, you and me.

 

The absence of evidence is not proof of safety.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
575
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
587
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

587 Views
Message 422 of 1,372

“The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude. Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement. Uproarious laughter frequently ensues. No special statistical equipment is necessary to detect those peccancies. Of course the class and the Group soon tired of those infantilities, and sought and found greater challenge.”- Prof. Hubert A. Arnold, Ph.D. (1980)

 

People trust authority… It is sobering to realize that human beings blindly trust authority and that authority figures… are the ones most easily duped.” - Stephen Greenspan, author of “Annals of Gullibility: Why We Get Duped and How to Avoid It” who lost $400k of his retirement to Bernie Madoff (2010)

 

Fluoridation promotion has always been flawed and has always had learned opponents. Going along with the crowd has always been popular, but never any guarantee. 

 

As to looking in the mirror, there are about 35 seniors opposed to fluoridation on the AARP forum  including several peer-reviewed scientists. The handful of fluoridationists on this thread are members of a well known troop that has overwhelmed local letters to the editors all over the country and abroad with vitriolic character assassination for years - often outnumbered but persistent in their dogged attacks. They include retired or semi-retired dentists. This group descended  on AARP en masse in June 2018. The forum had been proceeding unmolested with periodic activity since Feb 2015.  

 

For more on the orchestrated efforts of this small band of fluoridationists, see the letter below. Also pay attention to the resources attached to that letter: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf

 

Regardless, fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that forces contaminated products into the the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of adverse impact on individuals for whom consumption is ill advised. Senior citizens are a class of people who have been identified as particularly vulnerable to the ill effects of fluoride consumption as fluoride is an inflammatory drug that accumulates in bones, damages kidneys and has been implicated in plaque formation in hearts & brains. 

 VennMM.jpg

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
587
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
585
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

585 Views
Message 423 of 1,372

Bill,

 

Have you critically evaluated these Bashash literature pieces?  Granted, they are excellent researchers. But doesn’t something strike you as fundamentally missing?

 

You are a reasonable person. Take a look at the shortcomings of both studies. And of the Canadian study of pregnant women drinking CWF. Be truthful with what you see. You are savvy enough to call in others for help with the shortcomings. 

 

Get back with me ONLY on this one commonality when you’re ready with your facts. Talk to the researchers if need be. Don’t quote pieces in the media. 

 

I’ll be waiting......

 

Johnny 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
585
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
586
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

586 Views
Message 424 of 1,372

Ross F,

 

It is so funny, yet sad, how the opposition to CWF discounts anyone who doesn’t agree with them. My father always told me if you think everyone is wrong, it’s time to look in the mirror. 

 

Just sayin’

 

Johnny

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
586
Views
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
693
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

693 Views
Message 425 of 1,372

Regarding "I note you cite some obscure person in New Zealand. . . . ".

 

A response from New Zealand reads:

 

“Everything appears obscure when you keep your eyes shut. Dr. Chuck should try opening his.”

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
693
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
703
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

703 Views
Message 426 of 1,372

Yes. Simply because the EPA does not prohibit drinking water with F below 2 ppm does not give anyone the right to purposely infuse this regulated contaminant into public water. Note that CA state law mandates that driving on the freeway must be at speeds no less than 45 mph. But that does not make it right to drive 45 when someone is on the freeway standing in front of you. Likewise is it legal to force fluoride into public,water supplies that harms  many from bone incorporation and those with iodide insufficiency and kids who don't want to have dental fluorosis when they grow up, among other effects, simply because the law only prohibits drinking water at 2 ppm or higher? Of course not but yet that is how the EPA, and the many court rulings tnat follow the EPA, end up endorsing or allowing something that the SDWA prohibits from being required. Laws can be interpreted the,way one wants but that does not make it right. The fact is that fluoridation, in a fluoride tootbpaste, etc world, is harming people and should be disallowed legally, beyond simply being prohibited from being required. Those who know the facts are not in a position to make the law better fit the facts. So appealing to truth on the part of those who force fluoridation of people is the usual direction to take. But fluoridationists are typically unable to comprehend what it is they force.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
703
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
727
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

727 Views
Message 427 of 1,372

Dr. Chuck,

 

You recommend going to court.   

 

Again, you are relying on other people rather than facts.  

 

Science is based on facts, data, evidence, not on opinions or even the law. 

 

Sometimes the facts change and do not fit the law.  For example, a city may have fluoridated their water at 1 ppm, by law.  The facts showed too many people were ingesting too much fluoride and a recommendation was made to lower the concentration of fluoride in water.  The city laws were changed to more accurately reflect the new facts.  However, the "30%" reduction was estimated by HHS to be about 14% exposure reduction.  In my opinion, the minor reduction was not enough.

 

Judges do not like to rule against government agencies. 

 

Judges like to rule on matters of law, rather than science.

 

And indeed, we have found a judge who appears to be willing to review the evidence from experts.  Of course, courts are slow.  I'm confident both sides will have a fair hearing.  Depending on the government shut down, we might see a ruling this year.

 

Look at the facts, not emotions or public opinion which is often based on tradition and marketing.

 

Think FACTUAL evidence, examples:

 

A.     60% dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe.   Too much fluoride.

 

B.     Urine fluoride concentrations in the USA often exceeds 0.85 mg/L.  

 

Bashash et al Dec 2018   

"Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age in Mexico City. - PubMed - NCBI

RESULTS:

Mean MUFcr was 0.85 mg/L (SD = 0.33) and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 0.46 mg/L. In multivariable adjusted models using gamma regression, a 0.5 mg/L higher MUFcr (approximately one IQR higher) corresponded with significantly higher scores on the CRS-R for DSM-IV Inattention (2.84 points, 95% CI: 0.84, 4.84) and DSM-IV ADHD Total Index (2.38 points, 95% CI: 0.42, 4.34), as well as the following symptom scales: Cognitive Problems and Inattention (2.54 points, 95% CI: 0.44, 4.63) and ADHD Index (2.47 points; 95% CI: 0.43, 4.50). The shape of the associations suggested a possible celling effect of the exposure. No significant associations were found with outcomes on the CPT-II or on symptom scales assessing hyperactivity.

CONCLUSION:

Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with global measures of ADHD and more symptoms of inattention as measured by the CRS-R in the offspring."

 

Another:  Bashish et al 2017.

 

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years of Age in Mexico. - PubMed - NCBI

RESULTS:

We had complete data on 299 mother-child pairs, of whom 287 and 211 had data for the GCI and IQ analyses, respectively. Mean (SD) values for urinary fluoride in all of the mothers (n=299) and children with available urine samples (n=211) were 0.90 (0.35) mg/L and 0.82 (0.38) mg/L, respectively. In multivariate models we found that an increase in maternal urine fluoride of 0.5mg/L (approximately the IQR) predicted 3.15 (95% CI: -5.42, -0.87) and 2.50 (95% CI -4.12, -0.59) lower offspring GCI and IQ scores, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this study, higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6-12 y."

 

Excess fluoride is frying the fetus and children's brains.

 

What is your recommendation for reducing excess fluoride exposure?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
727
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
760
Views

Fluoridation picks pockets & breaks bones

760 Views
Message 428 of 1,372

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” - Thomas  Jefferson

 

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” - Thomas  Jefferson

 

Multiple judges have ruled that fluoridation is injurious, that the evidence proves it harms many consumers and contributes to cancer but is legal under the law which gives jurisdiction to the legislature with administrative police powers. Judges have advised that under current law, it is up to the legisilature to deal with fluoridation. Consequently, fluoridation has become a political game, and we all know the power of money and marketing in politics.  

 

It's not just ethics and evidence that are lost in the politicization of fluoridation, it's the very concept of our Republican Democracy that was designed to protect constitutional and individual human rights of all the people. Civil Rights and Suffergette were manifestations of that principle, hard fought as they were. However, the banning of public smoking in order to protect the health of the most vulnerable among us from harm caused by the pollution of a shared resource by 2nd hand smoke is the most accurate analogy.

 

Per the 2nd Jeffersonian quote above, fluoridation causes billions of dollars in increased health expenses for millions of us in addition to actually breaking the bones of many of us with arthritis & osteoporosis or other bone disease caused or aggravated by chronic fluoride exposure.  Government has a a clear duty to end fluoridation as fluoridation literally breaks bones and picks pockets. 

 

Fluoridationists can't win with medical, scientific, or ethical arguments - so they prefer politics which is riddled with lies. As a last resort, they claim the courts have found fluoridation safe - another one of the fluoridationists' deceits. 

 

  • This is why it is important that organizations such as the Children's Health Defense Team with its emphasis on environmental risks and government failure to do its duty make a public statement like they did on January 9, 2019.
  • This is why it is important for AARP to demonstrate similar professional integrity by issuing a resolution against fluoridation policy per call to action in Open Letter signed by 8 professional organizations published on GreenMed on October 26, 2018.

 

See quotes below from a few of the judges who heard fluoridation cases: 

 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful: ”That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies… may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." - Judge Anthony Farris, District Court, Houston, TX (May 24, 1982)

 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful: ”My decision regarding the fluoridation of the public water  supply, made during my tenure as a trial judge almost twenty years ago, was on appeal, purely a jurisdictional issue...That the practice is deleterious is more and more accepted -- its utility doubted." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

 

Trial Judge who found CWF unconstitutional: “By [fluoridating the water] the municipal authorities... arrogate to themselves the sole right to decide what medicine is good for the health of the water consumers, and thereby the municipal water system becomes a direct conduit for the transportation of medicine from the apothecary's pestle to the patient, without the latter's consent. Thus will the people be deprived of a very important part of their constitutional liberty under our republican form of government and the police state will be substituted for the police power of the state." - Justice Donworth, dissenting opinion  in KAUL vs. CITY OF CHEHALIS before Supreme Court of Washington (1954) 

 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful:  "Over the course of five months (in 1978), the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful: “Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988)

 

 It may be legal and it may be political, but there is nothing ethical, scientific or democratic about adding this poison to municipal water.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
760
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
780
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

780 Views
Message 429 of 1,372
If you believe the law is on your side bring a suit. The law is exactly what the judges say it is and so far the judges have ruled that adjusting fluoride ion concentration to be that associated with optimal oral health is a proper exercise of powers which Cities and Water Districts enjoy.

I invite you to bring a case if you believe otherwise.

Chuck
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
780
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
778
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

778 Views
Message 430 of 1,372

Dr. Chuck,

 

Science is factual, data, not endorsements.

 

You keep looking for endorsements and who is on which "team."   

 

Look at the facts, the data, rather than the people.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
778
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

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


multiple white question marks with center red question mark