Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
551
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

551 Views
Message 471 of 1,425

David,

 

Consider 3 main catagories of evidence strongly affecting most people.

 

1.  Marketing/money are the most powerful.

 

2.  Tradition is almost as powerful as marketing and money.

 

3.  Current facts/science which changes our paradigm has less power for most people (like Donald Trump).  However, facts and science should have the most impact for critical thinking individuals.  

 

Which of those do you think Delta Dental and other dental insurance companies put emphasis, rely on?  Money, marketing, profit, unless alittle waste would upset tradition, their base.  Delta Dental support tradition so they can lower fees paid to dentists.  They don't want to totally anger dentists and other insurance companies go along.  8 years ago I twice asked Delta for their numbers on cost benefit of fluoridation, reduced caries and/or costs in fluoridated communities.  Delta said the numbers were soon to be published.  8 years later and nothing published.  I bet the numbers don't show cost reduction so they don't publish.  A few clicks on their computers would show the difference in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.  Facts don't support tradition so silence.

 

What about organizations other NGO and Governments and Public Health?  What do they rely on?  Tradition?  Lots of work to review the science.

 

What about you?  Your emails keep going to tradition and marketing/money.

 

Fluoridation had great marketing and money, little science, when it started.

 

NGO's jumped in, partly to "do good."  

 

Tradition keeps fluoridation going inspite of the new science showing lack of benefit (probably because other sources of fluoride and excess fluoride increases caries) and serious risks.

 

David, when you reference money, marketing or tradition, I pay little attention and for those opposed to fluoridation I expect they turn off their hearing.  We should not abandon tradition on a whim, but on science and facts.

 

If you would start to provide science within the last 20 years, I'm listening.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
551
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
558
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

558 Views
Message 472 of 1,425

I think readers understand that AARP is not an organization that spends time in attempts, usually futile, to change laws, as neither am I in such a position. 

But it is the trurh that matters.

A friend I hadn't seen in years has a child in Temecula who has consumed fluoridated water since it began there in 2007 and now has substantial dental fluorosis that is unsightly.  I am upset that I was unable to explain to them the truth about fluoridation. 

Another source of fluoride in bone is general anesthesia where 10 % of the drug is metabolized to the ion. To answer Dr. Osmunsen's question about what fluoride sources should be removed to curtail these problems from fluoride exposure, it is obviously fluoride in water which has no benefit at all, as proven in controlled animal studies and in the largest human studies we have.

It was claimed that Delta Dental is knowledgable enough to believe in fluoridation. But the truth is that DD is a business that collects premiums and pays from that part of peoples' dental bills, but never more than what is paid in, so massive amounts of money are accumulated which are regularly given to city councils to coerce cities to undergo this bone fluoridartion program where it is argued to be "mandated by law". DD believes in what they are doing but people would be better served if their premiums were used in full to pay dental bills, like a real insurance company does such as AAA auto insurance. They replace the whole car, not part of a wrecked car. That way DD would be insulated ftom the useless harmful fluoridation scam.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
558
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
578
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

578 Views
Message 473 of 1,425

Richard Sauerheber,

 

I laugh every time I hear you repeat this (one of so many) falsehood:  “ 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.”  Timestamp:  01-14-2019 02:37 PM

 

Below your odd interpretation is “Carry Anne,” as she is known in this thread, quoting from the Safe Drinking Water Act:  “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.”  Timestamp:  01-14-2019 02:07 PM

 

Aside from the fact that the statute that “Carry Anne” quotes does not prohibit community water fluoridation, I have to wonder, Richard, since you seem to have such an enlightened perspective of the law, why you present these interesting legal opinions to the attention of the AARP in a discussion thread.  Do you believe that after accepting your legal opinion, the AARP has the ability to change the law? 

 

I’m just thinking out loud here, but wouldn’t your expert legal opinion be better served in a Court of Law where actual results may occur? 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
578
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
592
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

592 Views
Message 474 of 1,425

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
592
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
616
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

616 Views
Message 475 of 1,425

“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
616
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
614
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

614 Views
Message 476 of 1,425

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
614
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
615
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

615 Views
Message 477 of 1,425

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
615
Views
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
722
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

722 Views
Message 478 of 1,425

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
722
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
735
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

735 Views
Message 479 of 1,425

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
735
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
759
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

759 Views
Message 480 of 1,425

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
759
Views