Watch AARP’s Movies for Grownups awards show online! View the streaming video on PBS.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
725
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

725 Views
Message 11 of 1,000

“In my book, ‘Health and Nutrition Secrets,’ I have a long chapter on the fluoridation issue in which I cite and discuss a great number of real scientific studies which show conclusively that the fluoridation of public drinking water to prevent cavities is not only a scam but that it is also quite harmful, especially being linked to significant brain pathology.” -  Russell L. Blaylock MD, board certified neurosurgeon and  Editor-in-chief of Neuroinflammation section of Surgical Neurology International  (8 Jan 2019)

 

One of the online strategies of the fluoridationists is to bury substantive comments with lots of rhetorical noise. Here are four major points with hyperlinks to supporting detail that they are trying to hide from AARP and seniors on this forum: 

 

  1. Many scientists, doctors, dentists and professionals have come to the conclusion based on the evidence that fluoridation provides little to no dental benefit, but harms bodies, brains and bones. Click here and here

  2. Groups particularly vulnerable to ill effects from fluoridated water include pregnant women, bottle fed babies, senior citizens and any with chronic health conditions. 

  3. Many plants and aquatic species have low tolerance for fluoride which builds up in the environment from waste water where it persists a millions years or more along with the tramp contaminants included in fluoridation chemicals which are the waste product of industry. Click here.

  4. Judges have determined that fluoridation is harmful but legal under US law and should be dealt with by the legislative branch of government or regulatory agencies, but the well-monied fluoride stakeholders who include Big Pharma & Big Sugar as well as the ADA and industrial fluoride interest, pay millions to lobbyists, (and even fund social media campaigns) in order to perpetuate the profitable deceit. Click here

 

Hence, the condemnation of fluoridation from organizations of integrity like the Chlldren's Health Defense, LULAC, IAOMT, and AARP is very important. Click here.

 

DentistsDoctors1.jpgDentistsDoctors2.jpg

 DFandBottleFedBabies.jpgBottle fed babies

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
725
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
733
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

733 Views
Message 12 of 1,000

Dr. Chuck,

 

I wish I could share your confidence in tradition, marketing and money.

 

Science is not stagnant and anchored in stone and we do learn more with time, or at least we should learn more with time.  

 

Although I agree with the US FDA that the evidence of efficacy is incomplete, I will agree with you that some find the limited evidence adequate to claim benefit of tooth decay reduction with the ingestion of some fluoride.

 

What about dosage and safety?  

 

The same evidence suggesting benefit also suggests increasing caries with  an increase in fluoride exposure.  As I posted earlier, there maybe a "sweet" spot of caries reduction with some fluoride exposure and increased caries with less or more fluoride.  

 

In 2011-2012 NHANES the survey indicates 60% dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride, 2% with moderate/severe fluorosis.  

 

Many are ingesting too much fluoride and the same research showing possible benefit shows possible increased caries with more fluoride.  

 

That raises the concern that excess fluoride is increasing dental caries (not to mention fractured teeth, bones, ADHD, lower IQ, etc.)

 

I'm not impressed with like minded believers having reviews of their beliefs.  I've  started to be a part of one of those sham reviews.  The parameters and limitations, restrictions and cherry picked members made me lose confidence.

 

The Chair of the NRC 2006 review (which didn't look at benefit) said his committee was unique in that it was the first review to include members who were not fully supportive of fluoride ingestion.  

 

My question to you is for hard evidence, not digested by cherry picked reviews, but hard evidence on efficacy and safety.  

 

As you know, there is no high quality evidence on efficacy, no prospective RCT.

 

As you know there are no quality reviews of safety of fluoride ingestion at ranges ingested in the USA.

 

I'm looking for facts, research, not tradition, marketing and money.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
733
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
518
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

518 Views
Message 13 of 1,000

Reviews don't counter the primary data, as published for animal studies, and human studies by Ziegelbecker and by Teotia and Teotia and by Yiamouyiannis and in the large CA Dental research study. Reviews also do not include the analysis by Sutton that demonstrate all the original trials purporting to see effectiveness are uncontrolled.

Dr Paul Connett knows better than to claim that fluoridafion is either significantly effective or harmless.  In fact if you read his published book "The Case Against Fluoride; How Hazardous Waste Ended up in our Drinking Water and the Politics that Keep it There" you might learn facts that Paul knows and teaches.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
518
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
441
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

441 Views
Message 14 of 1,000
If you are correct about this is should be trivial in court to demand the "proper" action. Community water fluoridation has been reviewed and reviewed.

Here's a link to a graphic listing of just under 20 such reviews.

http://tinyurl.com/y8gpuuos

I know for a fact that Paul Connett personally testified before some of these expert panels. In fact, excellent scientists selected specifically for their expertise all came to similar conclusions: fluoridation prevents cavities and is safe.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
441
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
418
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

418 Views
Message 15 of 1,000

Richard and AARP,

 

You are absolutely spot on the mark.  

 

SDWA (and EPA in my communication with them) are clear and precise, adding anything to water for the treatment of people is prohibited. 

 

The amount of water people drink is not controlled and therefore dosage is not controlled. 

 

On the other hand, the FDA has not approved ingesting fluoride (through the regulatory process) because the evidence on efficacy is incomplete.

 

AARP should take the scientific and ethical high road and facilitate the review of science on fluoride ingestion.   Good scientists, reviewing data will usually come to similar conclusions.  Consensus is possible.

 

The big problem is the "shut down" of Government.  Not the current shut down, but the shut down of scientific evaluation by government agencies.  Open scientific investigation is simply not permitted if the evidence raises questions on tradition. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
418
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
434
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

434 Views
Message 16 of 1,000

How in the world could the drafters of the SDWA have known ahead of time that in the future there would be such unscrupulous people as to force fluoridate the country by making the ludicrous claims that 1) ingesting fluoride into the bloodstream somehow improves rock-hard teeth enamel but yet 2) at the same time is totally harmless to softer bone that accumulates fluoride readily. All wihtout provided links or proofs for such outlandish claims.

If the drafters had known this, would they then have simply outright prohibited the practice of fluoridating other peopless' drinking water (other than that which oneself drinks)? I don't know but we now know they should have.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
434
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
440
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

440 Views
Message 17 of 1,000

Fluoridation began in 1945 as a forced program. Neither Grand Rapids nor Newburgh NY asked for the program. The Safe Drinking Water Act was written long after that and did not ban fluoridation that already had begun. In fact, any person is still today free to fluoridate their own water and drink all the poisonous garbage they want. But the Act intended to prohibit the government from further spreading this abject assault on the personal freedom of innocent. And yet today several States mandate, that is require, fluoridation of water supplies in all their large cities, in complete and grotesque violation and disregard of the law. The SDWA has statutes that prohibit States from being any less restrictive than for the Federal government. But a fluoridationist can't care about Federal water law or else he must stop being a fluoridationist.

Again, San Diego  voted in two separate elections against fluoridation both times. And yet look what was forced onto the citizens.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
440
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
422
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

422 Views
Message 18 of 1,000

So are Graham and Morin now on a list of "quacks" or "alternative health pimps" or are committing "deception" or are "liars" for not "presenting links to support their claim"?

Again, I don't need to provide anything to a person who refers to others by the above titles. Mercola is probably doing what he believes is true. Fluoridationists also probably truly believe that fluoride is useful and harmless during liflelong consumption. They are not "pimps" for not providng links to that statement and they are probably very sincere. It's just that they are sincerely wrong.  You try to help them but it doesn't do much good.

Congress intended fo prohibit the SDWA from being used to impose water fluodation across an innocent and free country.  I interpret that sentence raitonally, so what?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
422
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
425
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

425 Views
Message 19 of 1,000

I am not a lawyer so I consulted with a lawyer who stated what this passage means. I never said Congress intended to halt fluoridation. I said what the lawyer said, that Congress intended that it halt the spread of water fluoridation.  Apparently a published work by a joint team of a doctor and a lawyer are not good enough for, but I was cefrtain that would be hyour position before I even sent the link. Again, the link was not intended for you. It was for objective rational readers of these pages. Anyone can interpret the sentence about Congress any way they want. As for me, I would reject fluoridation on this sentence alone. Fluoridation does not sanitize water. Period. So the CDC has no rights to request its existence.  And it has no useful purpose and is a simple money drain, like a useless Trump wall that couldn't even stop a gopher, let alone a human or a tunnel-digging drug cartel.

And yes indeed I was accused of having access to millions and why don't I bring a lawsuit if I'm so sure it is illegal. Read my posts because this has already been addressed.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
425
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
431
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

431 Views
Message 20 of 1,000

David,

 

I have not read anything in your posts which gives me the feeling that you honestly want my professional opinion on anything.  Your only interest in my comments is to demean me, attack me, try to prove me wrong, misquote, disparge and rip me apart like you have done to others.  Why should I put myself in that position?  I'm not insane. 

 

Several streams of empirical evidence indicate that many, millions, are hurting because of this public health blunder.  I feel their pain and at times they pay me money because of the public health blunder of excess fluoride exposure.  

 

Like Trump, you have repeatedly said the same disparaging attack over and over again, "Dr. Limeback's deceptive photograph. . . ."    Have you contacted Dr. Limeback?  Have you asked him to explain his comments?  What has been his response?

 

David, no gentleman or scholar would use your terms on another professional.  

 

John Galbraith is reported to have said, "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

 

Once again, may I request a professional scientific discussion.  

 

What scientific evidence (facts) do you rely on which gives you confidence no one in the USA is ingesting too much fluoride and water fluoridation is not a contributing factor to too much fluoride exposure?  And if some are ingesting too much, what is your estimate?  

 

Are you absolutely certain, thousands, tens/hundreds of thousands and millions of Americans are not ingesting too much fluoride?  What is your factual measured evidence?

 

If you answer by referencing other people rather than scientific peer reviewed published literature, then our discussion is over.   I'm not interested in disparaging terms on anyone.  Just factual evidence, not emotions.

 

I am willing to modify, change, or alter my position on fluoride exposure if you or anyone can present measured evidence on efficacy and safety at a fluoride dosage range.  

 

Quotes of tradition, emotion, money, marketing or endorsements do not count.   Facts count.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
431
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Top Authors