There’s always more to discover with an AARP membership! Check out your member benefits.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
807
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

807 Views
Message 171 of 1,162

Dr. Chuck,

 

I had a closer look and over 200 peer reviewed published studies reporting harm to the brain from fluoride exposure.

 

Simply made no sense that you would be sending me so many articles on harm to the brain from fluoride in an effort to convince us that fluoride is safe.

 

I thought, certainly Dr. Chuck has not read these studies and still supports fluoridation.

 

Studies through a number of years, smaller brains, with potential treatments such as vitamin therapy and other methods to try and ameliorate the brain damage.

 

Studies on learning diminished.  Studies on intelligence diminished.

 

And then I discovered the possible catch.  The link you sent took me to my Drop Box but must not be the references you intended.   Please send the references again.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
807
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
773
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

773 Views
Message 172 of 1,162

Dr. Chuck,

 

Thank you for sending references in the Drop Box, but it makes no sense.

 

Are we on the same page or did you not read the studies?  How am I misunderstanding you?

 

Lets discuss the first study in your list.  

 

Olusegun 2013 published in Toxicology.

 

Fluoride caused a diminished brain weight in rats compared to controls.  

 

Why do you consider smaller brains to be good or safe or effective?

 

Certainly the fluoride appears to have had an effect.  Would you consider lower brain weight to be a benefit?  Or safe?  Or effective?

 

Clearly, fluoride had an effect on the brain by reducing or stunting development.

 

A smaller brain is BAD.  Is HARM.   NOT GOOD.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
773
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
766
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

766 Views
Message 173 of 1,162

“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
766
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
771
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

771 Views
Message 174 of 1,162

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
771
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
554
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

554 Views
Message 175 of 1,162

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
554
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
476
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

476 Views
Message 176 of 1,162
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
476
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
453
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

453 Views
Message 177 of 1,162

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
453
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
469
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

469 Views
Message 178 of 1,162

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
469
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
473
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

473 Views
Message 179 of 1,162

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
473
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
455
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

455 Views
Message 180 of 1,162

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
455
Views