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

Reply
Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1302
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,302 Views
Message 451 of 1,444

Regarding the effect of fluoride on the brains of rodents, the abstract of a paper titled ‘Neurotoxicity of fluoride: Neurodegeneration in hippocampus of female mice’ (Bhatnagar et al., 2002) published in the Indian Journal of Experimental Biology reads:

“Light microscopic study of hippocampal sub-regions demonstrated significant number of degenerated nerve cell bodies in the CA3, CA4 and dentate gyrus(Dg) areas of sodium fluoride administered adult female mice. Ultrastructural studies revealed neurodegenrative characteristics like involution of cell membranes, swelling of mitochondria, clumping of chromatin material etc. can be observed in cell bodies of CA3, CA4 and dentate gyrus (Dg). Fluoride intoxicated animals also performed poorly in motor co-ordination tests and maze tests. Inability to perform well increased with higher fluoride concentration in drinking water.”

See full paper at IJEB 40(5) 546-554.pdf

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1302
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1304
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,304 Views
Message 452 of 1,444

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” - Albert Einstein 

 

I got curious so went looking for that study on fluoride reducing brain size in rats that Chuck apparently sent Bill in error. I didn't find it, but I found two others that I found interesting given that I had been experiencing alarming liver problems between 2012-2014 that disappeared overnight without returning when I got very strict about avoiding fluoride, even using no-low fluoride water to brush my teeth. My gastrointestinal, kidney and arthritic symptoms that plagued me for decades also diappeared not to return. Ditto for my high cholesterol which began in my 20s concurrent with all those other symptoms and the fluoridation of my town. 

 

Fluoride messes with lipids which are the body's main energy store and associated with the liver as well as messes with the immune system. (Afolabi et al. 2013)

 

Low doses of fluoride damages good antioxidants that protects cells and increases lipid peroxidation which is damaging to cells, particularly the liver. (Yamaguti et al. 2013)

 

We don't need any more studies: Fluoride is poison in any dose, more dangerous to some people than others, but particularly dangerous to the bodies, bones and brains of senior citizens who have consumed it daily for decades. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (1)
2
Kudos
1304
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1274
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,274 Views
Message 453 of 1,444

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
2
Kudos
1274
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1239
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,239 Views
Message 454 of 1,444

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
3
Kudos
1239
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1232
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,232 Views
Message 455 of 1,444

“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
3
Kudos
1232
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1236
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,236 Views
Message 456 of 1,444

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
2
Kudos
1236
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
916
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

916 Views
Message 457 of 1,444

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
2
Kudos
916
Views
Highlighted
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
794
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

794 Views
Message 458 of 1,444
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
794
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
775
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

775 Views
Message 459 of 1,444

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
2
Kudos
775
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
807
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

807 Views
Message 460 of 1,444

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
1
Kudos
807
Views