Reply
Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

 

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

13,097 Views
1449
Report
Conversationalist

Come on Ken.  Do you really want to shoot arrows into people or talk facts?

 

I have read many, many of Carry Anne's posts and indeed she "brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted."   

 

Do you want to go over the list of good evidence?   If I started, you would fail to respond.  Instead you try to do a character assassination.  Be professional.   You can be better than that if you try. . . I've seen you do better.

 

You criticize her for harvesting citations.  Indeed, so does everyone.  Every good researcher relies on other researchers.  You want discussion from her, but you fail to provide discussion on my questions.  

 

Part of the problem both sides have is the many many studies.  Low to moderate quality, but many studies.  For that very reason, fluoridation should stop until we know dosage, exposure, benefit and risks at that exposure.  We don't know what we don't know and should not force medicate when we don't know (or even if we do know.).   

 

I keep asking for your empirical evidence for dosage or even opinion and I have not seen any response for a couple years.  Because no one has that basic information.  Proponents talk about concentration rather than dosage because we don't know dosage.  Dosage has not really been studdied well.  

 

You say she does not understand the citations and this is not a place to discuss them in detail.    How do you know she does not understand?  Are you a mind reader?  Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't, but I know for sure, none of us fully understands all the studies and aspects of administering the fluoride contaminant as a medication/drug with the intent to prevent disease (probably due in part to excess sugar intake) to each person without their consent.  

 

Instead of a personal attack, attack the message with good evidence.

 

After all, it is you who wants to take away my freedom of choice and have me ingest more fluoride.  How do you know I need more fluoride?  You don't even know if I have teeth.  So how much more fluoride should each person ingest, at what stage of life is a benefit, and how much is a risk?  And what are the synergistic chemicals of harm and benefit.   Yes, caries is affected by other elements such as calcium in the water.   Prevention of caries is a complex issue.

 

Stick to facts and quit avoiding and evading responding to me by attacking Carry Anne.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Conversationalist

Come on Ken.  Do you really want to shoot arrows into people or talk facts?

 

I have read many, many of Carry Anne's posts and indeed she "brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted."   

 

Do you want to go over the list of good evidence?   If I started, you would fail to respond.  Instead you try to do a character assassination.  Be professional.   You can be better than that if you try. . . I've seen you do better.

 

You criticize her for harvesting citations.  Indeed, so does everyone.  Every good researcher relies on other researchers.  You want discussion from her, but you fail to provide discussion on my questions.  

 

Part of the problem both sides have is the many many studies.  Low to moderate quality, but many studies.  For that very reason, fluoridation should stop until we know dosage, exposure, benefit and risks at that exposure.  We don't know what we don't know and should not force medicate when we don't know (or even if we do know.).   

 

I keep asking for your empirical evidence for dosage or even opinion and I have not seen any response for a couple years.  Because no one has that basic information.  Proponents talk about concentration rather than dosage because we don't know dosage.  Dosage has not really been studdied well.  

 

You say she does not understand the citations and this is not a place to discuss them in detail.    How do you know she does not understand?  Are you a mind reader?  Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't, but I know for sure, none of us fully understands all the studies and aspects of administering the fluoride contaminant as a medication/drug with the intent to prevent disease (probably due in part to excess sugar intake) to each person without their consent.  

 

Instead of a personal attack, attack the message with good evidence.

 

After all, it is you who wants to take away my freedom of choice and have me ingest more fluoride.  How do you know I need more fluoride?  You don't even know if I have teeth.  So how much more fluoride should each person ingest, at what stage of life is a benefit, and how much is a risk?  And what are the synergistic chemicals of harm and benefit.   Yes, caries is affected by other elements such as calcium in the water.   Prevention of caries is a complex issue.

 

Stick to facts and quit avoiding and evading responding to me by attacking Carry Anne.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Conversationalist

Come on Bill, make up your mind. You block me on social media and think you now have the right to intervene in a discussion here with someone else. I am sure you and CarryAnne are colleagues - but why do you not let her speak for herself.

It has been me who has presented facts and have not employed a single arrow, character assassination or personal abuse, as you do. Nor do I block people or run away because I am losing an argument - If I am wrong I usually say so, apologise, and move on. I think that is the ethically correct response for a scientist

1: You admit CarryAnne harvests citations. And she does this in an extreme way - a long list of claims and citations she is completely unwilling to discuss.

2: I do not know if CarryAnne understands them or not - but her complete unwillingness to discuss her claims does suggest she has no confidence in her claims. This is a problem I find with many anti-fluoride activists who use barrages of citations. They can't discuss them because they have never read them. In many cases, they haven't even read the abstracts.

3: CarryAnne is the one who refused to have a reasonable scientific exchange on her claims. She refused my offer of a good faith, uncensored, exchange along the lines of the one I had with Paul Connett. And she refused to respond by discussing the one citation I did comment on - chosen as an example as one can have a reasonable discussion about one study but not a long list in forums like this. She just opted out saying this was not the place for such a discussion - which underlines that her citation harvesting and presenting a long list of claims had nothing to do with science or discussion, anyway.

4: I have not attacked this woman - I have simply asked for a discussion and pointed out she refused. To the extent she appears to have disappeared from this forum.

Pease, Bill, you need to stop interfering in other's discussions. It is up to CarryAnne whether she interacts with me, whether she takes up my offer of a good faith scientific exchange on even one of the claims she made. You haven't even bothered to enter into that exchange on her behalf - simply attacked me without any basis.

 

If I was CarryAnne I would consider your actions rude, intrusive and sexist. If she has the credibility to list a series of claims and citations then she should have the understanding to represent herself in a good faith scientific exchange. 

Has she asked you to speak for her or have you just rudely pushed in and taken it on yourself?

1,559 Views
16
Report
Conversationalist

Ken,

 

How much fluoride is good (dosage, tooth concentration, urine concentration,  and/or blood concentration) and how much fluoride is harmful dosage, tooth concentration, urine concentration,  and/or blood concentration for all diseases and side effects?

 

In the context of a lack of consent for the patient, certainly public health officials and promoters should have those basic simple numbers at your finger tips. hierarchical evidence is a house of cards and the fluoridation house of cards is marketed on assumptions and estimates and guessing.  

 

The most fundamental scientific questions which for two years you refuse to discuss or provide any evidence.

 

Instead of focusing on science, you attack individuals.  

 

I never blocked you on social media.  I don't know how to block someone other than my cell phone for telemarketing scam.  True, I quit responding to you because you failed to discuss science but I have never blocked you.

 

You are assuming and guessing and simply wrong about Carry Anne and me.   Attacking someone is simply unprofessional and proves you do not have basic science evidence on fluoridation.  Focus on the message rather than the messenger.  Fluoridation is not a sparing or debate contest but rather health and disease (for some, life and death.)

 

You claim to present facts, but this last post as most of yours, does not have one reference or scientific fact or scientific concept.  All about attacking people because you don't have the science.

 

It appears you want a private conversation with Carry Anne in a public forum.  Of course other people can jump in, and when you attack people, I may jump in if I have time.  

 

I understand you are frustrated with Carry Anne because she provides so many references and you cannot go into detail on each one.  You would like to "divide and conquer" each study.  And yes, every study has limitation.  Use the same critical thinking on both sides of the controversy.  

 

And remember, the proof of benefit should have much higher quality research than the proof of harm.  We can have RCT studies on benefit but we cannot have RTC studies on harm. . . simply unethical.  

 

Now, get back to the basic questions, dosage for efficacy and harm.  

 

Dosage.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Conversationalist

I apologise BillO538145. I always seem to mix you up with Hardy Limeback - who did recently block me.

So a heartfelt apology - especially as at one stage you did agree to participate in an uncensored good faith exchange with me on the scientific issues related to community water fluoridation. I referred to the possibility here:

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/do-we-need-a-new-fluoride-debate/

We actually got started - you sent me a 55-page document which we were discussing with an aim to shorten before posting when you backed out. See

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/new-fluoride-debate-falters/

At the time you were the director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and told me you had changed your mind after pressure from your FAN colleagues.

 

You claim "Instead of focusing on science, you attack individuals." I think readers can make up their own mind from the discussion here  where I have even been called a "demon," have been personally attacked by you Richard and CarryAnne." All because I have been presenting and discussing science.

Neither you nor CarryAnne responded to my objective consideration of the Bashash et al studies.

So, sorry for the mix-up. My incorrect attitude was determined by mistaken identity. So go ahead. I welcome your input to discussing the scientific analysis I gave on the Bashash et al (2018) study in response to CarryAnne's claim and citation.

Please reread my contribution and respond to it here.

1,788 Views
14
Report
Conversationalist

Ken,

I accept your apology and with so many dentists opposed to fluoridation, it is easy to get us mixed up.  (See www.IAOMT.org)

 

I have not responded to your comments on Bashash, and need you to post again.  However, we will probably agree on much.  The main area of disagreement will be on a global perspective.  

 

No research has the entire answer to any public health policy or question.  I think you would agree, that is not how science works.  We try to get a study down to one or two variables, which never answers all questions.

 

When I first started looking at the fluoridation question, there were perhaps 10 studies on neurotoxicity.  A concern, but not definitive.  Over the last couple decades there have been about 50 more published studies on fluoride's neurotoxicity.    What is the trend?   At first the dosages of fluoride were rather high reporting harm.  With time, the dosages finding harm have decreased and decreased and decreased and still harm is being reported.  

 

From a global view, the trend becomes more of a concern and yes, a few studies reporting no harm.  

 

All the studies have limitations, but the trend does not appear to be in the direction of fluoride being safe at low exposure levels for all people at all stages of life.  What are the chances with better accuracy and better studies that we will find the more than 50 studies reporting neurotoxicity are fatally flawed?  I don't think the chance is very big.

 

The evaluation of benefit for a drug is ethically challenging, but possible.  The evaluation of risk of a drug is ethically very very difficult.   Researches cannot give fluoride to people and measure when they are harmed.  No research ethics review board would permit such studies.  Those were done by Hitler and the USPHS, the last one I know of ended in the 1970's.

 

But we can't assume everything is safe because we can not ethically test for harm.  The absence of research does not prove safety.  Low quality studies are not proof of safety.  

 

The main criticism of the Bashish study one of the co-authors (a fluoride promoter) could give was, "we don't know if that applies to the US population because we don't know how much fluoride is in the urine of pregnant mothers in the USA."

 

Not knowing is not proof of safety.  And we have studies (not enough) on US humans to know a range of urine fluoride concentrations.  And the concentrations overlap with the Bashash study reporting harm.  And we now have 60% of adolescents with a biomarker of excess fluoride.

 

Ken, if we were discussing fluoride supplements or fluoride toothpaste, I would not waste my time on fluoride because those are free choices.  

 

Water fluoridation is not by individual consent.

 

Fluoridation goes to everyone without dosage control.

 

Fluoridation goes to everyone even though potential benefit is up to the age of 8.  

 

Clearly, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

You are correct, research on fluoride exposure is not high quality and has limitations.  I agree.  And that is precisely why we should not give more fluoride to everyone when we do not know the dosage they are already getting, whether it will have any benefit, and is without their consent.

 

Fluoridation is terrible public health policy.

 

Back to basics, how much fluoride should a person ingest and how much is harmful.   

 

Simple basic pharmacology.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

Thanks Dr. Osmunsen.

On page 91 in the NRC 2006 Report it is clear that in the 8 studies examined for urine fluoride that the water fluoride concentration typically matches that in the urine over the range 0.09 to 2.7 ppm.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

I do not have the skill to search back for my response to CarryAnne re the Bashash studies. However, they related to

The statistically poor nature of the reported relationship with maternal urinary F (R-squared of 3%);

The fact maternal nutrition was not considered - despite the fact that Malin et al (2018) showed a much better relationship for this (R-squared greater than 11%) for a subsample of the same child-mother pairs.

It is very possible that the inclusion of maternal nutrition in the multiple regression would show no significant relationship for maternal prenatal urinary F.

The fact that no significant relationship was found with child urinary F.

You can find more detailed critiques from me here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330897483_Evidence_linking_attention_deficit_hyperactivity_...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324216872_Predictive_accuracy_of_a_model_for_child_IQ_based...

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321457780_Fluoridation_and_attention_deficit_hyperactivity_...

 

You say:

"Over the last couple decades there have been about 50 more published studies on fluoride's neurotoxicity.    What is the trend?  "

You omit to mention the vast majority of these studies relate to areas of endemic fluorosis - there are many health problems in these population.

All the studies related to community water fluoridation (in New Zealand and Canada) or populations exposed to similar concentrations (Sweden) show there is no effect of fluoride on IQ. So the trend is clearly to show no effect for CWF.

1,766 Views
11
Report
Conversationalist

Ken,

 

I agree nutrition is a confounding issue in almost all health studies.  But I would disagree that the few studies showing no neurotox effect of fluoride had good nutrition control and those showing IQ loss were all flawed.  And the NZ study did not compare total fluoride ingestion, water sources were problematic, and other flaws.  The Swedish study had serious flaws.  All have limitations.  

 

We are looking for safety, not absolute proof of harm.  

 

Would you agree, dental fluorosis is a sign of excess fluoride ingestion prior to age 8 while the teeth are developing?

 

Would you agree with the NRC 2006 report that severe dental fluorosis is an adverse health effect. . . harm?

 

Would you agree with the NHANES 2011-2012 survey in the USA that 2% of adolescents have severe dental fluorosis, 20% moderate or severe?

 

If so, then you would agree that 2% are being harmed from excess fluoride exposure.  

 

Is 2% of adolescents (and growing) harmed OK with you?  What percentage of the population harmed would not be acceptable to you?  At what point would you say too many are ingesting too much fluoride?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Conversationalist

Bill, it's not a matter of studies being "flawed." All studies have limitations - its a matter fo discussing them.

The Broadbent study was part of the world acclaimed Dunedin study and therefore had many advantages. It did answer the question of whether fluoridation itself caused cognitive deficits - which has been the claim of the Connett crowd for the last few years. It doesn't.

Any limitations are minor compared with those of the poor quality Chines studies made in areas of endemic fluorosis - the most obvious of those limitations is that those studies had nothing to do with fluoridation and that health problems are very common with people living in such areas.


Specifically, there is no evidence that F intake was unusual in the NZ study - drinking water could be presumed to be the main source. Water sources were "not problematic" - there was either CWF or not. And "other flaws" is simply a copout. You cannot find anything of significance wrong with that study.

I have asserted that the major limitation of that study (and of most other studies to a large extent) is the confidence intervals - the sizes of which are determined by sample number. For this reason, Broadbent has pointed to the Swedish study as being more important in that CIs were very low as the sample numbers were very high.

 

You do not say what the "serious flaws" of the Swedish study were - I can only assume that in the eyes of the Connett crowd the "serious flaws" in all fluoridation studies is that they do not give the answers Connett wanted. If they did he would have been lauding those studies as the best things since sliced bread. Their disgusting behavior over the NTP study shows this - Connett predicted that study would lead to the end of fluoridation worldwide and was very flattering in describing the study - until it produced a result he did not want (no effect of F on cognitive abilities). Now he and his crowd are slandering the research and the researchers.

Yes, dental fluorosis of serious or moderate form is a sign of excess fluoride and it is the sole factor used in defining the upper limits in drinking water. The research indicates that in communities where community water fluoridation is used (and therefore in which drinking water does not contain excessive fluoride) the major cause of dental fluorosis is excessive consumption of other fluoride sources - mainly ingestion of toothpaste.

No, that 2% with moderate or severe dental fluorosis is not something to be happy about. That is why health authorities do campaign on how children should use toothpaste and how to avoid excessive consumption of toothpaste.

I look forward to your response to my comments on the Bashash studies - the comments which CaryAnne simply refuses to respond to as she avoids any proper scientific exchange.

Conversationalist

Ken,

Take the blinders off.  You really frustrate me.  I feel like I'm communicating with a brick wall.  

 

The Broadbent study has serious limitations and incapable of determining harm.  I've gone over that study with you before.  Why are you still quoting the mythology of Broadbent?

 

Come on man.  Think.  

 

Most of the controls were taking fluoride supplements.  No urine or serum fluoride concentrations were measured.  

 

The study compared water fluoridation (assuming some or all were actually drinking the water) with fluoride supplements (assuming most or all were taking fluoride supplements).  And there were other confounding factors as I remember of polution, urban/rural, lack of measured data etc.

 

Ken you make no sense.  You are not capable of understanding total exposure of fluoride.  You evade and avoid the foundation of science.

 

If you are standing in water up to your nose and someone adds 2 more inches of water and you drown, which two inches of water is to blame?  The total amount of water caused the drowning.  

 

There are many sources of fluoride and many are ingesting too much fluoride from many sources; medications, foods, pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, toothpaste, etc.   

 

Because too many are ingesting too much fluoride, what source of fluoride should be reduced?    What caused the excess?  All sources, not just water fluoridation.

 

It is a no brainer, intentionally adding more fluoride to people already ingesting too much fluoride is barbaric.  STOP fluoridation is logical because fluoridation serves no other purpose than the mythology of mitigating/preventing dental caries 

 

You want me to discuss with you, but you fail to answer the obvious questions on dosage because you do not have answers for the obvious essential questions.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Conversationalist

Bill, I wish you would back away from the personal attacks. I know this is encouraged by your colleagues in the Connett crowd - but come on. You are surely capable of a good faith scientific exchange. Instead of attacking me when you think I am wrong point to the evidence. That is what I respect. I have no respect for personal attacks or ideologically motivated propaganda and distortion of the science.

You say the "Broadbent study has serious limitations and incapable of determining harm. " But you don't list the "serious limitations." I assume you mean the Connett/Hirzy analysis when you say it was "incapable of determining harm." This is just another way of saying the effect (which you assume, without evidence, must be there) is so small it cannot normally be detected because of limitations of sample size. The sample size used by Broadbent was already largest than most studies bunt the Swedish study used a huge sample size and still could not find the negative effect you hope for.

(I suppose you will also fall back on this argument for the fact that the Bashash study was unable to show a relationship of child urinary F to IQ).

The overlap of treatments, (fluoridated, non-fluoridated, supplements, breast feeding, etc., is accommodated by the multiple regression analysis. Any extreme overlap will increase the sizer of the CIs, sure, but that is all. Partial overlap does not nullify the results - you are confused because this is not the sort of study that the Connett crowd usually promotes - comparison of two villages in China. It is a multi-factorial study using multiple regression.

It is truly silly to sate as you do:

“The study compared water fluoridation (assuming some or all were actually drinking the water) with fluoride supplements (assuming most or all were taking fluoride supplements).  And there were other confounding factors as I remember of polution, urban/rural, lack of measured data etc.” This was not a two-factor study – it was a multi-regression study.

You are perhaps unaware that the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health & Development Study has a very high approval and status internationally. It is truly impressive. You are wrong about factors measured because blood tests (and I think urine tests) are regularly made.

The huge amount of data enabled Broadbent et al to answer all the criticisms made of their study by going back to the data and including new data (for example Pb) in the regression. It is a truly very useful and thorough study which has produced a large number of publications:

https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/publications

Bill, you are the one who should think. And to think properly you need to abandon the chains of your bias. Considering you are embedded in the Connett crowd I can understand this is difficult for you. But you could make a start by avoiding personal attacks and instead deal with the facts as I present them and as the studies present them.

What about moving on from the Broadbent et al study - you are not going to win that one considering the high credibility it has. What about dealing with my critique of the Bashash studies – after all the Connett crowd seem to think these are the best thing since sliced bread now (although that might change if Bashash et al ever get around to including maternal nutrition in their multiple regressions.




Conversationalist

Ken.

 

Broadbent 2015, "Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand."

 

Consider Table 1.  

 

CWF =                          891 cohorts.

Never lived in CWF =     99 controls.

 

Fluoride tablets    =      139 participants.

 

Stick with me Ken, this is something that for years you have failed to grasp about the Broadbent study.

 

Seldom do doctors prescribe fluoride in fluoridated communities.  Double dose is not recommended.  Therefore, we can assume, most of the 139 on pills were in the "Never lived in CWF" group of 99.  

 

Slow down, calm down, read that again.  The purpose of a doctor prescribing fluoride tablets is because the patient is not on fluoridated water.  Therefore, from a clinician's point of view, most of the 139 on fluoride tablets were part of the 99 non-CWF controls. Broadbent does not address this huge problem which makes the study incapable of determinging an IQ difference.   

 

And further:

 

The methods state, " Residence in a CWF area, use of fluoride dentifrice and intake of 0.5-milligram fluoride tablets were assessed in early life (prior to age 5 years); we assessed IQ repeatedly between ages 7 to 13 years and at age 38 years."

 

Keep in mind:

 

"In childhood, no statistically significant difference in IQ existed between participants who had or had not resided in areas with CWF, used fluoride toothpaste, or used fluoride tablets, both before (Table 1) and after (Table 2)  adjusting for potential confounding variables."

 

Apparently, IF fluoride affects IQ, the source of fluoride did not appear to make a difference.

 

Breastfeeding showed higher IQ irrespective of 0.3 or 1.0 fluoride in water or fluoride supplements. 

 

Did the cohorts actually drink the water or bottled water?  No mention.

 

In other studies, water district claims for fluoridation of each house were not accurate by about 10%.   Did the cohorts actually drink the water and how much water?  Broadbent says, "A limitation is that we did not ask how much water study members drank. Individual water-intake level was not directly measured, meaning that the CWF exposure variable is an ecological one."

 

What percentage of fluoride exposure comes from public water?  "Other sources of fluoride are also important in assessment of total intake. Prior to age 5 years, water intake is thought to account for less than half of total fluoride intake among children."

 

Ken, digest the statistics.  The study is comparing about half the fluoride exposure for CWF.  

 

Broadbent states: "Dietary fluoride was not considered, although we did consider exposure to fluoride from dentifrices and fluoride tablets."

 

Urban/rural was not considered, although most without CWF were in satellite suburbs.

 

Broadbent did not report the calcium or other mineral concentrations in the water which also affects dental caries.

 

 

 

Broadbent had no controls and compared fluoridation exposure with fluoride tablet exposure.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conversationalist

Bill, you confuse the issue when you say of Broadbent's study - "Most of the subjects (if they were drinking the public water) were on fluoride supplements." From the figures, you then cite this is patently untrue.

But the basic problem in your approach is that you do not understand that this is a multivariate study - not a simplistic bivariate study of the sort reported in the poor quality Chinese studies you rely on which compared two villages - one in an area of endemic fluorosis and one not.

Put simply - there are no "controls" - there are treatments." - multiple "treatments."

Yes, the overlap of treatments influence the confidence intervals of the result of the multiple regression. This is inevitable. That I why I have said that the main flaw is that the size of the CIs influences the sensitivity of the detection. Or, in other words, the IQ effect (which you assume without evidence occurs) is so small that it is not detected by the regression analysis.

One can drive that argument to infinitely small effects, as for example with the Swedish study which had very large sample numbers.

You assume that only the residents of the nonfluoridated area (and then all the residents of that area) received supplements. The numbers show that is patently untrue and again you completely ignore the results of the statistical analysis which teases this sort of theing out in the size of the resultoing CIs.

The fact that you keep talking about "controls" shows your lack of understanding. You do not understand that this was not like the studies with what Broadbent et al refer to as "simplistic methodological design" that you put so much faith in.

Search through the paper and you will see Broadbent do not use the noun "control" in the way you do.

You go on to claim that Broadbent ignored other sources of F intake. The authors responded to this claim in the paper replying to the critique form the Connett crowd. (By the way, I wish that, in your consideration of this study, you would actually refer to both papers. The fact that you don't often means you are attempting to break through open doors - arguing a point the authors have already dealt with).

It is interesting that Connett and Hirzy seem to give up on the supplement argument to instead argue, vias motivated reasoning and poorly-based calculation, that the major F intake in fluoridated communities does not from the water but from other sources. They effectively say that scientific investigation of communities like New Zeland would not pick up a fluoridation effect on IQ. 

Of course, this is wild speculation on their part (and partially explains why they could not get their paper published in a reputable journal so had to fall back on "Fluoride." And I think they do not believe it themselves - if they did they would stop campaigning against community water fluoridation but instead would campaign against all the other sources of fluoride which the had argued were more important.

0 Kudos
1,840 Views
4
Report
Conversationalist

Ken,

 

Looks like we agree on much, regarding Broadbent.

 

The study essentially compared two sources of fluoride (fluoridation and fluoride tablets) with IQ and there were no controls.   Bravo.  We agree.  I use the word controls because most people reading the title and conclusion and study assume Broadbent was comparing fluoridation and no fluoridation with IQ.

 

And the title and conclusions are misleading, devious, fraudulent, flawed, fake science or misleading. . . take your pick.  Typical fluoridationist half truth lies.  Same type of flawed reasoning goes with cancer/fluoride studies.  Compare two cancers and fluoride. . . no difference between the two cancers but a huge difference in cancer free patients.

 

Broadbent concludes, "These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic."    I would agree if Broadbent had continued, "when compared with fluoride tablets"

 

However; Ken, do NOT every simply state that the Broadbent study is evidence fluoridation is not  neurotoxic unless you add a phrase such as, compared to excess fluoride from other sources.  

 

I have been hammering at you to consider dosage.  As a prescribing doctor, daily I consider mg/Kg body weight to prescribe medications.  The same applies to fluoride regardless of the source.

 

I have never seen your reply to my questions on dosage.  You evade the most serious fundamental dispensing questions because once anyone goes down that path they must ethically and scientifically reject additional fluoride supplementation through either fluoridation or tablets .

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

Conversationalist

No, Bill, we do not agree. Please stop this playing.

We are miles apart because you continue to treat the more sophisticated methodology used by Broadbent et al as if it were the far more naive methodology used by the poor quality Chinese studies comparing areas of endemic fluorosis with other areas. Studies the Connett crowd consider as "ideal" (because they fit their biases) yet they have many flaws and should not be used to make the absolute conclusions you do.

The study did not "compare two sources of fluoride."  It investigated a number of possible risk-modifying factors for their influence on IQ at various ages using multiple regression. The two-factor type study you talk about could never have, for example, shown a positive effect of breastfeeding.

You excuse your use of the word "controls" - never used by Broadbent et al and entirely inappropriate for this study - by referring to "most people." You are simply displaying you bais and forced misunderstanding because most sensible people understand statisical analysis would recognise this word is completley inaapropriate.

Again youi dispaly your unwillingess to look at such studies sensibly by refusing to consider that all the objections raised by the Connett crowd were dealt with by Broadbent in their second paper. This showed that whereas they had not considered all other forms of F intake (they did consider some like toothpaste) in their first paper becuase they considered them unlikley to ahve an influence - they did consider them in the second paper and showed they had no influence. (Effectively Hirzy and Connett came to a simiolar ocnclusion, although the data they used was highlky motivated and was not appropriate for New Zealand).

My response to you on "dosage" has been presented several tuimes. I cannot help if your bias prevents you from understanding my response.

The word has no more legitimacy to the discussion of fluoride than it has to the discussion of iodine or selenium intake. Or any other nutrient. Neither of these nutrients should be treated like a highly active drug where intake must be accurately controlled.

Conversationalist

Ken,

 

All the people in the Broadbent study were on extra fluoride.  

 

If everyone in the study is taking fluoride, then detecting an effect from the fluoride is not possible.  

 

And I have failed to see your answers to my questions.  Please post again.  I am busy and don't always read all the posts here, so please also send it to my email at bill@teachingsmiles.com.  

 

And Randy, you want me to take the science to those "experts" who evaluate the science and create the consensus.  Wonderful, please list those individuals or the organizations who create the "consensus."   I've been trying to find them and no one accepts responsibility.   Forward me the names please.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Conversationalist

Bill -please support your claim - "All the people in the Broadbent study were on extra fluoride."

As it stands it is simply a declaration - which is ideological/political. It is certainly not a substantiated scientific statement.

You could support your claim in either of two ways:

1: Provide the list of samples with the treatments (actually this should be available but not expected to be published);

2: Cite the infinite confidence intervals that would result if this claim were true.

I have not seen the specific individual data and have no interest in attempting to get it. But I have seen the statistical analysis and the results a quite inconsistent with your claim.

So I can only conclude you have pulled that claim out of thin air, or somewhere else. It is certainly not factual.

I am unaware of questions I have asked you that refer to - except to deal with my comments on the Bashash studies. These were what motivated you to intervene in my discussion with CarryAnne and you seem completely unaware of the problems in those studies, such as the poor nature of the relationship, the lack of any relationship with child urinary F and the need to consider other important risk-modifying factors like maternal prenatal nutrition.

Conversationalist

Ken,

 

If I tell you the data on Broadbent, you will not spend the time to read the study again and evaluate the the flaws.

 

How many cohorts were subjects on fluoridated water?

 

How many were controls?

 

How many of the controls were on fluoride supplements?

 

What was the difference in the polution in the water between the two areas?

 

My point is,

 

Most of the subjects (if they were drinking the public water) were on fluoride supplements dispensed as fluoridation.

 

Most of the controls were on fluoride supplements dispensed as pills/liquid (if they took the pills).

 

The difference in dosage of fluoride between the two groups was too small to detect IQ loss.

 

This is probably the 4th time in the last few years I have repeated that the Broadbent study was incapable of determining IQ loss and is certainly not evidence ingesting fluoride is safe. . . Broadbent compared two sources of fluoride and found both to be about the same.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Bronze Conversationalist

What? Fluosilicic acid preparations are not pure. The best grade available commercially I am aware of is only a technical grade. And it cannot be purified more concentrated than a 23% solution because further evaporation emits toxic fumes of hydrofluoric acid..

Of course fertilizer manufacturers don't re-add toxic fluorides back into fertilizer. Industiral fluoride is an enviromental pollutant, Released HF from fertilizer manufacturing is trapped in wet scrubbers to prevent the HF from poisoinng the surroundings.

The fluosilicic acid preparations from China are contaminated with bird droppings from the dead birds that fly over the exposed piles of the material sold to U.S. water districts for their bone fluoridation program as though it is an oral ingestible dental prophylactic (personal communication with the late Jeff Green, fluoride environmental attorney).

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

Richard, I thought from the context I was clearly talking about purity in the sense of heavy metal contaminants. No one considers water a contaminant.

I know this from personal experience having used fluorosilicic acid in my research and being particularly interested in its heavy metal content. I was surprised it was so low - one of the things which made me realise how anti-fluoride activists had been misrepresenting the literature and lying about "toxic cocktails.

Also, Richard, you seem unaware of the situation in NZ I was talking about. Manufacturers will do things like returing the fluorosilicic acid to the fetrtilsier mix in an effort  to produice the best granulation. Obviously, changes in granulation procedure may be the response to current concerns but, as I point out, the production of the pure calcium phosphate fertilisers would be the best approach (but maybe not the most economic).