Take the AARP Smart Driver course and you could save on auto insurance! Sign up today.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1140
Views

Re: Evidence & Ethics

1,140 Views
Message 101 of 1,310

“I am a retired dentist and a doctor of integrative medicine. I see both sides of the story.  In my less informed days, I fed my older child fluoride pills to prevent decay.  By age 7 she developed Hashimoto's thyroiditis. And this was pharmaceutical grade stannous fluoride, not hydrofluorosilicic acid!  Since then I have seen many cases of thyroid damage and lowered IQ's in my practice in clients who have not filtered fluoride out of their drinking water." - Oksana M. Sawiak, DDS, IMD, MAGD, AIAOMT (2019)

 

Essentially every opponent of fluoridation began believing fluoridation was safe & effective. It is only those who do their due diligence and also have professional integrity and personal courage who speak out. Some like Dr. Sawiak above and Dr. Evans below learned the harms the hard way, by causing damage to their own children through blind obedience to dental dogma. 

 

Those who cling to the medical myth are no different than the papal experts who tortured Galileo or those who so aggressively argued against Einstein. Consensus is not science. Neither are name calling or other logical fallacies employed by fluoridaitonists a scientific debate - it is an orchestrated disinformation campaign. 

 

However, the consensus is changing. The Alzheimer's Association quietly demanded its name be removed from the ADA list in January. It's not the first, and won't be the last to remove its name from that marketing tool. I don't know whether it was the half dozen dementia studies published in the last few months that moved the Alzheimer's Association  to take action or the call to action from a cross section of 8 out of over a dozen professional organizations openly opposed to fluoridation (IAOMT, AAEM, etc.) and many more activist organizations i.e. FAN. 

See FAN TV for a few interviews with some of the experts who changed their minds: http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/ 

 

2017.12.11_BobEvans.jpg'Captain America's' dad, Dr. Bob Evans

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1140
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1136
Views

Re: Evidence & Ethics

1,136 Views
Message 102 of 1,310

 

No, Bill, you presume wrong - but then, in the world of anti-science activism, presumption is equivalent to proven facts.  When I use the phrase “anti-science activists” I am referring specifically to you, CarryAnne and the other activists who continually distort science in an attempt to hijack the democratic process.

 

Another anti-science activist asked in a recent exchange how an educated professional scientist who held views contrary to the scientific consensus could suddenly morph overnight into an anti-science activist.

 

My answer applies to your comments by describing the difference between legitimate scientists and health care professionals who have strongly-held views different from the scientific consensus and those who have morphed into anti-science activists.

 

The first fact is that scientists who hold views different from the scientific consensus are precisely those individuals who are responsible for the evolution of science from trial and error experimentation of humans many thousands of years ago to the society we have today where the lives of most citizens of the world depend on an accurate, scientific understanding of the natural world and the adjustments to that world in areas of health care, agriculture, technology, etc. made possible by that understanding. 

 

Without those pro-science activists we would live in a completely different world.  Both pro- and anti-science activists have very strong beliefs that their interpretation of the existing scientific evidence is accurate – even though those beliefs differ from the consensus of the majority of relevant experts.

 

However, there are several important characteristics that differentiate pro-science activists from anti-science activists.

 

  • 1)     
    A)  The beliefs of legitimate scientists – including pro-science activists – are modifiable and depend on the evidence.  Again, that principle that a scientific consensus will change with sufficient, legitimate, reproducible evidence is the foundation of all scientific progress.
    B)  The beliefs of anti-science activists are inflexible, and the selection and interpretation of evidence is controlled by those beliefs.

 

  • 2)     
    A)  The evidence of pro-science activists that conflicts with an accepted scientific consensus is discussed within the relevant scientific community with other experts, and the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals. 
    ~> It is the responsibility of the scientist(s) challenging the consensus to produce and defend relevant, legitimate, reproducible, properly interpreted evidence from well-conducted experiments or observations.  
    ~> If the evidence is legitimate and convincing, the consensus will change – that is the only way science works.  If not, again it is the responsibility of the challengers to either provide better, more convincing arguments or evidence to the scientific community so the consensus will change. 
    ~> Pro-science activists will keep fighting within the scientific community to change the consensus until they either succeed with better evidence &/or better interpretations or they will continue to fail.
    B)  The “evidence” of anti-science activists that conflicts with an accepted scientific consensus has been presented to the experts in the relevant communities, and it has not been of sufficient quality or reproducibility to convince those experts to modify the consensus. 
    ~> At this point, anti-science activists abandon the scientific processes of trying to change the relevant scientific consensus.  They take their “evidence” directly into public forums to try and hijack the democratic process. 
    ~> The goal of the anti-science activists is to convince intelligent, caring, well-intentioned members of the public that their anti-science selection and interpretation of the evidence is legitimate, that mainstream science and health organizations (and their members) can’t be trusted to care for or protect their health, that they should join the fight to end a science-based public health measure like community water fluoridation, vaccination – or other agenda topic.
    ~> These anti-science activists have abandoned scientific protocol, and their goal is to promote their agenda by employing whatever tactics have been proven by scam-artists throughout the ages to be effective at modifying public opinion.  Three of the main anti-science tactics, exemplified by your comments and those of CarryAnne, Richard Sauerheber and a few others, are:
    1) Disingenuous distortion, misrepresentation and fabrication of the available evidence when presented to the public in hopes that most citizens will not have the training, experience, time or inclination to track the references (or opinions) to their source and personally evaluate the studies, reviews or opinions.  Those distortions of evidence as it relates to fluoridation can be found on Ken’s blog, https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/, as well as on the websites of major health organizations and others that support fluoridation.
    2) Fear sells.  If members of the public can be motivated by successful fear-mongering tactics of presenting false and exaggerated claims, scam artists can be extremely successful in peddling their con.  Which statement is most likely to capture the public’s attention?  Fluoride is a poison that reduces IQ and causes cancer --- or --- Fluoride reduces the risk of dental decay in communities with optimally fluoridated water.
    3) Casting doubt on the scientific and health communities.  To effectively sell the “Fear Factor” it helps for anti-science activists to claim that scientists and health care professionals who support the scientific consensus: “don't think for themselves or review the research”, are “all puppets of each other” “do not protect the publicThey are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists”, “are either ignorant or willfully blind” are “morally corrupt … doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”.  Do these accusations sound familiar?

 

So, Bill, if you are convinced you have legitimate scientific evidence to support your position, why are you not spending your valuable time presenting your “evidence” to the relevant experts in an all-out effort to change the scientific consensus?  Why are you trying to change public opinion instead of the consensus of scientists who can change policy?  I can only think of a couple of answers…

 

For that matter, would you please describe your interpretation of the scientific consensus, and since you have indicated a disinclination in the past to admit the concept of a scientific consensus is real or relevant, please describe any alternative you might have for how scientists and members of the public should determine the most accurate interpretation of decades of very complex scientific evidence?

 

You have provided your opinion of members of the CDC, ADA, and AAP as I highlighted earlier – as has CarryAnne.  Do you apply those same descriptions to all the members of the World Health Organization and the other 100+ organizations that continue to publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation or do you have other explanations?  I have asked this question a number of times without response.

 

Do you have any explanations for why only a small handful (about 6?) of alternative health organizations along with various conspiracy groups like INFOWARS [Alex Jones] and Natural News [Mike Adams] support the anti-science, anti-Fluoridation opinions?  I have also asked this question without response.

 

In specific response to your ‎02-28-2019 12:24 AM comment: 
~> The overwhelming evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation

~> The “dosage” of fluoride is controlled in the same manner as the safe “dose” of all chemicals/elements in treated drinking water – by the amount of water it is possible to drink without harm.  Fluoride ions, unlike many of the other regulated chemicals in water, have been demonstrated by over 70 years of research to be safe and effective at reducing dental decay at about 0.7 ppm.

~> Why do anti-science activists listen to and select/interpret the evidence of only other anti-science activists and ignore any evidence they do not agree with?  That “evidence” has been demonstrated to be flawed over and over.

~> Explain and provide proof for your claim, “Fluoridationists violate ethical research”.

~> Fluoridation is no more a violation of freedom of choice than are any other water treatment processes or seat-belt laws, etc.  Anyone who dislikes ingesting fluoride ions – or any other residual contaminants – in drinking water are free to find other water sources or remove any contaminants they choose not to ingest.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1136
Views
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1142
Views

Re: Stop Fluoridation

1,142 Views
Message 103 of 1,310

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1142
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1162
Views

Re: Stop Fluoridation

1,162 Views
Message 104 of 1,310

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

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1162
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1226
Views

Re: Evidence & Ethics

1,226 Views
Message 105 of 1,310

Randy,

 

When you use the phrase "anti-science" I presume you are refering to fluoridationists.

 

Why those supporting fluoride would avoid all the science and cherry pick just what supports themselves  . . . makes no sense and no good science.

 

Fluoridationists refuse to talk about dosage, and dosage is the foundation of pharmacology.

 

Fluoridationists cherry pick the people and studies to do the reviews and fail to be inclusive of all science.

 

Fluoridationists violate ethical research.

 

Fluoridationists violate freedom of choice.

 

Indeed, fluoridationists are anti-science, anti-ethics, and anti-health.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1226
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1292
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,292 Views
Message 106 of 1,310

And the reason the AARP site is a most appropriate place to discuss the bone fluoridation CDC government endorsed program is because the elderly have  have been exposed to,substantial amounts of the cumulative toxic substance and are in the most precarious position  from chronic exposure. Bone levels can only go so high until preclinical skeletal fluorosis turns into stage II with bone pain and mobility problems. The elderly have been exposed to fluoride long enough.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1292
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1281
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,281 Views
Message 107 of 1,310

And the reason the AARP site is a most appropriate place to discuss the bone fluoridation CDC government endorsed program is because the elderly have elderly have been exposed to,substantial amounts of the cumulative toxic substance and are in the most precarious position  from chronic exposure. Bone levels can only go so high until preclinical skeletal fluorosis turns into stage II with bone pain and mobility problems. The elderly have Been exposed to fluoride long enough.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1281
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1273
Views

Re: Evidence & Ethics

1,273 Views
Message 108 of 1,310

CarryAnne – It is interesting that you did not explain why you misrepresented your “adjusted citation” I highlighted, but that is typical of the way anti-science activists “bend” the evidence in an attempt to support their inflexible beliefs.

 

Those adjustments and misrepresentation of the actual scientific evidence is the reason the alleged “scientific citations” in your “2018 open letter to professionals, politiicans and public” have not been able to convince nearly all members of the scientific and health communities that anti-science activists have anything of value to contribute to the ethical or scientific discussions of health-related issues. All of the alleged evidence will have significant limitations (and/or outright misrepresentation) which may not easily be recognized by the politicians and members of the public to whom the “open letter” is addressed.

 

When anti-science activists present their “evidence” (which has been rejected by most scientists and health experts) to the public, it will typically have one or more of the following characteristics: 1) The study will have nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW); 2) The study will deal with exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW; 3) Actual conclusions have been deliberately distorted, misused &/or misstated to fit anti-F propaganda; 4) Conclusions will only be suggestion of a possible correlation without proper adjustment for other potential causes, and they are proof of nothing; 5) The study will be unrepeatable; 6) the study will be demonstrably flawed &/or 7) The claim will be a complete fabrication.

 

That is why Ken has requested that you engage in a discussion of specific claims instead of trying to respond to a dump-load of hundreds of irrelevant &/or misrepresented citations.

 

It is easy to provide a list of citations that support a specific position. For example this is a list of 33 reviews and studies published since 1999 that support the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is a safe and effective public health measure.

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html

 

This list includes the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health:
—> Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.
—> More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.
—> The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.

http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/fluroide-oral-health/en/

 

This link provides over 200 citations of studies that support the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and beneficial:

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationReferences.htm

 

The difference in the citations that CarryAnne provides and those I provide is that the overwhelming majority of science and health experts and professionals agree with the interpretation of the studies that support the scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure.

 

In contrast, no recognized science or health organization in the world agrees with the interpretation of the anti-science activists that CWF is a dangerous and ineffective public health initiative to poison innocent members of communities worldwide.

 

As always, CarryAnne includes a bunch of opinions in her comments from other individuals (Vyvyan Howard, A. Martín-Pardillos et al. (mixed results study which had absolutely nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water), Brian Bienkowski, and Verena Romero et al. (an opinion piece), to support her opinions.

 

Also, you never responded to my suggestion that you might be interested in contacting another very active anti-science activist, Karen Spencer, who spends considerable time on the Internet fighting against the scientific consensus and constructing threatening letters to health organizations like the American Thyroid Association referenced in my previous reply “suggesting” they stop supporting fluoridation or face a lawsuit. I am sure she has absolutely no relationship to you, but your stories – publically provided by both of you – are very similar to each other, so you might want to consider reaching out since you might be interested in her lack of concern for public health and employment of disingenuous anti-science tactics.

 

CarryAnne ‎07-07-2018 04:49 PM
https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2024156#M767

My Story (summarized):

  • As a pregnant woman, I almost lost my child when my city began fluoridation.
  • As a young woman, I experienced rashes, arthritis and gastrointestinal conditions that were untreatable.
  • As a senior, I experienced chronic kidney pain and a liver crisis that scared me into abandoning my water filter in favor of no-low fluoride bottled water.
  • Bottom Line: Now in my 60s, my arthritis of decades duration, as well as my chronic allergic cough, dry gums, IBS, nerve pain, etc., have all disappeared - and they did so in less than two weeks of my switch to no-low fluoride water. No more kidney pain and no more liver episodes, either.

 

Karen Spencer, Gloucester MA
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf

As to my involvement as an activist, it is personal.

  • The city started fluoridating July 1, 1981 during my pregnancy. I became seriously ill during my second pregnancy in 1981 and almost lost my child.
  • My illness continued after I gave birth. It was marked by rashes, hives, fatigue, and gastrointestinal problems resulting in drastic weight loss.
  • In 2014, my “chronic Lyme” hobbled me and I was having kidney and liver problems.
  • Nine days after being assiduously strict in my avoidance of fluoride, even using spring water to brush my teeth, my arthritis of 23 years disappeared. My kidney and liver trouble also disappeared. Even my painfully dry gums cleared up.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1273
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1283
Views

Re: Evidence & Ethics

1,283 Views
Message 109 of 1,310

And whichever person on the NRC panel who decided to put in that last sentence completely contradicts findings in the rest of the Report. Notably, consumption of 1 ppm fluoride water chronically causes 1) elevated parathyroid hormone levels to compensate for the adverse effects of fluoride in converting bone to a different crystal structure where fluoride is not biochemically reversible after incorporation, and 2) elevates calcitonin levels to help build replacement bone that is compromised by fluoride intrusion, and 3) elevates thyroid stimulating hormone to counter the effect of fluoride on the thyroid, all to help maintain normal physiology during the fluoride insult.

So including the statement that there is no evidence that a population would be harmed by fluoride levels typical from fluoridation is an example of too many cooks spoiling the broth, and it is understandable why the false sentence was intentionally avoided for clarity.   

Either you describe the actual hard data, the science, or you give opinions as done by whoever included that sentence in the NRC Report. 

Fluoridationists on this site go with the opinion. Those who know the truth go with facts and data, the science.

That's that.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1283
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1315
Views

Evidence & Ethics

1,315 Views
Message 110 of 1,310

“There are studies that show that osteoporosis, thinning of the bones, is higher in fluoridated communities and that when you get towards the end of your life the rate of hip fractures is measured to be twice as high in fluoridated townships in America than non-fluoridated ones.” - Dr Vyvyan Howard, toxo-pathologist at the University of Ulster Coleraine (2013)

 

Thanks, RandyJ for the excerpts of some of my AARP comments. Let me elaborate on this one you pulled with additional commentary: 

 

Some existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems. [the sentences left out] For most of these populations, there are very limited data to support or refute increased susceptibility to fluoride. Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations.” (Page 162-163) https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf

Since that 2003 statement above, considerable science has been published that supports the increased susceptibility to adverse effects from fluoride for vulnerable populations who include the very young, seniors, pregnant and those with immune or inflammatory disease which includes arthritis and most kidney disease

Click here for over a hundred scientific citations attached to a 2018 open letter to professionals, politicians and public signed by leadership in a cross section of organizations. Those references are organized by year and mostly published after 2003. 

 

Here are just a couple of comments of note supporting the observation that low dose concentrations of fluoride in 'optimally fluoridated' communities poses a hazard to all consumers with an increased risk to vulnerable populations. Fluoridation undoubtedly harms millions of consumers. 

 

2014: "....the WHO's recommended concentrations in drinking water become nephrotoxic to CKD rats, thereby aggravating renal disease and making media vascular calcification significant."  - A. Martín-Pardillos et al. in Toxicology 

 

2018: “We are putting this in our water and aren’t sure of what each person’s exposure is...  There is a growing concern in the public health community… This is a compound that is shown to affect the thyroid, there is no disagreement with that in the medical community.” - Brian Bienkowski  in Environmental Health News 

 

Screen Shot 2019-02-27 at 4.06.59 PM.png2017 Chilean Review

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1315
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark