Is your 'stuff' stressing you out? TV personality Matt Paxton has tips for downsizing and decluttering in our free, two-part webinar! Register now.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1292
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,292 Views
Message 91 of 1,314

So the complainer is walking away from the conversation and that is fine with me because he appears unable to understand it anyway. Using the scientific method, to determiine a role of a particular material in causing an effect it is necessary to isolate that material from other possible independent variable effectors. The role of fluoride in saliva, that is a direct filtrate of the blood that contains fluoride at levels determined mostly by drinking fluoridated water, can only be assessed by examining the product saliva that is not contaminated with foods or other materials. When this was done properly, the NRC Report discussed that study for the saliva contribution of fluoride from drinking fluoride water. The NRC obviously did not include studies in which food was a known contaminant of the saliva since then the role of drinking water fluoride in saliva would not have been able to be determined. .

So I've made the point. Fluoride from fluoridated drinking water that enters into saliva to bathe teeth topically continuously 24 hours a day makes no significant contribution to affect dental caries.

Thank you if the conversation has now ended.

And the claim that I am not an actual  scientist is countered by the fact that I have published over 50 research studies in scientific journals over the last 45 years, so the rationale for that particular complaint is unclear. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1292
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1312
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,312 Views
Message 92 of 1,314

Ken,

Most all in Broadbent's study had similar fluoride intake and Broadbent, no surprise, did not find a decrease in IQ from fluoride intake.  

 

The Broadbenet study was incapable of detecting an IQ loss.

 

Regarding Richard's desire for measured evidence such as saliva fluoride concentration, what about measured evidence are you opposed to?  Or is herd opinion your choice for science?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1312
Views
Highlighted
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1341
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,341 Views
Message 93 of 1,314

Richard, it is obvious to me why you have no credible research publication record or experience in designing research studies.

Can you not see how self-defeating it is to insist on subjects who have no fluoride intake in their food or oral treanmtents and then measure only their excreted ductal saliva. When the reality is that people receive intakes of fluoride and other nutrients via food, beverages, water and oral treatment throughout the day. These nutrients are directly transferred to the saliva and other parts of the oral cavity. They play a protective role for teeth - yet you want to design an experiment which specifically ignores such inputs! That is just stupid.

Really, Richard,  I really have no patience for such stubbornness. As far as I am concerned this discussion has been exhausted and I will not continue to itneract with you on this specific subject. You are really away with the birds on this issue.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1341
Views
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1340
Views

Re: Stop Fluoridation

1,340 Views
Message 94 of 1,314

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1340
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1348
Views

Re: Stop Fluoridation

1,348 Views
Message 95 of 1,314

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

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1348
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1346
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,346 Views
Message 96 of 1,314

I just wrote to the U.S. CDC to ask them to halt fluoridation again. I hadn't written to them in some time. The resaon I wrote again is because the CDC recently claimed that it is fluoride toothpaste  that is being consumed by children that causese the endemic dental fluorosis problem in the U.S.   I had to show them the Zip[kin study of 1958 before toothpaste fluoride became widely used to show what F content in adult bone where water is 1 ppm fluoride ranged from 1610 - 4920 mg/kg of bone. These were difficult measurements done on live people from bone biopsies and are definitive. This means that along with dental fluorosis (first recognized in teh 1930's as CO brown stain and Texas teeth,  tc. in fluoride water areas before F toothpaste was invented) bone fluoride levels were problems, even more concentated than f in toothpaste, in bone where it does not belong.  Bone pain in some people occurs at only 1700 mg/kg and the NRC concluded that Stage II fluorosis with pain mobility issues occurs typically in most people at 3,500 mg/kg.  So lifelime drinking of the garbage water produces denigrated bone even without fluoridated toothpaste.

But will the CDC do anything about this? Of course not. Am I to remailn silent and ignore the truth? No thanks.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1346
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1318
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,318 Views
Message 97 of 1,314

And you can lead a fluoridationist to clean water and he will turn away and consume F'd water anyway because he would think he was missing something and that God didn't Create water properly in the first place. .

Again, how else can one determine the drinking water F concentration to saliva if you don't take saliva samples after the previous materials eaten have been cleared?  There is no other way to delineate whether drinking water fluoride has any value in affecting the F content of the oral cavity. And it clearly has no significant role at all.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1318
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1305
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,305 Views
Message 98 of 1,314

I guess it's easy for some people to simply miss the point.

The girls whose night time saliva F levels were measured continuously until the next morning are indeed a normal situation. (No one eats while they are sleeping all night). And night time saliva washes the teeth and oral cavity. 

Of course F levels in the mouth can be high when one goes to sleep for the night after recently eating an F rich material such as toothpaste or dental gel, etc, but again all through the night the F level bathing teeth from the saliva that contains F from 1 ppm drinking water at less than 0.016 ppm in saliva is  a useless contribution.  Fluoridationists might believe that higher F from foods and gels might topically affect teeth, but this has nothing to do with F infused into drinking water which is worthless as a topical effect.

Only ductile fresh saliva could be used to determine how much F actually comes from the bloodstream of a F'd water consumer. There is no other way to determine it because indeed foods and beverages and gels would contaminate the saliva produced. So what?.
Bottom line, F'd water is useless at affecting caries, either systemically (CDC) or topically from that contained in nascent saliva. These are the facts. Again, the F content in the blood and thus the 24 hour a day produced saliva is mostly determined by the F level in the drinking water (NRC) and only 10% or so is from foods/beverages (p. 60, Report on F in Drinking Water 2006). 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1305
Views
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1252
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,252 Views
Message 99 of 1,314

Richard, I think you should read the papers. You are stubbornly looking at freshly exuded duct saliva and saliva taken a long distance from drinking and eating. You are stubbornly ignoring the rest of the time where there is a significant elevation of chemical species in saliva phosphate, calcium anbd fluoride which does help reduce acid attack.

Well, you can take a horse to water . . but it seems impossible for an anti-fluoridationist to see the real world situation.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1252
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1238
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,238 Views
Message 100 of 1,314

And the Oliveby study provided was discussed in the NRC 2006 Report.  Notice that the "high fluoride water area" had 1.2 ppm F in the water and the night-long F saliva varied from 0.002 ppm to 0.14 ppm. The variation is likely determined by how much water one consumed before bedtime. So what?  The levels are still multiple thousands of times less concentrated than in toothpaste at 1,500 ppm for topical application.   24 hours at 0.016 ppm average from drinking water F in saliva is completely topically worthless. 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1238
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