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

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
2278
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

2,278 Views
Message 51 of 1,292

But it is simple to criticize and denigrate any study on humans because you cannot put humans in cages to control all other variables. That by the way is why there are so many publications claiming ingested fluoride has some sort of benefit in affecting dental caries when in  fact it does not. You cant ensure all gropus eat the same amount of sugar, etc.  So most are worthless.

As far as the fact that low level fluoride (less than 1 ppm in blood) is correctly classified as a neurotoxin is mostly based on well controlled experiments with mammals (Varner, Reddy, Mullenix, etc). There is no doubt.

And it is also an acute poison at high concentrations where it causes heart failure at around 1-2 ppm in the blood chronically and it causes immedfiate complete heart block at about 3-5 ppm.

Industrial fluorides are toxics and governed by the TSCA which prohibit adding toxic substances into our drinking water. This law stems from the Clean Water Act which is derived form the original Water Pollution Control Act first initiated by President John F. Kennedy.  The misison of the Act section 101a is to maintain the natural chemistry of our nation's waters.

I don't know why it is so hard for those with a fluoridation agenda bias to see the truth, but it just is.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
2278
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
2244
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

2,244 Views
Message 52 of 1,292

“Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.” - European Food Safety Authority on DRV  (2013)

 

There is nothing ideological about dosage for medication. Neither is there anything ideological about medical instructions to avoid fluoridated water and foods prepared with fluoridated water for those with thyroid, kidney, and other chronic disease - populations who include senior citizens. Both are very pragmatic. 

 

What is ideological is for the pro-fluoride cartel to publish comments like:

  •  "...serious health consequences of lead exposure emerge only after years. By contrast, dental caries causes immediate and tangible problems for children’s teeth…" - Sanders & Slade, 2017

  • Suggestions that doctors need to explain to parents how to use water in food preparation because, "Some infant foods/drinks, when reconstituted with fluoridated water, may result in a F intake in infants above the suggested optimum range (0.05-0.07 mg F/kg body weight) and therefore may put infants at risk of developing dental fluorosis." - Zohoori et al. 2012 

 

I'm a pragmatist who prefers data and ethics to bickering. To that end, consider: 

 

DoseQuiz.jpegDosage Quiz

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
2244
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
2240
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

2,240 Views
Message 53 of 1,292

Ross, the ideologically driven love to talk about the "precautionary principle." Because they can drive it any way they want depending on their baises. They do this by misrepresenting the science. For example, even without a bias, I can produce far more citations related to toxic effects of water or chloride than there are for fluoride. Just imagine where the so-called "precautionary principle" and a biased interpretation could take you with that.

You cite Grandjean and Landrigan as well as Choi et al.  Do you think I am a fool? Do you not relaise that I am familair with both papers and Grandjean and Landrigan contributed nothing new - they simply reported Choi et al.? (Grandjean was part of the Choi et al., team).

The problem here is that they use studies form areas of endemic fluorosis where there is a whole range of serious health problems. Such studies are not relevant to areas where community water fluoldiation is used.

(I have an extra **bleep** about Grandjean because he extended his anti-fluoride bias into preventing publication of a paper of mine in a journal he controls. I complained about this obvious unscientific, and unethical behavoiour and he was reprimanded for it. I published my paper elsewhere.)

You cite Bashash et al. (2017) and seem completely unaware of the limtiations of this paper. The reported relationship for maternal urine F explained only 3% of the IQ variance. (The child urinary F relationship was not significant) Considering they did not include maternal nutrition in their regression it is very possible a more complete regression would show no realtionship wiht maternal urinary F (Malin et al (2018) reported a much better relationship of cognitive factors with maternal nutrition). Don't forget Malin & Till (2015) reported a relationship of ADHD prevalence with fluoridation - explaining up to 32% of the variance. This disappeared when other risk-modifying factors were included - read Perrott, K. W. (2018). Fluoridation and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a critique of Malin and Till (2015). British Dental Journal, 223(11), 819–822. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.988

You can read my critiques of Bashash's IQ and ADHD papers at:

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

and

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

I suggest you do your own work and search for papers you ask of me - but I also suggest you take a lot more care than shown in your use of the Grandjean and Landrigan and Choi et al studies. You have simply not looked at those poroperly.

I also note you appear to be Gish galloping - either that or, perhaps, I should take the fact you simply do not return to your previous arguments as a kudos for me in that you cannot counter my expolanmations. But if you insist on Gish galloping I suggest you do your own searching for specific publications. There is so much avalable and I really don't want to waste my time being sent off on searches by those who seem unable to understand the science anyway.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
2240
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
2233
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

2,233 Views
Message 54 of 1,292

Ken

 

You can call me all kinds of things. . . but I don't know which statement you are refering to.  So your comment is lost on me.

 

You say, "Political statement? " Yes, I am into politics because politics is forcing me to swallow too much fluoride.

 

You say, "Ideological?"  Several definitions of ideological.  Yes, I am fixated (if that is what you mean) on stopping my two professions from harming the public with too much fluoride.

 

You say, "Nonscientific"?  Well, I'm sort of a fundamentalist and simple.  How much fluoride is good?  How much fluoride is bad?  How much fluoride are we getting and is it too much?  Sorry if those basic questions are beyond your desire to respond to, but as a practicing prescribing clinician, those are the fundamental questions I must answer on a daily basis.

 

You want me to respond, to something I don't know what you are referring to.  And I keep asking you for the basic facts of dosage and although you say you have responded, I can't find your response.  Please post again.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
2233
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
1464
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,464 Views
Message 55 of 1,292

KenP: The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety.
Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it.
The precautionary principle is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries potentially serious implications for society. (See: Taleb et al., ‘The Precautionary Principle: Fragility and Black Swans’ from Policy Actions, University of East Anglia, 2014)
Grandjean and Landrigan in their paper ‘Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity in the March 2014 issue of the The Lancet stated that epidemiological studies since 2006 had identified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxicant i.e. a chemical that can injure the developing brain. They warned that untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development and that chemicals in existing use, like fluoride, and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.
Choi et al. in their Environmental Health Perspectives paper ‘Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ report results that supported the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment and that future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.
Bashash et al. ‘Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico’ published in September 2017 in the peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, by a team of investigators at the University of Toronto, McGill, the Harvard School of Public Health, and other institutions found an association between prenatal exposure to fluoride and cognitive development disorders in children.
The study’s findings, combined with evidence from existing animal and human studies, reinforced the need for additional research on potential adverse effects of fluoride, particularly in pregnant women and children, and to ensure that the benefits of population-level fluoride supplementation outweigh any potential risks.
KenP, In view of these cautions can you cite peer-reviewed research concluding that there is absence of harm from community water fluoridation, in addition to swallowed fluoride from other dietary sources (i.e. in a regime of uncontrolled individual fluoride dosage) that meets the following research criteria?
LEVEL A (HIGHEST QUALITY OF EVIDENCE, MINIMAL RISK OF BIAS)
• Prospective studies that started within one year of either initiation or discontinuation of water fluoridation and have a follow up of at least two years for positive effects and at least five years for negative effects.
• Studies either randomised or address at least three possible confounding factors and adjust for these in the analysis where appropriate.
• Studies where fluoridation status of participants is unknown to those assessing outcomes.
(Definition from McDonagh et al., ‘A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation’, September, 2000.)

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1464
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1326
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,326 Views
Message 56 of 1,292

As usual, Carry Anne, you provide excellent research and amazing quations from a consensus of some of the top scientists on fluoride and toxicity.

 

Well done.  

 

Ethics and science are convincing that many are ingesting too much fluoride causing harm.  A reduction in fluoride exposure is essential.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1326
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1391
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,391 Views
Message 57 of 1,292

 

“The amount of effort, propaganda, and money the fluoridation-lobby is willing to utilize to cover-up their experiment-gone-wrong is unprecedented.  Their credibility and authority are tied too closely to fluoridation, and there is no letting go for them, regardless of emerging science, of facts, of reality, of anything.  They’re committed to protecting their policy and themselves, not you or your family.” - Stuart Cooper, FAN Campaign Director (2017) 

 

  1. KenP - The links work. My habit of entering a space after entering the url sometimes confuses this tool. I fixed. You would have had no problem finding them with the citation, but it served your purpose to impugn my character rather than deal with content. 

  2. How can you possibly construe what I wrote as giving up on ethics?! It is absolutely unethical to put a poison in water that causes harm. Evidence, ethics, evolving medical opinion, environmental issues and economics are all against fluoridation policy. The 5 Es. I wrote: "Community fluoridation is a scientifically and ethically corrupt policy."

  3. Rational analysis of data is the basis of risk assessment which provides an ethical basis for banning fluoridation. If there were no ill effect other than very mild mottling on a minority of children's teeth with a trade-off of significant reduction in cavities as promised, that's a rational argument that could be construed as justifying fluoridation. But that has been proved a Big Lie. 

  4. Bashash's 2017 study was the first of three ELEMENT reports with the same findings funded by the NIH and conducted by reknowned scientists at world-class American & Canadian universities. Those findings validate the findings of dozens of other human studies and hundreds of laboratory studies. Even low dose prenatal exposure manifests as learning disabilities on a dose response trend line when those doses are consistent with doses consumed in optimally fluoridated communities.

    Taken into consideration with the Canadian study of fluoride doses in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities that find a pretty exact match with the doses in the Bashash study (Till et al. 2018) and in American babies study that found 37% of them exceeded the upper doses assumed safe (Harriehausen et al 2018), it is painfully clear that fluoridation is public harm policy. 

    But, I'm not interested in playing a game designed by an agricultural chemist from New Zealand when there are statments like the following on Bashash 2017: 

 

Expert in Neurotoxicants: “Adverse effects from fluoride additives to drinking water have not been fully considered in the past, and the new study from Mexico, along with substantial evidence from other countries, now shows that fluoride toxicity to brain development must be taken seriously.” -  Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

NTP Director: ”There have been similar findings related to exposure to fluoride and IQ from children in China. So this observation or association has been reported before.” - Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

Expert in Pediatric Sensitivity to Pollutants: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water” - Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies potential links between environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

Lead Investigator: “We tested for all the things we could think of that could act on neurodevelopment. But we haven’t found anything else that was a potential confounder... This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.” - Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto on Bashash et al. 2017 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1391
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1381
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,381 Views
Message 58 of 1,292

CarryAnne - it is noticeable that your resort to citations is unthought. They often do not support your claim. And you are clearly just pulling them out of a hat without checking is because the links very often do not work. In your last comment, 2/3 did not work.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1381
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1347
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,347 Views
Message 59 of 1,292

No true, CarryAnne. Edgar et al do comment on the protective ability of fluoride in saliva. But the report was about saliva, it was not a contribution to the science of tooth decay reduction. The known protective action of fluoride was simply asserted by reference to the literature - it is a well established scientific fact.

But I notice you have given up on your claim that this is about ethics, not science, and taken to using citations as propaganda without any rational analysis.

Now that you have returned to science perhaps you should now respond to my comments on the Bashash studies that you ran away from.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1347
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1344
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,344 Views
Message 60 of 1,292

Thanks Carry Anne for understanding. I don't know if this complainer doesn't understand the physiologic functions of saliva, one of which is to wash clean the oral cavity 24 hours a day so that foods are transient residents only, or what his problem is.  At least some people get it.

The NRC obviously could care less what temperaory oral cavity fluoride levels are when saliva is mixed with intentionally chewed fluoride placed inthe mouth. That depends on what you are chewing, from NaF rat poisoin to NaF tablets to fluoride insecticide sprayed foods, to toothpaste to fluoride gels and rinses,etc. Who cares ? Everyone already knows that if you put rat poison in your mouth as NaF or if you eat fluoride containing foods that of course it mixes with saliva and elevates the F concentration of the oral cavity fluid. So what?

  • The NRC wanted to know how much fluoride is in saliva from drinkng water alone, so the formed saliva was analyzed (without food contaminant of courser) to assess how much fluoride comes from drinkng water into saliva to bathe teeth topicallylly. Fluoride from drinking water has absolutely nothing to do with topical effects on teeth caries because  as the NRC reported saliva has (from drinking water) 0.016 ppmfluoride.  How something so obvious cannot be seen by this complainer is bizarre.

And don't go looking for a quoe fomr the NRC that drinkng water fluoride has zero effects on dental caries because the NRC was not allowed to coment on CWF. It was commissioned to investigate health effecfs at the 2 and 4 ppm MCL's EPA currently allows to exist in water. But fortunately there is plenty of cited data where water is 1 ppm to make the conclusion that saliva contains only 0.016 ppm F (the majority coming from drinking water ingestion, not food), which is useless in affecting dental caries at 94,000 times less concentrated than F in toothpaste and a whopping 750,000  times less concentrated than F in gels applied by some dentists for hoped-for topical effects on teeth.

Who cares if fluoride in the oral fluid after eating a meal might be some value say 5 ppm F.? 5 ppm F mixed with saliva having 0.016 ppm from ingesting community fluoridated water makes no signfiicant difference in the F content of the oral fluid to be of any value whatsoever for affecting dental caries.

I wish this complainer could get the picture but as long as you and the public get it, that's fine. The NRC was not allowed to print this conclusion but they were allowed to print the 0.016 ppm fortunately.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1344
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet