- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
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:
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.
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
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.)
As usual, Carry Anne, you provide excellent research and amazing quations from a consensus of some of the top scientists on fluoride and toxicity.
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
“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)
- 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.
- 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."
- 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.
- 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
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.
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.
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.
80% of dentists get it wrong! The science can only suggest that fluoride may prevent cavities when applied in strong concentrations to dental surfaces. Fluoridation has little to no benefit. Fluoride's benefits are 'predominantly' topical. (Yoder et al. 2007, Pizzo et al. 2007, Müller et al. 2010)
But many dentists and other fluoridation stakeholders find the medical myth profitable, and so ignore the science and engage in gaslight tactics and disinformation campaigns.
The only modern saliva reference provided by KenP was a 2012 report from the Wrigley Gum people who said the same thing.... that strong concentrations of fluoride from toothpaste and dental treatments impacts the saliva and may inhibit cavity formation according to the prevailing theory in which there is even less confidence in 2019.
The Wrigley report said nothing about fluoridated water contributing to cavity reduction because it can't. The Wrigley Gum authors wrote that less than 0.2% of that fluoride in water at low concentrations gets into the saliva. They even said that fluoride tablets should be dissolved in the mouth rather than swallowed. Yet, fluoridationists add that report onto their documentation as if to prove otherwise. Plus, the fluoride-lobby calls fluoride a nutrient when the U.S. FDA calls it a drug.
In other words, neither enamel incorporation nor remineralization from fluoride exposure has been proved to have any but neglible benefit, if that. Fluoride is a poison and poisons bacteria when in concentrated dental products. Period.
But THIS ISN'T ABOUT TEETH!
Fluoridation cause disease, disability and premature death in millions.
Even if fluoridated water eliminated cavities entirely, it still causes or worsens thyroid disease, bone disease, kidney disease, autoimmune disease, inflammatory disease, endocrine disease, etc. Fluoridated wastewater also pollutes the planet.
Community fluoridation is a scientifically and ethically corrupt policy.
Yoder KM, Maupome G, Ofner S, Swigonski NL. Knowledge and use of fluoride among Indiana dental professionals. J Public Health Dent. 2007 Summer;67(3):140-7.
Giuseppe Pizzo, Maria Piscopo, Ignazio Pizzo, Giovanna Giuliana, “Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review,” Clinical Oral invest. 2007, 11:189-193. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17333303
Frank Müller, Christian Zeitz, Hubert Mantz, Karl-Heinz Ehses, Flavio Soldera, Jörg Schmauch, Matthias Hannig, Stefan Hüfner, and Karin Jacobs. Elemental Depth Profiling of Fluoridated Hydroxyapatite: Saving Your Dentition by the Skin of Your Teeth? Langmuir 2010 26 (24), 18750-18759. http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21090577
Richard, good to see you have moved on and will no longer rely on your irrelevant argument about freshly exuded ductal saliva. You now accept that there is a direct transfer of chemical species to real-world whole saliva from water, bevergaes, food, and oral treaments.
You no appear simply to be denying that fluoride in the oral cavity has a beneficial effect in reducing tooth decay.
Please cite the "NRC" (or more appropriately the original paper) for your claim "that fluoride from drinking water has no topical effect on dental caries."
Because that simply conflicts with a huge amount of research showing that commoinutyw ater fluopdiation is effective in reducing tooth decay.
Come on - a citation - not a poltical/ideological/nonscientific unsupported claim or statement.