When it comes to your workout, there are good reasons not to go it alone. Check out the benefits of exercise buddies.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
851
Views

Cataracts, Glaucoma, Macular Degeneration & Fluoridation Policy

851 Views
Message 1 of 1,248

American reports have documented cataracts as a side effect of fluoridated medications. The fluorosis belts in Africa and Asia have high incidences of blindness, half of which is due to cataracts. Eye diseases are influenced by many factors, but ..... 

 

Fluoride exposure and fluoridation are implicated as contributing factors in several degenerative eye diseases which primarily affect senior citizens per March 2019 peer-reviewed article published in the International Journal of Environmental Research in Public Health. Metabolic reactions, genetic vulnerability & disturbances, and immunonological responses at play in a perfect storm that is typical of poisonous reactions in biological systems.   

 

The Contribution of Fluoride to the Pathogenesis of Eye Diseases: Molecular Mechanisms and Implicati...

 

See comment from the senior citizen care-giver of an elderly woman finding ways to stabilize eyesight that include avoidance of fluoride

 

Aliss2019.jpgAliss on Eye Disease

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
851
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1044
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,044 Views
Message 2 of 1,248

It is hard to believe that people exist in the United States in the 21st Century who actually hold on to the idea that fluoride is a nutrient. And yet right here in front of our eyes we see just that.

F is not a listed component of the blood because it has no human function or purpose and is a contaminant in man.

The EPA does not recognize fluoride as a nutrient but lists it as a contaminant of drinking water and had to set an MCL for it.

The FDA ruled in 1975 that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods. And fluoride compounds have never been FDA approved for ingestion in the U.S.  And ruled that fluoride is a toxic substance that in water needs to be regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

Fluoridationists actually believe that fluoride is a nutrient like vitamin C is. Wow. All nutrients exert necessary physiologic actions and exert effects at levels that reach saturation and are fully reversible upon dilution of the nutrient. Fluoride has none of these properties and in fact exerts adverse effects on bone that are not saturable and not biochemically fully reversible

The FDA knows full well that vitamin C is a nutrient and that fluoride is not. No disease entity exists that is caused by fluoride deficiency. Caries are not caused by fluoride deficiency but are caused by bacterial metabolism of sugars to produce acids that attack enamel. Normal enamel can only develop in the absence of blood fluoride and normal enamel does not contain fluoride. It is a clear crystalline hard matrix of calcium phosphate forms called enamel hydroxyapatite, far too hard to incorporate fluoride. Bone  hydroxyapatite does accumulate fluoride to massive amounts during chronic consumption of low concentrations of fluoride mainly in drinking water.

The CDC now recognizes that toothpaste fluoride causes dental fluorosis enamel hypoplasia but has yet to understand that most of the fluoride in the bloodstream in a fluoridated city comes from the treated drinking water, not toothpaste. Some day they might get it but as of now endorse fluoride ingestion as though it were a nutrient although they do not label it as such.  

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1044
Views
Highlighted
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1089
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,089 Views
Message 3 of 1,248

Bill, come off it. 

This issue has already been dealt with in my comments comparing F with other nutrients, I, Se, etc. "Dosage" is a completely inappropriate term for these nutrients.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1089
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1113
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,113 Views
Message 4 of 1,248

Ken

 

Dosage.  How much is needed and how much is too much?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1113
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1154
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,154 Views
Message 5 of 1,248

All the agencies that are supposed to “protect us” are truly there to protect the industry from lawsuits from us, the People! We, the People, have been conned. We are just consumers and filters of their poisons, but we pay dearly for our own demise!

Once these guard dogs have emasculated the agencies, then they set the corporate agenda into policy. This is why we have sugar industry setting dental health policy and Big Pharma imposing health policy in the US. Worse yet, these agencies rubber stamp the corporate agenda and the masses misguidedly trust them. So the people look for these agencies to protect them, when in reality they are enforcing the corporate agenda.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee!

https://www.ecowatch.com/andrew-wheeler-epa-confirmed-2630358470.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&social...

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1154
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1154
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,154 Views
Message 6 of 1,248

If the US actually had ‘health’ care, instead of Rockefeller Big Pharma (for profit) sick care, maybe the life expectancy would a bit better. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-again-a-d...

 

Isn’t it curious that the sugar industry has dictated US health policy for decades. See https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(16)30331-2/fulltext?mobileUi=0

 

Industry-sponsored nutrition research, like that of research sponsored by the tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, almost invariably produces results that confirm the benefits or lack of harm of the sponsor’s products, even when independently sponsored research comes to opposite conclusions.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282439972_Plumbosolvency_exacerbated_by_Water_Fluoridation

 

Sugar industry

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798

 

Rockefeller

https://worldaffairs.blog/2015/10/20/how-rockefeller-founded-modern-medicine-and-killed-natural-cure...

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-pai...

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1154
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
1220
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,220 Views
Message 7 of 1,248

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
1220
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1246
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,246 Views
Message 8 of 1,248

“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
1246
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1266
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,266 Views
Message 9 of 1,248

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
1266
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1282
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,282 Views
Message 10 of 1,248

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
1282
Views