From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
439
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

439 Views
Message 31 of 1,448

New Autism study again condemning fluoridation!


Abstract:
The continuous rise of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) prevalent in the past few decades is causing an increase in public health and socioeconomic concern. A consensus suggests the involvement of both genetic and environmental factors in the ASD etiopathogenesis. Fluoride (F) is rarely recognized among the environmental risk factors of ASD, since the neurotoxic effects of F are not generally accepted. Our review aims to provide evidence of F neurotoxicity. We assess the risk of chronic F exposure in the ASD etiopathology and investigate the role of metabolic and mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress and inflammation, immunoexcitotoxicity, and decreased melatonin levels. These symptoms have been observed both after chronic F exposure as well as in ASD. Moreover, we show that F in synergistic interactions with aluminum’s free metal cation (Al3+) can reinforce the pathological symptoms of ASD. This reinforcement takes place at concentrations several times lower than when acting alone. A high ASD prevalence has been reported from countries with water fluoridation as well as from endemic fluorosis areas. We suggest focusing the ASD prevention on the reduction of the F and Al3+ burdens from daily life.

Reference:
Strunecka, A. & Strunecky, O. (2019). Chronic Fluoride Exposure and the Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health,16(18), 3431. doi:10.3390/ijerph16183431

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/18/3431/htm

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
439
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
440
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

440 Views
Message 32 of 1,448

It appears that the fluoride poromoters are complaining about their “criticisms not being heard”, when in reality regardless of the overwhelming science that condems fluoridation and the FDA not having approved such practices, fluoridation continues without justification or even slight (or any valid) evidence of any true benefit. Thus, overwhelming or denigrating opponents is the means to stifle truth now by the polluters. 

 

If even fluoridated salt can cause IQ loss, and brain damage in developing brains, then what will daily exposure to silicofluorides in the public water do?

 

Per Bashash et al. (2018): 
Fluoride, the ionized form of the halogen element fluorine, exists widely in the environment and is the most electronegative and reactive among all elements (ATSDR, 2010). Its well-known cariostatic effect led to the addition of fluoride to water, salt, and milk in some countries. Other sources of fluoride include dental products, such as toothpastes, mouth rinses, and varnishes, supplements, processed foods made with fluoridated water, fluoride-containing pesticides, teas, and fluorinated pharmaceuticals. Systemic ingestion of fluoride through water and water-based beverages is the main source of fluoride intake, accounting for approximately 75% of dietary fluoride intake among adults living in communities that fluoridate their water supply in the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010; USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2005). However, in Mexico City, individuals are primarily exposed to fluoride through fluoridated salt (mean concentration of fluoride in salt is 250 ± 50 ppm), and to varying degrees of naturally-occurring fluoride in water, which have been reported to range from 0.15 to 1.38 mg/L (Juárez-López et al., 2007; Martinez-Mier et al., 2005). Public water supplies are not fluoridated in Mexico and the mean fluoride content of the water supply is not publicly available.

 

Reference:
Bashash, M., Marchand, M., Hu, H., Till, C., Martinez-Mier, E. A., Sanchez, B. N., ... Téllez-Rojo, M. M. (2018). Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age in Mexico City. Environment International, 121, 658–666. doi: 10.1016/J.ENVINT.2018.09.017
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30316181
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018311814?via%3Dihub

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
440
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
559
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

559 Views
Message 33 of 1,448

CarryAnne - You say:

 

"KenP complains that he has a hard time getting his critiques published."

 


In fact, I have only had trouble with 3 contributions.

1: A critique of Hirzy et al (2016). As this was in the Journal "Fluoride" a well known anti-fluoridation propaganda outlet I was not surprised my critique was refused by the Editor Spittle (one of the Co-authors of the Hirzy paper). As this was the first paper I have ever had rejected (and I have published many) I felt really proud it should be rejected by such a shonky journal. That critique is available on Researchgate:
CRITIQUE OF A RISK ANALYSIS AIMED AT ESTABLISHING A SAFE DAILY DOSE OF FLUORIDE FOR CHILDREN

And:

Does drinking water fluoride influence IQ? A critique of Hirzy et al. (2016)

 

2: My Critique of Malin & Till (215) ADHD paper - The Chief editor of the relevant Journal -

Environmental Health - Grandjean is a well-known critic of community water fluoridation and coauthor of some of the fluoride-IQ papers. He refused to allow it to be considered. I complained about the poor ethics of this to the administrators as the critique should have been published in the journal where the original paper was published. I understand he was disciplined for this behaviour.

 

My critique was instead published in another journal - see Perrott, K. W. (2018). Fluoridation and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a critique of Malin and Till (2015). British Dental Journal, 223(11), 819–822. 

 

My critique of the first Bashash maternal F/Child IQ paper was submitted to the journal where Bashash published - Environmental Health Perspectives. Unfortunately, this journal has stopped considering shorter communications like critiques so the paper could not be considered. Not really a rejection.

I have made that critique available on Researchgate - see Predictive accuracy of a model for child IQ based on maternal prenatal urinary fluoride concentratio....

 

I have also made a critique of the later Bashash et al ADHD paper available. So far I have not checked the possibility of publishing in the journal used (Environment International) but have made it available on Researchgate. See Evidence linking attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with community water fluoridation is poor.

 

So far I have not considered publishing a critique of the Green et al paper - mainly because I am aware there has been widespread criticism of the paper and I expect better scientists than me to make critiques and submit them to the journal. However, I am concerned that the Editor did not seem keen to allow such criticism in the journal itself. In fact, on checking I see that this journal only allows critiques of a paper if received within 4 weeks - so it seems unlikely that journal will allow any critiques of Grenn et al to be published now.

Finally, I notice you are again retreating from a scientific exchange with the comment you made before - "the AARP forum is not the place for in detail scientific discussion about specific studies."

If you really believe this then you would not be commenting on these scientific papers or attempting to use them as authorities for your ideological/political advocacy.

It is perfectly normal for scientists to debate papers and, especially, to critically and intelligently consider the data and evidecne presented in papers.

Long may this continue.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
559
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
517
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

517 Views
Message 34 of 1,448

Hi CA,

 

How do you know that this statement that you made is correct?: " Matter of fact this flurry began because I noted that another amateur statistician had the good sense to erase his Twitter history about a flawed critique that shared some of the same flaws as KenP's"

 

Where did you get this firsthand information?  Did you speak to the statistician?  I did. You are making statements that you are not in possession of. It is ok to have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

Are you aware that one of the co-authors of the Bashash, Till, and Green studies publicly still supports fluoridated water for pregnant mothers?   Now, that's a first hand fact.

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
517
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
560
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

560 Views
Message 35 of 1,448

Ken

 

You remind me of Donald Trump when you say,  

"I am not influenced by authority statements - either from the author, coauthors, editor or those who had early access to the paper and set out to promote it."

 

Then I assume you do not agree with any research unless you did it yourself.

 

Authors, peer review, consistent multiple studies all mean nothing to you unless the results fit within your bias, gut feeling.  I call that "Trumpian science."

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride and they are being harmed.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
560
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
540
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

540 Views
Message 36 of 1,448

KenP,

 

You say, "You have completely misrepresented the situation" regarding a fluoride debate and that I am completely wrong.   Sorry, I'm very busy and must have missed your answers and documentation on:

 

1.  How much total fluoride exposure is necessary for dental caries prevention? Desired individual dosage?  (mg/kg/day)

 

2.  How much fluoride is too much and based on what evidence?

 

3.  What government agency determines the safe and effective dosage of chemicals/substances and gives approval with cautions and warnings?

 

I sent you many references and streams of evidence and have not seen your response.  If you post responses somewhere in social media, please also send it to my email address so I don't miss it.

 

Ken, you seem to be intent on showing how research is flawed which finds fluoridation is harmful or excessive.  Yet I don't hear you present any high quality studies on safety, efficacy or dosage.  Do you agree with any research?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
540
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
563
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

563 Views
Message 37 of 1,448

“Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable.” - David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, in “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008)

 

This latest barrage of comments began with this comment on the recent MIREC study, the JAMA Pediatrics podcast, and Bellinger's opinion, all published on August 19, 2019.  

 

KenP is a frequent and prolifc defender of fluoridation in social media, routinely posting online  comments in American newspapers. This retired agricultural chemist from New Zealand has posted 15 comments on this AARP thread in two days. He is entitled to his point of view. Both fluoridationists and opponents have points of view and as the AARP moderator mentioned, robust discussion is encouraged. However, avoidance of issues and misrepresentation of facts is not of service to anyone. 

 

KenP complains that he has a hard time getting his critiques published. I pointed out that the studies he critques are strong and mentioned some detail of why his critique of this latest study was problematic. Matter of fact this flurry began because I noted that another amateur statistician had the good sense to erase his Twitter history about a flawed critique that shared some of the same flaws as KenP's. 

 

I find KenP's response to me troublesome. In fact, I suggest his real strength is in rhetoric rather than science. Yes, the editor's note was 'unprecedented' but the podcast and editorial meetings were not. Dr. Osmunson posted that editorial note in full, while KenP used the word 'contentious' four times in his response in order to plant an inaccurate image of the published material.   

 

Let's make this easy: 

 

TRUTH 1

The MIREC study in JAMA Pediatrics is the 2nd NIEHS sponsored study to use maternal urine to measure dose in North American populations that found a dose related adverse impact on fetal brain development. An Asian study of fluoride in children's urine where the water concentration matched what is regarded as optimal to safe in the US found a strikingly similar impact - all in the past three years (see image below). 

 

TRUTH 2

Although AARP members are concerned with their family's health, the AARP forum is not the place for in detail scientific discussion about spedific studies. In my opinion, neither is the New Zealand blog of a zealous fluoridationist who is expert in rhetoric. 

 

TRUTH 3

Fluoridation policy is politics pretending to be science. It poisons bodies, bones and brains from womb to tomb. The very young, senior citizens and any with chronic health conditions like diabetes or kidney disease are most at risk. The evolving expert opinion based on scientific evidence is against fluoridation policy. Fluoridation policy is immoral and AARP should oppose it. 

 

3IQstudiesUrine.jpgMeasuring dose in urine

Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (1)
2
Kudos
563
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
651
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

651 Views
Message 38 of 1,448

Bill,  you say:

"Ken asked me to debate him on his blog and I agreed, but I chose the topic "excess fluoride exposure."  First he dodged claiming his computer had problems.  I sent him my side of the first debate and he has refused to respond."



That is completely incorrect. You have completely misrepresented the situation and I ask you, as a matter of good faith, to correct this. My offer to you for an exchange on my blog was repeated as recently as last month in this forum. (See post 101) when I wrote:

" I am interested in critiquing the dental fluorosis argument – specifically the Neurath paper you rely on in your article – so I am keen for the exchange to go ahead."

Anyone interested to the truth in this matter should refer to the email exchange between Bill and me which is reproduced in that post 101 (at the moment the link is https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/td-p/1528688/highlight/t... but this probably changes as more posts are made. Just page 


This is the second or third time I have had to deal with this particular misrepresentation, Bill. I said last time (in post 101):

"I repeat I do not appreciate the misrepresentation you have indulged in, Bill, or the resort to abusive terms. These should not be used in a scientific exchange – another reason why I think the Open Parachute blog is the best place for such an exchange."

I think your persistent misrepresentation in this matter (the facts of which are easy to verify) says something about your whole approach to this exchange. How can one participate in a respectful exchange when there is no good faith, or any respect for the truth, on the part of one's discussion partner.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
651
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
647
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

647 Views
Message 39 of 1,448

skanen144 - Did you miss my recent reply?

The words “rare” and “common” are not based on my interpretation - they are actually in the report? On page 28, Table 2.8.


 

You will need to look the table up yourself - the pdf will not allow me to copy it.

I also wrote about the real world nature of such compoiuns=ds where pure end member analogues would be very unlikely and how this makes analytical analysis important for identity - the XRD only determines the crystalline form.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
647
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
629
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

629 Views
Message 40 of 1,448

CarryAnne you express concern about people who "who deny science and denigrate opponents in an attempt to bully professionals, politicians & politics into compliance" And then you post a long list of claims related to scientific studies which would be interesting to discuss and discuss in a respectful way.

 

I am prepared to offer you full right of reply in an ongoing exchange of scientific opinion on all the claims you make here (they are far too extensive to discuss rationally in this forum). This could be done by alternating articles on my blog Open Parachute.

 

Paul Connett and I carried out such a good faith scientific exchange 5 years ago and covered these sort of claims in detail. it was well received by readers and is available as a pdf to download - Connett & Perrott (2014) The Fluoride Debate - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298124881_The_fluoride_debate

Would you agree to a similar exchange with me? I think this would overcome charges of science denial, denigration and bullying. And the formal scientific nature of the exchange will encourage it to be respectful.


Please let me know here if you are willing to participate in such a scientific exchange - and if so, some way of contacting you to make the arrangements.


Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
629
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season