Reply
Highlighted
Regular Contributor
3
Kudos
2244
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

2,244 Views
Message 11 of 1,449

One of the major findings of the Swedish study (Aggeborn and Öhman, 2017) is that that good dental health is a positive factor on the labour market. Who can argue with that? But good dental health does not depend on swallowing fluoride.
There are many qualifications in the robustness analysis of this report and the opening sentence of the discussion section states, “It is always more difficult to conclude a zero-effect.”
Aggeborn and Öhman conclude, even though they state that their results indicate that the dangerous level is not below 1.5 mg/l, “Future studies should try to establish where the dangerous level of fluoride begins. Since we know that fluoride is lethal and dangerous in high dosages, it is crucial to find the safe limit for fluoride in the drinking water.”
Note the word ‘crucial’.
There are similar precautions offered by Grandjean, Malin, Till and Choi et al.
Shouldn’t we should all take heed?

The safest level, of course, is zero by assuming that there is no threshold below which there is no systemic fluoride effect.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
2244
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
3
Kudos
1637
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,637 Views
Message 12 of 1,449

There are a finite number of kids afflicted with moderate dental fluorosis in the U.S.. It is named fluorosis because it is a poisoned condition. Although it may be a small % of the population that has cognitive deficiency from fluoridation exposure, it is an unthinkable and disgusting result because F is not a mineral nutrient and has no place in the human diet other than by accident. Fluoridation is an avoidable source of F intake and it must he stopped, not only for healthy nonfluorotic  teeth but for nonfluorotic bones as well.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1637
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1637
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,637 Views
Message 13 of 1,449

Richard, any increase in dental fluorosis associated with community water is of only the questionable or very mild form. The more serious moderate and severe forms are associated with excessive F consumption - eating toothpaste etc.

accurate-photos-of-fluorosi[1].jpg

of course, it may not be obvious whether cognitive deficits are caused by toxicants or physiological deficiencies. But it is wrong to restrict one's hypotheses in the way the Granbdjean, Till, Choi group have.

For example, the Swedish research showing a relationship of improved quality of life and income with fluoride concentration in drinking water is an interesting result. It seems to me that a physiological mechanism linking better oral health with success in life (something that I think is obvious) is a more credible mechanism than a claim that increased fluoride somehow magically causes one to earn more in later life.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1637
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
3
Kudos
1622
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,622 Views
Message 14 of 1,449

But it must be pointed out that all cities that intentionally fluoridate their citizens experience increased incidence of dental fluorosis and there are no exceptions. Even fluoridationist Pollick publishes this. The mechanism by which cognitive adverse effects  can occur, whether casued by the ion known to enter brain tissue, or caused by dental fluorosis being unsighlty, or both, may never be known with absolute certainty. Regardless, impaired cognition due to fluoride exposure in children must be avoided, and abstaining from fluoridating children is an important part of that. 

Not fluoridaitng water supplies would then not violate the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Hippocratic Oath, and the lack of government regulation of fluoridation would then be unimportant.

It's a nice goal but apparently won't happen any time soon.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1622
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1630
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,630 Views
Message 15 of 1,449

Carry Ann - you claim my paper Perrott, K. W. (2015). Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 48, 78–79:

was "an opinion piece claiming that kids with dental fluorosis likely do badly in school because they disengage due to embarrassment over their unatractive teeth instead of because of neurological damage."

Not true. It was correspondence (not an opinion piece) responding to Choi et al. (2014) who reported no effect of drinking water on child IQ but an effect of dental of fluorosis on IQ. I was simply pointing out a limitation that the authors were considering only chemical toxicant mechanisms whereas physiological factors like tooth decay and dental fluorosis affecting appearance are known to influence the quality of life and could be considered as possible factors.

Indeed, in parts of Africa dental fluorosis is described as psychological fluorosis for this reason.

I find it significant that the Till, Grandjean, Choi, et al group seem to always ignore most non-chemical toxicant factors. Malin & Till (2105) also fell into that trap with their ADHD paper.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1630
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1590
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,590 Views
Message 16 of 1,449

CarryAnne - what misfile? That author is clearly not me. Any reasonable person would have noticed that.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1590
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1606
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,606 Views
Message 17 of 1,449

KenP - If you didn't co-author the study on sexual abuse, contact PubMed about the misfile. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Perrott%20KW%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=25576911

 

Screen Shot 2019-09-17 at 4.50.46 PM.png

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1606
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1602
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,602 Views
Message 18 of 1,449

CarryAnne, you say:

"What advocates of fluoridation fail to take into consideration is that good scientists should take care to report data and facts, and although they can draw conclusions within the confines of the data, scientists should neither dictate medical treatment nor stray beyond what the data reveals. This is what Dr. Till is doing."

I suspect you did not mean what you wrote at the end of this, although I agree that in her promotion of this work Christine Till is not behaving as an objective scientist.

I have no illusions about the politics of science and have written about it specifically regarding Till's work - see Politics of science – making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

 

Specifically, I am concerned that while she is definitely aware of the work of Huber et al (2015) and Perrott (2018) showing the relationship of ADHD prevalence to altitude and the lack of a relationship with fluoridation when this is considered she and her coauthors studiously ignore that research in their discussion.

 

I am also concerned that she appears to have responded to this be studiously refusing to include the full statistical analyses in the more recent papers. While this covers the fact that the reported relationships are extremely weak and therefore meaningless I do concede that she and her co-authors have published the data allowing others to do their own analyses. I suspect, though, that she will continue to ignore these critiques.

It is concerning that she and her coauthors also studiously refused td to comment on the fact their own figures show no effect of community water fluoridation on child IQ in the Green et al study. See the data extracted from their Table 1 [please ignore the (SD)].

table IQ.png
This is even more concerning because anti-fluoride campaigners have made claims completely in conflict with that data and, so far, Till has not repudiated those claims. See this recent billboard:

A New Zealand anti-fluoride billboard misrepresents the Green et al findingsA New Zealand anti-fluoride billboard misrepresents the Green et al findings


Finally, I am concerned at the poolcy of the journal where Green et al published. It now appears that it will not publish critiques or responses to the paper (They have a 4-week deadline) and this is sad because it interferes with peer review - I strongly believe that scientific peer review should continue after publication - see 
We need more post-publication peer review and that policy makes this far more difficult.

It is sad that the journal editor could only see discussion of this research in the non-scientific media instead of his journal.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1602
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1592
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,592 Views
Message 19 of 1,449

CarryAnne - could you please provide a link to this article you refer to - it is complete news to me as I have never published on his subject and have no ewx[pertise in the area:

"This 1998 article is about coping mechanisms of those who experienced childhood sexual abuse. KenP proposes that reframing the abuse is generally a positive strategy."

I appreciate you are not objectively looking at the literature and simply wishing to confirm biases (and attacking the man rather than the ball)- but this seems to be a huge mistake on your part. I suggest an apology is in order - especially as this claim could become another part of the list of fictional crimes I have committed in the view of the anti-fluoride campaigners. I can see your mate Geoff Pain confidently asserting this in his next false description of me.

My earlier fluoride publications (60s and 70s) were about reaction fo fluoride with minerals and soils. - not directly relevant to community water fluoridation. However, in the 2000s I did research fluorosilicic acid (as an acid extractant for heavy metals) and am therefore familiar with its reactions and the purity of the chemical used.

By the way - institutional affiliation is not a conflict of interest and never stated as such.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1592
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
4
Kudos
1656
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,656 Views
Message 20 of 1,449

Finally Levaquin has been black boxed by the FDA. I wrote to them several times asking them to ban its use but that failed.

I was injected with Levaquin on a hospital visit when it was thought I had a lung infectiion but didn't. My back was a giant red rash which of course was blamed on the plastic tubing which I am not allergic to. I knew full well what it was when identified to me and requested it be halted. Fortunately my regular doctor agreed and halted it.

Fluorine based drugs are in general a scourge and should not be used unless there was a very unusual situation that was life or death that I cannot imagine. They are metabolized partially by the liver to render the drug inactive but only 10% of the C-F fragments are broken to release free fluoride. Those fragments are highly lipophiliic and incorporate neadily into brain and other lipids. I discourage their use for all my family and friends but of course any change of course for any particular case must be discussed with one's physician..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1656
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Ask the Expert: What advice do you need to better manage your stress and anxiety?

Clinical Psychologists Barry Jacobs and Julie Mayer will answer your questions on how to cope with the major life change, anxiety, and sadness we are all facing these days. Ask a question now and tune in live on May 27, 3-5 p.m. ET.