Reply
Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

 

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

61,779 Views
1473
Report
Regular Contributor

Hi CA,

Stick to the topic. Systematic Reviews conducted by Credibly Recognized Scientific Panels. 

 

Per 2006 NRC Panel: “At 4mg/L of fluoride in water, no health issues whatsoever except severe dental fluorosis. At 2mg/L severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero”. That included ALL HEALTH ISSUES. 

 

Per U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force:  

”Although bone fractures and skeletal fluorosis have been associated with lifetime exposure to higher naturally-occurring fluoride concentrations (e.g. 4 mg/L), no association has been observed at levels used for CWF. The broader literature speculates about harms associated with higher levels of fluoride in water (e.g., cancer, lowered intelligence, endocrine dysfunction). Research evidence, however, does not demonstrate that CWF results in any unwanted health effects other than dental fluorosis. While harms have been proposed, most have no biological plausibility or insufficient evidence to draw conclusions”

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Oral-Health-Caries-Community-Water-Fluo...

 

Please read the conclusions of these documents. Don’t cherry pick tidbits from the entire reports. The 2006 NRC Committee all signed off on the conclusions above, including Dr. Hardy Limeback. 

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

 

Proud President of the American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit organization of healthcare professionals who do not accept a penny for our work. We are funded by a grant to travel to communities to defend, protect, and initiate water fluoridation based on the overwhelming body of 70+ years of evidence and Systematic Reviews which continue to demonstrate water fluoridation is effective and safe. That company is Delta Dental Foundation of California. 

 

We will NEVER let you and your group invoke fear and scare tactics to mislead the public into thinking water fluoridation is harmful in any way. It is a public heath initiative that benefits the entire public. All public policies exist for the the entire community and cannot be tailored to the whims of a few people who do not want it. We live in a democratic society, not one in chaos. The greater good is what this country is built on. 

 

Conversationalist

"Dismiss ethics, deny science, denigrate opposition, distract focus and disrupt the conversation." - Blueprint for Disinformation Campaigns, aka Propaganda

 

This conversation is about the evidence and ethics surrounding fluoridation, and the evolving professional opinion against fluoridation policy based on emerging peer-reviewed science and relevant data. 

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) is a successful environmental attorney and human rights activist who serves as president of the board of Waterkeeper Alliance, a non-profit environmental group that he helped found in 1999, as well as chairman of the board of the Children's Health Defense Team. RFK was the senior attorney for the  Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) between 1986 - 2017 and is a law professor emeritus at Pace University where he was supervising attorney and co-director of Pace Law School's Environmental Litigation Clinic for many years. I could go on. 

 

Stephen Barrett, who the fluoridationists frequently quote, is a failed doctor who found a way to monetize his opininated vitriol with a blog he named quackwatch. He is frequently sued for defamation and frequently loses. It is assumed that he has special interest backers funding him. See: http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm 

 

Chuck Haynie, who brought Barrett into this conversation in keeping with disinformation campaign protocol, is one of a small group of globe trotting fluoridationists whose favorite ploy is disparagment in online venues. See: http://www.crescentcitytimes.com/beware-of-newly-formed-the-american-fluoridation-society/ and http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf

 

As to fluoride science specific to neurological damage that should interest the AARP and seniors, see this sampling of science items from 2018: 

 

ADULT BRAINS: First long term NaF animal study (10 weeks) using moderate levels of fluoride finds a number of histological changes including in parts of the brain associated with memory and learning, as well as chemical changes affecting brain function. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653518317508  

  • Pei Jiang, Gongying Li, Xueyuan Zhou, Changshui Wang, Yi Qiao, Dehua Liao, Dongmei Shi. Chronic fluoride exposure induces neuronal apoptosis and impairs neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity: Role of GSK-3b/b-catenin pathway. Chemosphere. Volume 214, January 2019, Pages 430-435. 

 

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE: Describes impact of fluoride-induced stress and inflammation in the development of Alzheimer’s disease and demonstrates the mechanism for cell death in the progressive worsening of the disease over time.
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/12/3965 

  • Goschorska M, et al. Potential Role of Fluoride in the Etiopathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19 (12), 3965. 

 

DEMENTIA: Describes the chemical mechanism by which the effectiveness of the two most popular drugs used to treat Alzheimer’s & other neurodegenerative dementia disease is reduced or blocked by fluoride induced oxidative stress. 
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/1/10/htm
 

  • Marta Goschorska, Izabela Gutowska, Irena Baranowska-Bosiacka, et al. Influence of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors Used in Alzheimer’s Disease Treatment on the Activity of Antioxidant Enzymes and the Concentration of Glutathione in THP-1 Macrophages under Fluoride-Induced Oxidative Stress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019, 16(1), 10. 

 

 

Conversationalist

“Dental dogma and authoritative pronouncements aside, fluoride is not a nutrient of any kind - essential, non-essential or micronutrient. Consumption does not provide any dental benefit, and there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency. Fluoride is best characterized as a poison that is used as a drug in a misguided attempt to prevent cavities.” - prologue to “Open Letter to Nutritionists About the Fluoride Deception” published October 26, 2018 by GreenMedInfo LLC 

 

On January 9, 2019, the Children's Health Defense Team (CHD) led by environmental attorney and human rights activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made a public statement opposing fluoridation as an unethical human experiment that needs to end. The CHD has answered the call to action in the October 2018 letter signed by leadership in 8 other organizations and in so doing joins a growing list of scientists, medical professionals and organizations who have read the science and oppose fluoridation as a public harm policy. 

 

  • The question is, will the AARP demonstrate the same professional integrity and committment to its constituency? 

 

CHDCHD

Regular Contributor

Thanks so much for posting this.   It well illustrates they nature of fluoridation opponents.  Mr. Kennedy also opposes vaccination.  The Fluoride Action Network brags about relationships with many groups taking positions opposite to the overwhelming mainstream consensus. 

 

Successful alt-med marketer, Joseph Mercola is a prime example.  He has a $5.2mil restitution settlement with federal regulators for false advertising.  Read about fluoridation opposing Mercola here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola and here:

 

https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

 

Paul Connett has multiple YouTube appearances with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.  Jones has been removed from multiple social media platforms for his discriminatory and hateful content and dehumanizing language.

 

Paul Connett has been a guest speaker for the 9-11 "truther" Uncensored Magazine,

AARP's policy board as well as average citizens must decide whether to believe America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians and over 140 other prestigious organizations and societies or the likes of Mr. Kennedy and the handful of individuals who oppose what the CDC believes to be one of the great Public Health achievements of the 20th Century.

It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

"If one can't dispute the facts, attack the messanger or rely on the messanger" appears to be fluoridationists foundation and basis to support fluoridation for everyone regardless of excess exposure.  

 

Neither of you have seriously addressed excess exposure.  60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe.  

 

When is too much fluoride, too much?   And what public health measure should reduce excess exposure?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Regular Contributor

Bill,

Still pushing the fluorosis angle?

 

Statistics on moderate and severe dental fluorosis are combined as severe fluorosis is so low in the US that it essentially non-existent 

 

Per NRC 2006 Report: “At 2mg/L of fluoride in water, severe dental fluorosis is virtually zero”. 

That is 3 times the fluoride level in optimally fluoridated water, 0.7mg/L (ppm). 

 

Per U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force:

”Task Force Finding (April 2013)
The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends:

1. Community water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dental caries across populations.

2. Evidence shows the prevalence of caries is substantially lower in communities with CWF. 3. In addition, there is no evidence that CWF results in severe dental fluorosis.


Evidence indicates the economic benefit of CWF is greater than the cost. In addition, the benefit-cost ratio increases with the size of the community population.”

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Oral-Health-Caries-Community-Water-Fluo...

 

The studies used by the U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force were reviewed and approved by the Cochrane Oral Health Group, the exact same members that wrote the review on water fluoridation. 

 

No severe fluorosis, Bill. None. Two widely respected scientific health organizations. 

 

If you disagree, obtain funding to conduct a Randomized Control Trial that the opponents to water fluoridation so urgently want. You and Dr. Limeback should have no problem securing this funding. 

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry 

Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

0 Kudos
2,053 Views
3
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Johnny,

 

Your data is historic.  The 2011-2012 NHANES reports about 2% of adolescents with SEVERE dental fluorosis, at the time 2% would be several hundred thousand adolescents and with time that will grow to millions of people in the USA.

 

When fluoridation started the public was assured the mildest form of fluorosis would not exceed 10% or maybe 15% of the population.  We are looking at 60% and don't have the more recent numbers from NHANES surveys.  

 

And severe dental fluorosis is an adverse risk, NRC 2006.

 

Johnny, read the NRC 2006, especially the section by Thiessen on exposure, not just cherry picking the conclusions.

 

Based just on the public health iatrogenic epidemic of dental fluorosis, we need to reduce fluoride exposure.

 

Then look at urine fluoride concentrations, much too high.  The same in the USA/Canada as reported with lower IQ.  

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride from too many sources.   Total exposure must be considered, not just one source.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Proud advocate for less toxic fluoride in our water.  

Attacking the fake facts, not individuals. 

 

 

Regular Contributor

Hi Bill,

 

Historic data is what you are referring to.  But humor me for a moment.

 

To say that conclusions are cherry picking is quite humorous.  The 2006 NRC looked back at 10 years of literature on fluorides when they evaluated the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG).

 

The Committee considered three toxicity end points for which there were sufficient relevant data for assessing the adequacy of the MCLG (4 mg/L) for fluoride to protect public health:

1. severe enamel fluorosis

2. skeletal fluorosis

3. bone fractures.

(NRC Report, page 346)

 

Conclusions:

1. ONLY adverse health effects at 4mg/L of fluoride in water was severe enamel fluorosis.  No other organs, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, carcinogenicity, endocrine.....nothing!  This is a level 6 times higher than water fluoridation, 0.7ppm

 

2.  At 2mg/L, severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero.

 

US Community Preventive Services Task Force: (2013)

Community water fluoridation does not cause severe dental fluorosis.

 

It baffles me that you still can't wrap your head around the fact that severe dental fluorosis isn't caused by community water fluoridation.  But that's ok.  I've backed up my material with references that opponents use frequently to cherry pick from, the 2006 NRC Review.

 

Thanks for the exchange, Bill.  Have to go defend another community under attack from the opponents of community water fluoridation.

 

Johnny

 

Conversationalist

Dr. Johnny,

 

You are puzzled that I can't wrap my head around the safety of fluoridation.  

 

And I'm puzzled that you can't wrap your head around excess fluoride exposure.

 

If water fluoridation were the only source of fluoride exposure, I would not be so concerned.  

 

8 years ago NHANES reported 20% of adolescents had moderate/severe.  Two other National surveys have been done and dental fluorosis recorded, but not released.  All other data from these newer surveys have been released but not fluorosis.  I don't know why fluorosis data is being withheld, do you?  

 

Hundreds of thousands, millions are showing signs of excess fluoride exposure.  Where do you recommend a decrease in fluoride expsure?  

 

Toothpaste?  Topical has some benefit and is FDA approved.

Fluoride antibiotics?  Save lives

Fluoride pesticides? Reduces waste

Fluoride post-harvest fumigants?  Preservative

Fluoride from mechanically deboned meat?  Reduces processing cost. . . .

Fluoride in manufacturing?  I'm not sure that would be a significant reduction in exposure.

Fluoride in water?  Serves no other purpose than alleged caries reduction.  

 

HHS/PHS reduced fluoridation concentration because too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  

 

Yes, too much fluoride and many are still ingesting too much fluoride based on fluorosis and urine, serum, and bone fluoride concentrations. 

 

What source of fluoride do you recommend we reduce to reduce excess exposure?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Conversationalist

“Compared to dentists, a growing and well-informed public is far more educated about the scientific facts of fluoride and fluoridation. These knowledgeable folks are the same ones the ADA instructs its dentists to denigrate.” - James Maxey, DDS

 

I'm losing count of how many times DavidF copies and pastes the same character attack in this thread on Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, DDS, PhD, recently retired head of Preventative Dentistry at the University of Toronto. This is consistent with the tactics of fluoridationists and social media trolls who use  denigration as an emotional ploy in order to sow discord and disrupt conversations

 

I suggest Dr. Limeback can speak for himself. See his December 2018 interview wih an FBI analyst about his experience:  https://www.gallico.co/episode-1-hardy-limeback

 

Then there is the position of the IAOMT whose 2017 heavily cited paper can be downloaded from its website. The IAOMT membership is among the thousands of dentists, doctors and scientists opposed to fluoridation based on scientific evidence of harm. Like Dr. Limeback, the IAOMT demonstrates discipline, integrity and courage:  https://iaomt.org/resources/fluoride-facts

 

Bronze Conversationalist

"CarrieAnne" says, "I'm losing count of how many times DavidF copies and pastes the same character attack in this thread on Dr. Hardy Limeback"

Response:  It's not a character attack if it's true.  If there is anything I have said about anti-water-fluoride leader Dr. Limeback that is incorrect or untrue, please point it out to me and I will be happy to apologize and retract it.

0 Kudos
2,411 Views
3
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

I answered your question about Dr. Limeback.  

 

You are in such a hurry with your bias, that you fail to read the answers to your questions.   

 

No sense in responding to you when you don't appear to want to listen.

 

David, why don't you present your definition of mild dental fluorosis and what you think the patient has?   

 

You don't appear to like my response, so ask Hardy yourself.  I can't speak for someone else.  I have not seen the patient.  Looks like dental fluorosis to me and in better light it might be moderate, but certainly mild.  

 

Hardy wrote the best dental school text book on preventive dental care and is the worlds authority on dental fluorosis.   You need to be very slow and confident to dispute Hardy.

 

I don't think you have the credentials, experience, or references to dispute Hardy or anyone else on these comments.

 

Bottom line, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  

 

Dean JA (10 August 2015). McDonald and Avery's Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent (10th ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-323-28746-3.  is reasonably consistent with others in defining the degrees of dental fluorosis. 

 

Dental fluorosis is discoloration inside the tooth and in some cases, actual physical damage to the teeth.  Severity is dependent on the age, dose, duration, of the individual during the exposure.

 

The "very mild" form of fluorosis, has small, opaque, paper white usually lateral streaks or areas scattered irregularly over the tooth, covering less than 25% of the clinical crown.  

 

In the "mild" form of the disease, these mottled patches can involve up to half of the surface area of the teeth.

 

In the "moderate" more than half of the tooth and all surfaces are affected and teeth may be ground down and/or brown stains frequently "disfigure" the teeth.

 

"Severe" fluorosis is characterized by brown discoloration and discrete or confluent pitting; brown stains are widespread and teeth often present a corroded-looking appearance.

 

Diagnosis coding of the disease Is, ICD-9-cm 520.3, ICD-10 K00.3  (ICD is International Classification of Disease)  

 

Does the picture look like more than 25% of the tooth has white lines? I think so. . . at least mild.

 

Does the picture look like more than 50%.  With careful evaluation of the patient, dry the teeth, get the light good and we might see more than 50% of the tooth showing white lines and that would be moderate.

 

I would rule out very mild or severe dental fluorosis for that patient based on the picture.

 

However, not all teeth fit thedefinition.   For example, I have see mild dental fluorosis with pitting and brown stains in just a small area.  Because it is so small, I would call it mild instead of moderate.  And just saw a patient last week where another dentist called the patient's dental fluorosis mild and she did not have brown stains but significant pitting.  

 

You have fixated on something you are not competent to argue, simply in an attempt to discredit and argue.

 

Have a happy holiday and relax.  Ponder on why 60% of children have dental fluorosis and why?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

BillO, your quote:  

 

"I answered your question about Dr. Limeback.  

 You are in such a hurry with your bias, that you fail to read the answers to your questions.   

 No sense in responding to you when you don't appear to want to listen."

 

Response:  Please provide the time-stamp reference in this thread where you addressed the deceptive behavior of Dr. Limeback.  I don't see it.  

 

The issue, if you had bothered to read my comment, was that Dr. Limeback allowed a photograph of teeth, which he took, to appear in an article written by attorney Michael Connett.  The teeth were diagnosed by unqualified Mr. Connett as being "Mild Dental Fluorosis."  The most prominent feature of these teeth were orange-brown stains which are believed to be Iron stains.  .  .  .  Please re-read my comment - SLOWLY - so that you can take time to understand what is being said, rather than responding with your classic knee-jerk reaction of trying to establish your superiority.  .  .  Then you may respond to my comment which you said you responded to, but never really did.

 

Your quote:  "You don't appear to like my response, so ask Hardy yourself.  I can't speak for someone else.  I have not seen the patient.  Looks like dental fluorosis to me and in better light it might be moderate, but certainly mild."


Response.  Looks like dental fluorosis to you.  Since you failed to answer the primary issue, and since you are claiming to be an authority on the issue, let me ask you:  Don't you find it a little deceptive to put a photograph of teeth, whose most noticeable feature are iron stains - which have nothing to do with fluoride - on a website dedicated to abolition of Community Water Fluroidation?   And don't you find it deceptive to put these iron-stained teeth on this Website --- When These Teeth Have Even Never Touched Optimally Fluoridated Water?  


Your quote again:  ""You don't appear to like my response, so ask Hardy yourself."

Response:  Dr. Limeback refused to engage me when I caught him in a second lie. 

 

He had said, "And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors.”

 07-24-2018 09:37 PM of this thread - https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/td-p/2021...

I pointed his attention to two studies, one by Professor Gary Slade of Adelaide University.  The other demonstrating the benefits of fluoride toothpaste on adults & seniors. 

 

To that, he responded, “This study . .  was a cross-sectional ecological study and not a randomized clinical trial. It stopped at about 40 years of exposure and found only one tooth difference between fluoride and non-fluoride exposed.”

 

To be clear, when he said, “And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors,” he was fully aware of at least one study which did show benefit to adults & seniors.  Because, how could he explain how he could not be aware of a study and truthfully say that there were no studies of this kind; yet comment on the merits of that study.

In that Limeback lie, there were two logical solutions to the obvious paradox that I caught him in:   1.) Either he was not truthful in his first comment -- He was aware of that study while saying no such study existed; or 2.) he was truthful, he hadn't been aware of the study, and yet he commented on the merits of this study about which he had no knowledge. 

 

It seems that, like most of those in the anti-water-fluoridation fringe group, when his comments are put under scrutiny, Dr. Limeback refuses to engage in discussion and sees the futility of defending what he has said. 

 

  

0 Kudos
2,433 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

I answered your question about Dr. Limeback.  

 

You are in such a hurry with your bias, that you fail to read the answers to your questions.   

 

No sense in responding to you when you don't appear to want to listen.

 

David, why don't you present your definition of mild dental fluorosis and what you think the patient has?   

 

You don't appear to like my response, so ask Hardy yourself.  I can't speak for someone else.  I have not seen the patient.  Looks like dental fluorosis to me and in better light it might be moderate, but certainly mild.  

 

Hardy wrote the best dental school text book on preventive dental care and is the worlds authority on dental fluorosis.   You need to be very slow and confident to dispute Hardy.

 

I don't think you have the credentials, experience, or references to dispute Hardy or anyone else on these comments.

 

Bottom line, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  

 

Dean JA (10 August 2015). McDonald and Avery's Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent (10th ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-323-28746-3.  is reasonably consistent with others in defining the degrees of dental fluorosis. 

 

Dental fluorosis is discoloration inside the tooth and in some cases, actual physical damage to the teeth.  Severity is dependent on the age, dose, duration, of the individual during the exposure.

 

The "very mild" form of fluorosis, has small, opaque, paper white usually lateral streaks or areas scattered irregularly over the tooth, covering less than 25% of the clinical crown.  

 

In the "mild" form of the disease, these mottled patches can involve up to half of the surface area of the teeth.

 

In the "moderate" more than half of the tooth and all surfaces are affected and teeth may be ground down and/or brown stains frequently "disfigure" the teeth.

 

"Severe" fluorosis is characterized by brown discoloration and discrete or confluent pitting; brown stains are widespread and teeth often present a corroded-looking appearance.

 

Diagnosis coding of the disease Is, ICD-9-cm 520.3, ICD-10 K00.3  (ICD is International Classification of Disease)  

 

However, not all teeth fit that definition.   For example, I have see mild dental fluorosis with pitting and brown stains in just a small area.  Because it is so small, I would call it mild instead of moderate.  And just saw a patient last week where another dentist called the patient's dental fluorosis mild and she did not have brown stains but significant pitting.  

 

You have fixated on something you are not competent to argue, simply in an attempt to discredit and argue.

 

Have a happy holiday and relax.  Ponder on why 60% of children have dental fluorosis and why?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Conversationalist

 “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms. The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”  - Dr. Hans Moolenburgh, MD (1993)

 

This AARP forum is not about the diagnoses of fluorosis in children's teeth. It is about the harm caused to senior citizens due to chronic exposure of decades duration which includes damage to immune systems, thyroids, kidneys, guts, bones and brains. It is also about the hubris of self-proclaimed experts who deny the evidence of harm and disregard the ethics relevant to individual medical consent, the human right to bodily integrity and the failure of AARP to advocate for its constituency.

 

See image and videos for why only about 2% of Europe fluoridates and that's mostly in the Republic of Ireland where citizens are protesting in the streets against the national mandate. Fluoridated salt is a choice in a handful of European countries that perhaps reaches another 10% of the population, although most of that salt is actually used in institutional settings, i.e. military and prisons. 

 

2018 Interview with Eli Dahi, PhD: 

https://youtu.be/fwukipamdxQ 

2014 Interview with Hans Moolenburgh, MD: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw3xbtS4vpM 

 Dutch DeliberationsDutch Deliberations

 

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

"CarryAnne" says:   "This AARP forum . . . is about the harm caused to senior citizens due to chronic exposure . . . It is also about the hubris of self-proclaimed experts who deny the evidence of harm and disregard the ethics . . "

Response:  It is also about the dishonesty and deception of anti-water-fluoridation folks.  For example, i
n another thread on this AARP website I asked your own anti-fluoride spokesman, Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

 

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

 

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

 

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

 

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

0 Kudos
1,976 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The egregious dishonesty and deception I see is from those who demand water be tainted with industrial fluoride, a toxic calcium chelater in a program that is the bone fluoridation of masses of people without consent.

And here we have one such person, complaining about "deception" from innocent people who merely want clean water not intentionally infused with an EPA contaminant.

Totally nuts.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

The sarcasm is mistaken. The two articles describing experiments disproving time dilation were published in physics essays and in optics. The idea has been disproven theoretically, mathematically and,experimentally. This ,was brought up to remind readers that even regarded  experts make mistakes. 

But continuing with a mistake, such as fluoridation, in the,face of facts proving so, is harmful bias.

Einstein was a scientist who today would correct the idea.  Unfortunately CDC fluoridationists teject facts and refuse to correct their problem. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

The careful controlled stidies by Spittle and those by Burgstahler and others. My own work on racehorse breakdowns . And the NRC report describing that 1 ppm F water causes elevated TSH in iodine deficient consumers and elevates both PTH and calcitonin at the same time pathologically, the only known substance tlthat does this bizarre IIIaction, and consumers who have bone pain at F levels in bone of only 1700 mg/kg.

What other effects would you like to discuss?.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
1,702 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I don't have a problem with the studiy. It is what it is. My conclusion is justified.

The point I made about IQ is that fluoridationists are so busy trying to prove a useless substance effective that they have little time to consider its chronic toxicity.

Ive seen many effectiveness studies by kiumar but little from him of chronic toxicity studies to justify the fluoridation of people he, so widely defends. 

Bone fluoridation is not harmless.

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

And what peer-reviewed studies about the dangers of optimally fluoridated water do you have to offer?  It seems you have no problem criticizing other peer-reviewed scholars for what they haven't done when you, yourself have nothing to offer.  

Oh yeah, I forgot, you do have a scholarly work in which you argue that Einstein got it all wrong about Time Dilation.  My bad.

0 Kudos
1,677 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

For some time I've tried to understand what you are saying, but I'm at a loss.  I can't figure out what Time Dilation has to do with excess fluoride exposure.   Makes no sense.

 

You ask a good question about peer-reviewed studies and "optimally fluoridated water."  

 

Several problems.  

 

1.   What concentration of fluoride in water is marketed "optimal"?   A moving target, wouldn't you agree?  0.7-1.4 ppm, 0.7 ppm, ???? 

 

2.  Fluoride added to water is just one source of fluoride.  No research would only considering one source of fluoride.  If they did, the peer-reviewers would throw it out.  

 

So both your research question makes no sense.   If your question refered to total fluoride exposure, then we could start to discuss. 

 

3.  Who's responsibility is it to provide the research on any product?   The patient/consumer?  The government? Or the manufacturer marketing the product?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

Bill O, 

 

This comment is addressed to you.  It begins with your name.  You may chime in on this:

 

Allow me to illustrate the type of deceptive behavior that anti-fluoridation folks employ.  In another thread on this AARP website I asked your own Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

 

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

 

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

 

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

 

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

0 Kudos
1,746 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The insanity is mind boggling. Promote dental fluorosis thin enamel, to attempt to fght dental caries, when enamel is what protects underlying dentin ftom caries in the first place.

A cavity is the destruction of enamel by bacterial acid. Enamel does not cause a cavity. It is the absence of enamel that is a cavity.

So absence if fluoride doesn't cause a cavity. It is not brushing after eating sugar that does. This is,ancient news.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
1,094 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

How convoluted can one person be? Here we have a fluoridation advocate blaming toothpaste for dental  fluorosis, but who then admits that "mild fluorosis" is caused by water fluoridation without toothpaste. What?  Both toothpaste and fluoridated water contribute together to cause the current fluorosis endemic. That is precisely what I have been saying all along.  And that is precisely why you cannot sue and win against a water district because they will say the straw that broke the camel's back was toothpaste which came later (as this person here claims). While toothpaste people continue to sell their wares by assuming as long as you don't intentionally or accidentally swallow it, then water fluoridation is the main culprit. Again, they are both contributors, and it's mainly water, as published by the NRC. The toothpaste people are correct. Why argue with the exposure data the NRC tabulated and published? Original studies by Ziegelbecker indicate that fluoride in drinkng water causes dental fluorosis which increases progressively as the fluoride a concentration in water increases. Even fluoridationists accept that all fluoridated cities have increased incidence of dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia. There are no exceptions.

And the data on fluorotic teeth and caries are dismal. The notion that they have fewer caries is ludicrous because the studies published are limited, and the means have standard devations that always overlap. There is no significnat decrease in caries due to fluorotic enamel hypoplasia (as one would expect with thinned enamel.) This is a waste of time since we've gone over this stuff over and over.It's a joke.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard,

 

"CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

 

No doubt you won't accept this study, you will have some problem with it, because it contradicts your pre-established bias.  Some scientist.

0 Kudos
1,087 Views
5
Report
Conversationalist

IidaIida

David,  

 

You said,

"CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

 

No doubt you won't accept this study, you will have some problem with it, because it contradicts your pre-established bias."

 

Iida's data does show an increase in dental fluorosis with increased water fluoride concentration.  However, when the data is graphed (see above), the claim of benefit you make is hard to detect.

 

Your claim of benefit lacks serious consideration, based on this study.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Bronze Conversationalist

I accept studies that present good data. I reject those that don't. So what?

Another fact that dentists seem to not consider is that people with fluorotic spots on teeth usually brush their teeth more rigorously and thoroughly than those who do not have fluorosis. Thiis is a common finding since people can mistakenly think that it was poor dental care that led to the spots in the first place, or that if better care were used perhaps the teeth would be improved or at least will not worsen in structure. So the study you presented, where fluorotic teeth had a lower average caries incidence than nonfluorotic (but with error bars that overlap) is also degraded because brushing habits and diet do affect caries incidence. It is not the fluorosis, but the brushing habits and frequency of consuming sugars, etc. that actually affect caries incidence. Neither of these were controlled. or are controllable since humans cannot be caged like animals to conrol these variables. Animals have so been examined in perfectly controlled experiments, and fluorosis does not lower caries incidence. Fluoridated water is useles in fighting caries. It is great at causing bone fluorosis. One need not be a scientist to understand..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber,

 

I love how you just say things without presenting a shread of evidence to support your claims.  This for example:  " . . people with fluorotic spots on teeth usually brush their teeth more rigorously and thoroughly than those who do not have fluorosis. Thiis is a common finding . . . "

Well, you said it so it must be true.  That's good enough for me.

 

Why am I not shocked that you have problems with the Kumar Study.  But this was the unexpected part that I liked the best which perfectly demonstrates the odd lengths you will go to for some kind of argument that supports your viewpoint:

"And by the way no discussion is made of the overall health, bone strength, IQ, thyroid status, etc. of these individuals."

 

Yes, that is a great observation, because as everyone knows when studies were conducted that proved Asbestos leads to Lung Cancer, the first thing they checked was bone strength and the IQs of the subjects.

0 Kudos
1,128 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed ten comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

0 Kudos
1,383 Views
0
Report