Tell Congress to stop Rx greed and cut prescription drug prices now! Here’s how.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1309
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,309 Views
Message 191 of 1,417

Bill, you have simply resorted to a political/ideological statement and refused to respond to my request you provide scientific support. I repeat:

"As it stands it is simply a declaration - which is ideological/political. It is certainly not a substantiated scientific statement.

You could support your claim in either of two ways:

1: Provide the list of samples with the treatments (actually this should be available but not expected to be published);

2: Cite the infinite confidence intervals that would result if this claim were true."

Now, on the basis of the confidence intervals, I know your political/ideological/nonscientific statement is false. And your refusal to respond indicates to me you know that as well.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1309
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1285
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,285 Views
Message 192 of 1,417

No Richard - this is not true - "So I've made the point. Fluoride from fluoridated drinking water that enters into saliva to bathe teeth topically continuously 24 hours a day makes no significant contribution to affect dental caries."

The point you have made is that fluoride in freshly exuded duct saliva (the "
direct filtrate of the blood") does not make a contribution. That is, ingested fluoride transferred from the blood to freshly exuded saliva is of so low a concentration it does not contribute to the protective effect of fluoride.


That is something I have never disagreed with. Never. That argument is a straw man and you should be ashamed to have to fall back on it. The dishonesty is that you continue to pretend I am referring to this freshly exuded saliva when I am talking about the whole saliva in the mouth which has received direct inputs of chemical species from food, water, beverages, and oral treatments - throughout the day.

The composition of directly exuded saliva has no DIRECT relevance to the composition of real-world salvia.

It has INDIRECT relevance in that freshly exuded duct saliva causes the lowering of the concentration of chemical species in real-world saliva after every meal, drink, and oral treatment. Just as it causes the lowering of acidity in real-world saliva as a result of bacterial activity after a meal.

 

But only a fool would argue that this means that acid from bacterial production or fluoride, phosphate, and calcium from food, drink, and oral treatments have no effect on the surface of teeth.

I have never made claims about the "direct filtrate of the blood." I have made that clear again and again. it is dishonest to use this irrelevant situation to deny the real world truth.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1285
Views
Silver Conversationalist
3
Kudos
1294
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,294 Views
Message 193 of 1,417

The FDA knows that fluoridated antibiotics, and other fluoride meds, can kill or cause all kinds of harm, but "let’s just change the labels"! Then again, the FDA has never approved any fluorides, because “fluoride” is a protected pollutant. Thus, there has never been any clinical trials for “safety or effectiveness” of fluoride pollution for the stated purpose by the government (note: all fluorides are fluorine compounds). https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm611032.htm

 

Fluoridation was always a fraud and no-one is liable! The herd is willing to ingest industrial waste in the water supply, when an authoritative body tells them these category 6 poisons (by law) are "good for the teeth'...HA! See Ciprofloxacin (and the other fluoroquinolones) deplete mitochondrial DNA. https://floxiehope.com/2015/02/24/study-finds-that-ciprofloxacin-depletes-mitochondrial-dna/

 

Also, both the FDA and the CDC are fundamentally corrupt agencies. 

CHECK OUT THE NUMEROUS LINKS BELOW ABOUT CORRUPTION AT THE FDA & THE CDC. Each example will demonstrate when the CDC & the FDA had deliberately altered or withheld scientific evidence in a bid to misinform the public. The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. Note: If any of the links do not work, please just google corruption in the FDA or CDC. 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-app...

 

Big Pharma Officially Owns The FDA:

http://yournewswire.com/big-pharma-officially-owns-the-fda/

 

Big contributions to senators who are supposed to question pharma companies:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/02/26/these-senators-received-the-biggest-checks-fr...

 

https://gizmodo.com/big-pharma-gives-big-money-to-the-senators-who-will-que-1832891994?fbclid=IwAR0F...

 

For your protection: The lies and deception of the CDC https://www.sott.net/article/285703-For-your-protection-The-lies-and-deception-of-the-CDC

 

Total corruption: Drug companies bought their way onto FDA advisory panels.

It is now an undeniable fact that the pharmaceutical industry weaseled its way onto key U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panels, which were instrumental in shaping the way drugs are safety tested and approved. According to The Washington Post (WP), a recent public records request has revealed that drug companies purchased special access onto these panels, where they were given the keys to the kingdom in swaying decision-makers about official drug policy.

 

The FDA continues to be one of the most dangerous government agencies in the United States. The sheer scope of people it affects with its corruption is staggering. Constitutional Attorney on US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) Corruption, Disinformation and Cover Up of Health Dangers

http://www.globalresearch.ca/constitutional-attorne…/5430348

 

FDA Let Drugs Approved on Fraudulent Research Stay on the Market https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-let-drugs-approved-on-fraudulent-research-stay-on-the-market?...

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1294
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1313
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,313 Views
Message 194 of 1,417

So the complainer is walking away from the conversation and that is fine with me because he appears unable to understand it anyway. Using the scientific method, to determiine a role of a particular material in causing an effect it is necessary to isolate that material from other possible independent variable effectors. The role of fluoride in saliva, that is a direct filtrate of the blood that contains fluoride at levels determined mostly by drinking fluoridated water, can only be assessed by examining the product saliva that is not contaminated with foods or other materials. When this was done properly, the NRC Report discussed that study for the saliva contribution of fluoride from drinking fluoride water. The NRC obviously did not include studies in which food was a known contaminant of the saliva since then the role of drinking water fluoride in saliva would not have been able to be determined. .

So I've made the point. Fluoride from fluoridated drinking water that enters into saliva to bathe teeth topically continuously 24 hours a day makes no significant contribution to affect dental caries.

Thank you if the conversation has now ended.

And the claim that I am not an actual  scientist is countered by the fact that I have published over 50 research studies in scientific journals over the last 45 years, so the rationale for that particular complaint is unclear. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1313
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1334
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,334 Views
Message 195 of 1,417

Ken,

Most all in Broadbent's study had similar fluoride intake and Broadbent, no surprise, did not find a decrease in IQ from fluoride intake.  

 

The Broadbenet study was incapable of detecting an IQ loss.

 

Regarding Richard's desire for measured evidence such as saliva fluoride concentration, what about measured evidence are you opposed to?  Or is herd opinion your choice for science?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1334
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1361
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,361 Views
Message 196 of 1,417

Richard, it is obvious to me why you have no credible research publication record or experience in designing research studies.

Can you not see how self-defeating it is to insist on subjects who have no fluoride intake in their food or oral treanmtents and then measure only their excreted ductal saliva. When the reality is that people receive intakes of fluoride and other nutrients via food, beverages, water and oral treatment throughout the day. These nutrients are directly transferred to the saliva and other parts of the oral cavity. They play a protective role for teeth - yet you want to design an experiment which specifically ignores such inputs! That is just stupid.

Really, Richard,  I really have no patience for such stubbornness. As far as I am concerned this discussion has been exhausted and I will not continue to itneract with you on this specific subject. You are really away with the birds on this issue.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1361
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1361
Views

Re: Stop Fluoridation

1,361 Views
Message 197 of 1,417

Bill -please support your claim - "All the people in the Broadbent study were on extra fluoride."

As it stands it is simply a declaration - which is ideological/political. It is certainly not a substantiated scientific statement.

You could support your claim in either of two ways:

1: Provide the list of samples with the treatments (actually this should be available but not expected to be published);

2: Cite the infinite confidence intervals that would result if this claim were true.

I have not seen the specific individual data and have no interest in attempting to get it. But I have seen the statistical analysis and the results a quite inconsistent with your claim.

So I can only conclude you have pulled that claim out of thin air, or somewhere else. It is certainly not factual.

I am unaware of questions I have asked you that refer to - except to deal with my comments on the Bashash studies. These were what motivated you to intervene in my discussion with CarryAnne and you seem completely unaware of the problems in those studies, such as the poor nature of the relationship, the lack of any relationship with child urinary F and the need to consider other important risk-modifying factors like maternal prenatal nutrition.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1361
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1373
Views

Re: Stop Fluoridation

1,373 Views
Message 198 of 1,417

Ken,

 

All the people in the Broadbent study were on extra fluoride.  

 

If everyone in the study is taking fluoride, then detecting an effect from the fluoride is not possible.  

 

And I have failed to see your answers to my questions.  Please post again.  I am busy and don't always read all the posts here, so please also send it to my email at bill@teachingsmiles.com.  

 

And Randy, you want me to take the science to those "experts" who evaluate the science and create the consensus.  Wonderful, please list those individuals or the organizations who create the "consensus."   I've been trying to find them and no one accepts responsibility.   Forward me the names please.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1373
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1371
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,371 Views
Message 199 of 1,417

I just wrote to the U.S. CDC to ask them to halt fluoridation again. I hadn't written to them in some time. The resaon I wrote again is because the CDC recently claimed that it is fluoride toothpaste  that is being consumed by children that causese the endemic dental fluorosis problem in the U.S.   I had to show them the Zip[kin study of 1958 before toothpaste fluoride became widely used to show what F content in adult bone where water is 1 ppm fluoride ranged from 1610 - 4920 mg/kg of bone. These were difficult measurements done on live people from bone biopsies and are definitive. This means that along with dental fluorosis (first recognized in teh 1930's as CO brown stain and Texas teeth,  tc. in fluoride water areas before F toothpaste was invented) bone fluoride levels were problems, even more concentated than f in toothpaste, in bone where it does not belong.  Bone pain in some people occurs at only 1700 mg/kg and the NRC concluded that Stage II fluorosis with pain mobility issues occurs typically in most people at 3,500 mg/kg.  So lifelime drinking of the garbage water produces denigrated bone even without fluoridated toothpaste.

But will the CDC do anything about this? Of course not. Am I to remailn silent and ignore the truth? No thanks.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1371
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1344
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,344 Views
Message 200 of 1,417

And you can lead a fluoridationist to clean water and he will turn away and consume F'd water anyway because he would think he was missing something and that God didn't Create water properly in the first place. .

Again, how else can one determine the drinking water F concentration to saliva if you don't take saliva samples after the previous materials eaten have been cleared?  There is no other way to delineate whether drinking water fluoride has any value in affecting the F content of the oral cavity. And it clearly has no significant role at all.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1344
Views