Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
557
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

557 Views
Message 351 of 1,419

Bill, I feel the need to warn you that I am the Ken who you blocked on social media in an attempt to close down a discussion. I will understand if you now retreat from this one.

However, it is surely hypocritical to block me on social media and then expect to enter into a discussion with me here.

The question of persistence of calcium, phosphate and fluoride transferred to saliva and plaque from food was discussed in my exchange with Paul Connett. I suggest you refer to that for citations (I am away from home on holiday at the moment so do not feel like doing that search for you - ex=specially with your blocking behaviour.)

As for studies showing the efficacy of CWF, you could start with the Cochrane review. If you argue about quality, etc.. then I challenge you to provide a citation of higher quality showing no benefits - particular a replicated, blinded controlled study. The ball is in your court.

No, the pathetic graphs Connett's crowd produce comparing changes in tooth decay prevalence in various countries from WHO data does not qualify as a study, let alone a reputable one. There is nothing new in your observation of socioeconomic effects. Nor is there anything new in ethnic effects showing up in health statistics. 

I have often shown the New Zealand data shows a clear difference when ethnic effects are removed (something the anti-fluoride activists locally dishonestly refuse to do. And the NZ Oral Health Survey used populations selected to balance out socioeconomic and ethnic differences and showed a clear difference.

I honestly cannit get my head around anyone who pretends to have any authority on this subject making the claims you do.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
557
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
510
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

510 Views
Message 352 of 1,419

Richard, I would pat you on the back but your hand is in the way. Besides Iid do seriously question that you have "read vast literature" becuase you seem to rely on a few bad discredited studies.

If you could drag yourself away from the ideologically approved (and therefore unscientific) reading you would find that again and again scientific studies have confikrmed the efficacy of community water fluodiation. Reviews of the subject also confirm this.

There is no trouble finding citations for such studies and reviews, of course. You could start with the recent Cochrane review (which has been dishonestly and disingenuously condemned by anti-fluoride activists) which confirmed:


“Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. These results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in both children’s baby and permanent teeth.”

Of course, studies vary in quality - nothing unusual there. But can you find a single study of higher quality than those reviewed which show CWF is not effective? If so - please provide the citation and we can investigate what it actually says.

I really love to seriously assess scientific papers for their strengths and weaknesses.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
510
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
505
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

505 Views
Message 353 of 1,419

Thanks Dr Osmunsen.

Yes and unless people critically read the,studies listed earlier they will remain in a maze and probably never get out of it the rest of their life.

Pretty bad.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
505
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
459
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

459 Views
Message 354 of 1,419

Ken,

 

Am I to understand you are suggesting that if a person eats or drinks about every hour, the fluoride in the beverage and food protects against tooth decay?

 

Would you provide references?

 

What research do you rely on to show, as you say, "a clear differences in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated populations in simple regional and ethnic areas of a country." 

 

As a dentist, I have attributed fluoride as beneficial because that is what I was taught in school.  However, a simple comparison between states, or counties, or provinces of Canada when they are ranked on their whole population fluoridated, does not show a clear benefit from fluoridation.  Indeed, there is a very clear difference in caries based on socioeconomics, but not fluoridation.  

 

And the studies I have seen show very little diffeerence and have serious confounding issues which were not considered.  

 

Again, fluoride might have a benefit but detecting any benefit on a population basis is simply not clear.  Perhaps due to the excess fluoride from other sources, but benefit from fluoridation is not based on good science.  

 

I took CDC and HHS data and ranked the 50 states on the percentage of their whole population fluoridated and percentage of each state reporting the percentage of "good or excellent" teeth.   You can see by the dark blue line below that one state had almost no fluoridation and one had almost everyone.   

 

You can see the pink ranking of tooth decay for the more wealthy is about 82% and the poor, although not as consistent, is about 55%.   Clearly the wealthy report better oral health.

 

Consider the effect of fluoridation.  We do not see any common cause between fluoridation and good teeth.

 

The evidence of a public health benefit must be measured in the public at large.  

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

50 states comparison.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
459
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
421
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

421 Views
Message 355 of 1,419

It's not my spelling. It's using a cell phone while on the run.The spelling has now been corrected.

I've read vast literature and advertisements on the "benefits" of fluoride and all of them are nothing rigorous.The full study for example that demonstrated the bias in the original Dean study was by Ziegelbecker who used all the available data and proved that the Dean conclusion was based on a limited data set. There is no benefit to teeth from fluoride water even to 6 ppm.

The original forced human experiments in Grand Rapids and Newburg were not even controleld for calcium content of the water with the untreated cigties used as "controls" and would never have been approved or published under peer review in today's scientific world. For a review you might wish to consult the textbooks by the dentist statistician Phillip Sutton, Errors and  Omissions in Fluoridation Trials (the Great Fraud Fluoridation) . If you want to cfhallenge the lack of effect on dental caries, then address these detailed thorough references please. 

Good luck

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
421
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
426
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

426 Views
Message 356 of 1,419

Richard, your spelling is deteriorating.

You, of course, have backed away with vague comments like "brief interval." But, in fact, that interval is about 1 hr. so that eating and drinking throughout the day helps to maintain a protective concentration of F in saliva.

You have to be living a hermit life scientifically to claim there is no evidence that fluoride plays a protective role or to ignore the clear differences in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated populations in simple regional and ethnic areas of a country.

Making such a claim just indicates how strongly ideology prevents you from seeing the bleeding obvious.


Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
426
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
429
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

429 Views
Message 357 of 1,419

No one i know has such data because everyone eats and,drinks completely differently than soneone else. But i dont focus on the brief interval during which one is,eating. I am talking about the data from teotia and from ziegelbecker and from yiamouyannis and the most conclusive of all, the perfectly controlled mammalian stidies, all proving beyond doubt that fluoridated water consumption does not affect dental caries even up to concentrations in water as high ae 6 ppm in humans. Thats that.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
429
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
411
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

411 Views
Message 358 of 1,419

Many dentists believe and state that lack of fluoride increases caries incidence. Like the yiamouyiannis claim on Aids this claim is also false r. Caries,are,caused by bacterial acids subsequent to growth from sugary foods left on teeth.

But dentists can be wrong about this while still being correct about other things they ro.

Ditto john yiamouyianns.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
411
Views
Conversationalist
2
Kudos
336
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

336 Views
Message 359 of 1,419

Ken P.,

Still referring to  C-104 to C-111 of https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf

Your comment, “Pyromorphite is usually the Cl compound Pb5(PO4)3Cl. Yes, isomorphous substitution occurs but what surprises me is that there are no analytical data given in this section for F. See table C27, page C106. This makes me suspect the pyromorphite identified by XRD is not the fluoride analogue but more likey a Cl, phosphate, OH analogue.

The description of pyromorphite as the fluoride analogue in Table C26 appears to be a mistake. If the authors seriously suggested it was a fluoride analogue they would have provided analytical data for F, not Cl. I also note that the report describes fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common."

end your comment

Yes I noticed no analytical data for F on page C106, unfortunate but not conclusive.  How can you speculate what the authors intended or not? This does not mean the data clearly labeled as fluoropromorphite is a ‘Mistake”.  Figure C.95 clearly labels dominant peaks of pyromorphite, Pm =fluoropyromorphite.
Table C26 has at the top of the column “Pb5F(PO4)3” and when listing various forms of pyromorphite on page C-107, why X=F is mentioned first before Cl or OH? Not Alphabetical? By most abundant?

 

Where is the statement you said is in the report, “fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common." ” ?

 

Unless you get the authors' of this report to correct their "mistakes", I stand by my statement the scales were mainly compounds of fluoride.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
336
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
386
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

386 Views
Message 360 of 1,419

Richard, I think I have done enough for the average intelligent person to understand. For somene to insit of thinking freshly excreted saliva before eating and drinking is relevant to someone eating food and drinking beverages requires a level of intellectual stubbornness which makes rational discussion impossible.

But you are welcome to provide the citations for measurement of saliva chemical concentrations for someone actively drinking and eating if you can.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
386
Views