Can blue light from your phone cause vision problems? Find out and learn more about your vision in the AARP Eye Center.

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
785
Views

Re: IAOMT deceptive Position Statement on Water Fluoridation

785 Views
Message 771 of 1,333

William,

 

Explain to me why you chose to ignore accepted evidence-based research which shows that if a lesion is not cavitated (without pushing an explorer into the lesion) that a sealant should be placed over the occlusal crevices?  Your “bombs” that you showed in Potsdam, NY are an example not of an indictment of water fluoridation, but instead of a situation where a clinician is failing to follow accepted dental therapeutics?

 

yours,

 

johnny

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
785
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
766
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

766 Views
Message 772 of 1,333

The U.S. EPA correctly lists fluoride in water as a contaminant that must be regulated.  At 4 ppm fluoride (naturally present as a contaminant in water) consumption is prohibited by the EPA because doing so chronically causes severe skeletal fluorosis. For water at 2 ppm the EPA requires warnings to be issued not to drink, where it is clear that doing so chronically during childhood causes severe dental enamel fluorosis (hypoplasia).  

 

But what fluoridation promoters fail to grasp is that the EPA does not regulate intentional infusion of industrial fluorides into water (artificial water fluoridation), where the EPA Office of Water writes that this is the purview of the U.S. FDA because it is an attempt to use fluoride as an ingestible, to treat human tissue. So the EPA does not examine the long term effects of consuming water with artificially added fluoride at 1 ppm (or at 0.7 ppm).  These effects are not known with certainty to the EPA, and the EPA does not attempt to discover them either.

 

So what must be emphasized is that fluoride assimilation causes permanent accumulation of fluoride into bone where it is a contaminant that alters the crystal structure of bone in a pathological process. it is not biochemicallay reversible. Assimilatled fluoride is thus a cumulative poison. This means that the high stage bone fluorosis (usually with severe bone pain and bones being more subject to fracture) that is caused over several decades of drinking 4 ppm fluoride water can also be achieved by consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water by those consumers who happen to live long enough to accumulale fluoride to the bone level that 4 ppm water produces in decades.

 

So it must not be claimed that consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water is safe and harmless, even while assimilatling the fluoride for one's entire lifetime and for the life of their descendants in all perpetuity. Although this positiojn is posited by fluoridation advocates, it is false because, as stated, fluoride is a cumulative poison.

Pre-clinical, symptom-less bone fluorosis actually begins with the first sip of fluoridated water. This is because there is no concentration of blood fluoride that is low enough such that ALL fluoride is eliminated into the urine before ANY fluoride accumulates into bone. The concentrated calcium in bone hydroxyapatite strongly electrostatically attracts systemic fluoride ion. There is no escape that would allow anyone to claim that ingesting fluoridated water is harmless during liefelong continuous drinking. The claim is simply absurd. The FDA is also correct in its assessment ruling that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods and that fluoride ingestion has never been FDA approved.

The fact that easily noticed symptoms may be absent after long term fluoridated water consumption in many people does not mean it is "harmless" during lifelong consumption.

Understand?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
766
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
747
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

747 Views
Message 773 of 1,333

David,

 

Not all schools are the same and knowing where a person received their degrees can be helpful.  Those from Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and other Ivy league schools tend to do it more.  I sometimes list the school where I went to because we have our strengths in public health, international and areas of prevention.

 

However, we should probably more often or always list the schools we went.

 

By the way, did you receive your degree from Trump University?  Just kidding.  You can take a joke, right?

 

Bill  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
747
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
727
Views

Re: IAOMT deceptive Position Statement on Water Fluoridation

727 Views
Message 774 of 1,333

David,

 

You are correct, I miswrote.  The IAOMT is not THE primary evidence.  It is a compilation of primary evidence studies, some stronger and some weaker studies.  However, adequate to raise serious concerns.   (A list of primary references)

 

Now, go to those you rely on for your opinion, those who endorse fluoridation.  What is the primary sources they provide?  What is the list of primary references?   Mostly other opinions of like minded believers, reviews, committees of like minded believers and little primary evidence.  

 

And the NRC 2006 is another example of primary references.    ( A list of primary references)

 

In each of those, you will find some studies stronger and some weaker.  But the trend is serious concerns with over exposure.

 

Too much fluoride can be a serious risk.  We now have 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.(NHANES 2011)

 

David, we must weigh the research and use the same critical thinking for benefit.

 

You do not appear to accept any risk from excess fluoride because there are no RCTs, which are not ethical.

However, you accept weak studies on benefit and there are no RCT's but could be done.

And you accept weak studies on benefit which the FDA have ruled are "incomplete."

 

Strikes me as a double standard protecting your bias, based on endorsements of others supporting their positions.

 

We really do need to look at the studies on neurotoxicity.

 

Bill

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
727
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
903
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

903 Views
Message 775 of 1,333

Two that come to mind, where work was done at two institutions that was go at published when they were paid.by the second institution.

Im sure it happens when work spans a transfer between labs. 

 

But the questions I asked remain unanswered. Why for one is a person "fringe" for being the first to discover something?

 

Why should someone get no health treatment from a professional who happens to misunderstand one item while understanding other items well?

 

What gives a person a right to label someone as not opposing fluoridation simply because he does not conjoin FAN (even to the tune of a presumed seven million)? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
903
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
821
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

821 Views
Message 776 of 1,333

By the way, Richard, for the 6th time now, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works as though he was affiliated with that institution? . . as though they funded the paper? . . . as though they published the material?    Anybody?

 

Are you having a problem with the question, or are you really a fringe minority of one who believes this is an acceptable practice?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
821
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
784
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

784 Views
Message 777 of 1,333

So there you have it. One cannot refer to a person as being "fringe" unless there are a majority who oppose him. No majority opposes my view that fluoride discharges in rivers where salmon spawn can, and did, affect salmon populations.  

So the view is not "fringe." it is merely an observation made first, where others don't bother to even look. Pretty simple really.

Claude Bernard was ostracized as some phoney when he discovcered that glucose is in the bloodstream even in people who eat no sugar. He turned out to be correct since humans metabolize glucose from consumed foods. We now know he was not "fringe" but instead observed something that was correct.  Just because someone is alone in thinking does not make him "fringe" as though he is in error.

And no one (except on this site) has criticized or disagreed with the deduction on fluoride discharges and salmon. So the "fringe" label is pretty absurd. 

Likewise, the idea that just because someone does not oppose fluoridation (or even may agree with it) does not mean he can't be trusted to do anything else. Two dentists I have gone to do very well with teeth repair or pulilnhg teeth, etc. But they assume that fluoride gels at 12,000 ppm might help teeth so they use it on those who allow it. He is wrong about the gels (all the fluoride that is not spit out is eventually swallowed since it only forms calcium fluoride globules on teeth surfaces that are easily dissolved upon eating/drinking). But neverftheless they are great at providing other services. The same is true for a doctor who can be excellent in many areas but wrong about one. 

I don't see why anyone would stop getting help from someone who simply doesn't know everything. In fact, no one knows everything. But because that is the case, we should not go for help from anyone because no one knows everything? Again, absurd.. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
784
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
784
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

784 Views
Message 778 of 1,333

Richard, this is a joke:  "There is not a single scientist who has published in journals or the media that the fluoride discharges in the Sacramento have  nothing to to with the decimated ongoing almon population problem."

 

Response:  Yeah.  There is also not a single scientist who has published that Sunspots have nothing to do with ongoing salmon population problems either.  

 

Love your reasoning.

 

Show me a scientist who agrees with your fringe position that water fluoridation caused this.  As of now you are a fringe minority of One.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
784
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
805
Views

Dodging questions

805 Views
Message 779 of 1,333

Richard Sauerheber – Your comment, "I know many people who oppose fluoridation for many reasons", brings the conversation back to the questions you seem to be avoiding, for example the comments by by CarryAnne and Dr. Osmunson about those professionals who support community water fluoridation (CWF) or don't publically condemn the practice:

 

(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corruptandvested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millionsandAgnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

You also claim (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “Most [dentists] are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” 

(07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates
(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.

 

And comments To Dr. Johnson by Dr. Osmunson (07-09-2018 09:09 PM):

"CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing."
"Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the publicThey are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust."
"I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation."

"Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion."

 

Do you accept CarryAnne's and Dr. Osmunson's specific claims against the organizations they referenced and also, as I have asked them, against all members of the 100+ respected (except by anti-science activists) organizations and their representatives who have not publically embraced the anti-F opinions?

 

Whether you answer yes or no, explain how you can trust any science or health conclusion or procedures accepted by anyone in those organizations?  If all professionals who support community water fluoridation are ignorant, willfully blind, mindless lemmings when it comes to the issue of fluoridation – and are willfully or ignorantly subjecting their patients to the allegedly obvious and damaging harm from fluoridation how on earth can they be trusted to make any beneficial decisions?

 

Several additional questions about the scientific consensus: 
~> What is your opinion of the importance of the scientific consensus in making science and health related decisions – both in general and specifically with respect to CWF? 

~> If you don’t accept the scientific consensus as a legitimate representation of the majority position on relevant issues, what is your alternative explanation and terminology?

~> What do you accept as the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) on CWF?
~> If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have FOs been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative? 
~> What is your explanation for the fact that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF – and their members & representatives have not mutinied?

 

How would you describe the hundreds of thousands of members of the organizations who support CWF and have not publically denounced it? 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
805
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
767
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

767 Views
Message 780 of 1,333

I know many people who oppose fluoridation for many reasons, but who you are improperly counting in the seven million who didn't sign the FAN petition. 

They do not want to affiliate with FAN or do not endorse all that FAN has written, or many other reasons. 

So? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
767
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark