WATCH VIDEO: Day 5 of Iowa presidential candidate forum with Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1033
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,033 Views
Message 911 of 1,248

Whack a Mole.

 

David, I no longer have time to simply argue with a believer.  Sort of like trying to change the Pope's belief in the virgin birth.  Religious freedom is important and I will not try to stop you from your belief in selected organizations which have no jurisdiction over fluoride exposure.

 

In closing, fluoridation is very much like Whack a Mole because there are many, many factors to consider.  Judgment must be used and bias affects judgment.  In summary:

 

1.   I do not hear dispute that 20% of adolescents with moderate/severe dental fluorosis is too much.  Excess exposure in and of itself is reason to reduce exposure. 

 

The most logical place to reduce excess exposure is a cessation of fluoridation.  Other sources have benefit, such as pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, medications, toothpaste, manufacturing, etc. 

 

2.  The organizations you rely on do not have primary evidence for how much fluoride in the tooth reduces tooth decay.  We don't know how much is effective.

 

3.  Over 50 human studies are reporting harm from fluoride to the developing brain and many tissues appear to also be harmed. . . at very low dosages.   Bones, pineal gland, teeth, nerves, mitochondria, and more. 

 

Take the evidence and use judgment.  With other sources available, why treat everyone even if they don't have teeth, have chemical sensitivities or ingesting too much fluoride from other places. 

 

The primary evidence is compelling, enough so that HHS even lowered the concentration of fluoride in water.  Was not enough, but a good start and clearly indicates excess exposure.

 

Perhaps I could suggest some science courses which might give you a greater appreciation for factual evidence rather than a simple belief system.

 

Fluoridation is not an evidence based public health intervention.

 

Cheers,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1033
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1022
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,022 Views
Message 912 of 1,248

Carrie Anne,

 

You say, "Since you are so concerned about funding, David, you should know Pollick is known in some quarters as the 'million dollar dentist' because of his activities."

 

Yes, I am concerned with funding.  Please provide some evidence that Dr. Pollick is compromised in some way because of funding.  I have already shown that the Fluoride Action Network takes money from Mercola, an unethical company that has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for its behavior.  So I would be interested in seeing proof of what you've said.

 

 

 

Nothing's been proven here other than some anecdotal stories.  Please tell me about your symptoms so that we may discuss them in detail and attempt to ascertain the accuracy of your claims.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1022
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1033
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,033 Views
Message 913 of 1,248

"Many municipal water sources inject fluorine (at 1 ppm) as an additive to prevent tooth decay. Use of this water for irrigation can result in toxicity symptoms on sensitive plants."  - in Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook (2018) “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” by J.W. Pscheidt, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist, OSU 

 

This thread is about establishing a foundation of evidence that fluoridation is dangerous to senior citizen health - we have done that. Although fluoridation does not provide significant benefit to teeth and instead has damaged the teeth of over half of American teens (Wiener et al. 2018), it wouldn't matter if fluoride consumption was beneficial to teeth when it also damages kidney, thyroid, bone and gut health in many consumers. 

 

Environmental impact is just more evidence of harm, which stresses that fluoridation opposition should be about actual evidence and modern science rather than rhetoric and political campaiging.

 

Speaking of political campaigning, the first item on David's list is by Howard Pollick. Mr. Pollick is one of two persons identified by the ADA as its official pro-fluoridation spokespersons. Since you are so concerned about funding, David, you should know Pollick is known in some quarters as the 'million dollar dentist' because of his activities.

 

Despite his bias, Pollick was unable to prevent the inclusion of language in a large 2003 California Head Start study on cavities and ethnicity that noted that fluoridation had no impact on cavity experience among these low-income high risk children. However, FOIA requests revealed that while wordsmithing the ADA infant formula statment in 2010, Pollick witheld that information and instead suggested using circular reasoning and endorsement to justify CDC pro-fluoridation policy and to downplay the evidence of damage. 

 

Bottom line: We can argue science all day, but the evidence is that fluoridation is harmful to many consumers and some aquatic species, consequently adding it to water supplies is immoral and unsustainable. That is why AARP and other professional organizations should oppose fluoridation. Buy it for a buck a gallon if you want to drink it and don't believe toothpaste is enough, but don't subject the general population and the planet to this poisonous policy. 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1033
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1047
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,047 Views
Message 914 of 1,248

Carrie Anne,

 

In response to your interesting take on my comments, you seem frustrated that I am asking for evidence of some pretty far-fetched things that are being said here.

 

Dr. Sauerheber said that the practice of community water fluoridation caused the collapse of the salmon industry in Sacramento.  Are you seriously saying that it is an offense for anyone to ask for evidence of things Dr. Sauerheber says?

 

After looking, I have found no evidence to support this story.  Am I not allowed to ask for any evidence he may have which supports his story?

 

Regarding Dr. Bill, after I presented the fact that there was not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposed water fluoridation, he provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations.  He said, “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  07-27-2018 11:56 AM

 

In response to that, I asked him:  “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

I also asked him for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in Dr. Bill's list.

 

I thought you guys were all about evidence.  It appears you only want to discuss cherry-picked evidence which supports your agenda. 

 

Regarding Salmon in Sacramento, the only thing you provided which even remotely comes close defending Dr. Sauerheber’s story was this:  Richard G Foulkes & Anne C Anderson. Research Review: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride Vol.27 No.4 220-226 1994. 

 

This appeared in the anti-fluoride magazine “Fluoride” in 1994.  Moreover . . .

 

1.)  It is irrelevant to anything that ever allegedly happened in Sacramento.  Drought appears to be the cause of the Salmon collapse there. 

 

2.)  When I look into this issue with more scrutiny, I see there has never been one case, not even one, in which any community maintaining the minute optimal level of fluoride of 0.7 ppm in its drinking water has had any measurable effect on any waterway due to its discharge. 

 

In light of this fact, I am well within my rights to ask Dr. Sauerheber for evidence supporting his story.  He did mention the factual event of an industrial accident in Oregon, which had nothing to do with community water fluoridation. 

 

By the way, regarding this subject, you may be interested in the following:

 

Water Fluoridation and the Environment:  Current Perspective in the United States

Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:343-350.  HF Pollick

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/pdf/pollick.pdf

 

The Puyallup Tribe Certified the application for discharge of fluoridated waste water into the Puyallup River.  Surely no people are move reverentially protective of Salmon.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/0/596179085f928d9b88256c5d00587fc7/$FILE/WA0039578%20FS.PDF

 

Am J Public Health. 1990 Oct;80(10):1230-5. Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluoridation on the aquatic environment.  Osterman JW.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2400035

 

2005 Letter by Limnologist Joe Carroll re Hood River, OR fluoride wastewater

http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf

 

Criticism of Damkaer and Dey - North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:154-162, 1989.  Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982-1986

The Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health, Chairman: Dr Seamus O’Hickey, May 2012

Appraisal of "HUMAN TOXICITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WATER FLUORIDATION"  (author Mr. Declan Waugh).  Section 4b.

http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_report_May_2012.pdf

 

Blog comment by EPA staff to citizen concern re fluoride discharges.  http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/synthetic-female-hormones-in-sewage-are-toxic-to-male-fish-over-gen...

 

"Fluoride at high levels can be toxic to fish and wildlife. It also occurs naturally in groundwater and surface water. Some streams have naturally high levels of fluoride in the water, and the toxicty also depends on the species of the fish, temperature, and the water chemistry. EPA does include fluoride levels in discharge permits when appropriate and has standards for fluoride to protect human health and the environment."

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1047
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1064
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,064 Views
Message 915 of 1,248

“Due regard is to be given to the interconnection between human beings and other forms of life, to the importance of appropriate access and utilization of biological and genetic resources, to respect for traditional knowledge and to the role of human beings in the protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity.”  - UNESCO documents on Bioethics;  Protection of the Environment, the Biosphere and Biodiversity, Article 17 (2005)

 

“... a fluoride concentration as low as 0.5 mg F-/l can adversely affect invertebrates and fishes, safe levels below this fluoride/l concentration are recommended in order to protect freshwater animals from fluoride pollution.” - JA Camargo inFluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review” (2003) 

 

Purpose: This thread is intended to provide evidence why AARP should take a position against fluoridation as harmful - particularly to their constiuency, senior citizens. 

Method: Provide personal testimony, modern science and evidence of harm that supports an AARP policy statement in opposition to fluoridation policy. 

 

Approximately 20 AARP members contributed  about 60 comments in support of such an action over a period of three years.  Then on June 27, 2018, a team comprised of three founding members of a fluoridation advocacy group swarmed this thread, overwhelming it in days with rhetoric and vitriol. 

 

Evidence of environmental harm from fluoride is on topic. Although not as specific to senior citizen health, scientific evidence of harm to pets, animals, fish, plants and the ecosystem is of concern to seniors who wish to leave a healthy world for their descendents. The AARP would be totally justified in including concerns about the environment in any resolution they craft in opposition to fluoridation policy. 

 

Here are just a dozen modern references relevant to environmental harm caused by fluoridation policy. I included two studies authored by Dr. Sauerheber who David has personally attacked with ad hominem smears on this thread: 

 

  1. Mullenix PJ. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2014 Apr-Jun;20(2):157-66.  

  2. Camargo, J.A. 2003. Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review. Chemosphere, 50:251-264. 

  3. Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook (2018) “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” by J.W. Pscheidt, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist, OSU. 

  4. Karina Caballero-Gallardo, Jesus Olivero-Verbel and Jennifer L. Freeman. (2016) Toxicogenomics to Evaluate Endocrine Disrupting Effects of Environmental Chemicals Using the Zebrafish Model. Current Genomics. 17:6. 515-527.

  5. Jianjie C Wenjuan X, Jinling C, Jie S, Ruhui J, Meiyan L. Fluoride caused thyroid endocrine disruption in male zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicology. 2016 Feb;171:48-58.

  6. AW Burgstahler, RF Freeman, PNJacobs. Toxic effects of silicofluoridated water in chinchillas, caimans, alligators, and rats held in captivity. Research report. Fluoride 41(1)83–88 January-March 2008. 

  7. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology. 2007  Sep;28(5):1023-31. 

  8. Richard G Foulkes & Anne C Anderson. Research Review: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride Vol.27 No.4 220-226 1994. 

  9. Kausik M and Sumit N. Fluoride Contamination on Aquatic organisms and human body at Purulia and Bankura District of West Bengal, India. Bull. Env. Pharmacology. Life Sci., Vol 4 [7] June 2015: 112-114. 

  10. Sauerheber R. Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2013:439490.  

  11. Sauerheber R. Disabled Horses: Racehorse Breakdown and Artificially Fluoridated Water in Los Angeles. Fluoride 46(4)170–179 October-December 2013. 

  12. Kalisinska E, et al. Fluoride Concentrations in the Pineal Gland, Brain and Bone of Goosander (Mergus Merganser) and Its Prey in Odra River Estuary in Poland. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 36 (2014): 1063–1077.

 

Many environmental groups quietly oppose fluoridation policy. 

2008 Position Against Fluoridation of Sierra Club: 

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1064
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1052
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,052 Views
Message 916 of 1,248

Dr. Bill, before we move on to new issues, wouldn't it be great if we could resolve things you have already brought up . . you know, so they don't get lost.  

 

For the third time:  

 After I said that there was not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposed water fluoridation, you provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations.  You said, “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  07-27-2018 11:56 AM

 

In response to that, I asked you:  “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

You know what, I would also like to see the Hungarian peer-reviewed studies that showed optimally fluorididated water was harmful.  

 

Either defend your statement, or admit it was false.  Then we can move on and I would be happy to discuss "Freedom of Choice," or anything you would like.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1052
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1055
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,055 Views
Message 917 of 1,248

David,

 

You are absolutely correct.  Fluoridation is like you say, "whack-a-mole."

 

If there was just one mole, I would might be in favor of fluoridation.  But the yard is jam packed with hundreds or thousands of moles right next to each other, endless as far as we can see..  The list of fluoridation's problems is so long I can't and haven't kept track or remember all of them.  The more I review the primary evidence, the more concerned I become.

 

Each "mole" or "red flag" needs to be considered.  Dig as deep as you can on each mole hole.   And then add that mole to the next mole and then judgment.  The judgment part appears to be most difficult for staunch believers in fluoridation.   Each trusts each other to review the evidence.  And anyone who seriously reviews the research either goes silent or becomes opposed to fluoridation.

 

Clearly you have not dug deep into the science.  I don't know your education background, but the science is not too complex.

 

First consider freedom of choice.  If we gave everyone freedom to chose how much fluoride they ingest, could an individual get fluoride easily?   Oh, YES.  As simple as swallowing a pea size of fluoride toothpaste.  It would be cheaper for a water district to pass out fluoride toothpaste to those who cannot afford it.

 

The reason public health fluoridates is because public health thinks people are too dumb to ingest fluoride.  Instead we, in effect, use police powers to medicate everyone without their consent.  The same as sending the police to each house and forcing them to swallow a fluoride pill.   The reason we don't is because that would be too expensive.  We do it for TB.

 

Anyway, freedom of choice is a first step.  Then move on to dosage, how much do you want a person to ingest at what age?  How much are they ingesting without fluoridation (WHO question)? 

 

And so many more mole holes to go down. . . endless.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1055
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
965
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

965 Views
Message 918 of 1,248

David,

 

You say I'm "fear mongering," yet you provide no evidence based research that fluoridation is not over-dosing, effective or safe.  You keep asking me to trust.   You are harming the public when you expect us to "believe" you.  

 

You use cute unscientific phrases like "whack a mole" claiming you have answered my questions, when you have failed to answer my questions.  

 

1.    Is it the patient/publics' responsibility to do the research to prove safe and effective or is it those selling the product and promoting the product?  The answer is: You the promoter has the responsibilty to provide quality research, primary evidence, not only endorsements.

 

2.    What percentage of the population showing excess fluoride exposure is OK?  If any?  How many people can be harmed before you have concern?  20% of adolescents have moderate/severe flluorosis.  At least those are being harmed for sure, no dispute.

 

3.   What concentration of fluoride in the tooth is needed to prevent/mitigate caries?  No one knows because both teeth with and without caries have the same range of fluoride.

 

Start answering questions David.   You go in circles without answering the most significant questions.  Show us the research.  But I doubt you have research when the CDC, ADA, APA, and HHS do not have the evidence or answers.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
965
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
961
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

961 Views
Message 919 of 1,248

Thank you, Dr. Sauerheber.  I took the liberty of looking up Salmon Fishing in Sacramento.  I am always grateful when something causes me to add to my knowledge.

 

There is a salmon industry in Sacramento.  Who knew . . It took a hit in 2003 because of drought:  "the return of drought-ravaged winter-run Salmon hit rock bottom this summer and that is likely a precursor of what to expect in the months to come, when commercial fall-run salmon are fished."

 

I'll still want to see that documentation I asked for which proves this was caused by water fluoridation.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
961
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
879
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

879 Views
Message 920 of 1,248

Woa!! – Hold on there!  One thing at a time.  We’re not talking about racehorses here . . whatever that has to do with anything. 

 

So, after you made the incredible claim that water fluoridation was responsible for the collapse of the Salmon industry in Sacramento, I asked you for some documentation, a newspaper article, anything to show this actually happened.  .  .  Correct? 

 

Instead of providing any documentation, you are now saying, “The Sacramento disappearance was  not described as being caused by F because the advertised start of fluoridation was a year after the collapse.” 

 

The advertised start of fluoridation was a year after the collapse of the salmon industry.

 

Nevertheless, you believe water fluoridation killed all the salmon in Sacramento because, “ . . detailed records indicate south sacramento was fluoridated the year  before the collapse and the rest of the city followed suit a year later. .”

 

Response:  Aside from accusing you of jumping to conclusions, because as Dr. Bill has already said, “Caution: just because two events happen, does not mean they are related.” ( 07-26-2018 12:57 PM ), I would also have to point out that you provided ZERO documentation of what you are saying. 

 

Let’s see what you’ve got.  Show me documentation of exactly when Fluoridation began in Sacramento, or as you say, South Sacramento.  I haven’t looked at any maps yet, but let’s assume there is a river in South Sacramento.  Show me documentation that a salmon industry existed there, documentation of when it collapsed, and documentation of when fluoridation began in that city. 

 

Also, it would be great if you could show me fluoride levels in river water before and after the collapse of the salmon industry in Sacramento.

 

This stuff should be easy for you to provide, since, according to you, it seems to be common knowledge.  You said, “I visited the salmon ranch in Juneau and they understand that the salmon industry was decimated in Sacramento when the city began fluoridation.”  End quote.

 

So, let’s see what you’ve got that led you to this incredible conclusion.

  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
879
Views