Take the AARP Smart Driver course and you could save on auto insurance! Sign up today.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
904
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

904 Views
Message 981 of 1,300

The topic of this thread is concerned with modern science, evolving medical opinion and morality with an emphasis on the health of senior citizens. 

 

The loophole in the SDWA language is that it is a national law. State laws should be as restrictive, but convoluted language have led to interpretations that result in judges ruling that even though municipal fluoridation schemes are clearly dangerous and ethically corrupt, they are legal. Several trial judges have recommended that legislators and regulatory agencies address fluoridation - and hence the politicization of science with astroturfers & lobbyists who focus on prestige, power & paychecks instead of public health. 

 

However, re David's tiresome attempt at distraction, repeating a question which has been asked and answered many times..... and even though Dr. Richard Sauerheber already addressed in this thread: 

 

 

  • (11) No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. SDWA potable: page 370 Section 1412 (2002)

 

  • Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” -  SDWA (P.L. 93-523) 

 

Since the urls for  my two sources above (epw.senate.govcurrently result in 404 errors, here is a copy of the SDWA from 1996. Note the US government is still my source. See top of page 18 for this same exact language. 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT67528/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT67528.pdf 

 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful but legal: “Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988)

 

  • LEGAL ANALYSIS: Rita Barnett-Rose, Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental Research Without Informed Consent?, 39 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 (2014).  http://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/ 
    • EXCERPTThe cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D. 
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
904
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
872
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

872 Views
Message 982 of 1,300

Dr. Bill, you say, "Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage."

 

Response:  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.  

 

I hope you will not consider my asking for evidence of your comments to be outrageous either. 

 

Your comment:  "And you failed to comment on the evidence I presented.   What caused the decline in dental caries prior to fluoridation?"

 

Response:  Because when you are proven wrong, or questioned about something that you have said which is incorrect, you simply move on to something else with nothing being resolved.  It is like playing an infinite game of whack-a-mole with you . . we can do that until the end of time.  I would rather concentrate on things that you have already said, and resolve them before moving on.  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
872
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1011
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,011 Views
Message 983 of 1,300

Carrie Anne, the comment that you posted on this date and time   07-12-2018 03:16 PM  said, “the SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people.” 

 

Please cite the specific statute in the Safe Drinking Water Act which stipulates this.  This is the second time I’m asking you for evidence to support your statement.

 

I’m not trying to disrupt the discussion.  I am simply trying to find out how and where you get your information.  If you can’t provide proof of your statements, I’ll be forced to conclude that you tend to push the limits of the truth for some agenda.

 

I hope you won't consider asking a question to be "outrageous or abusive."  Most normal people would not.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1011
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1009
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,009 Views
Message 984 of 1,300

"... the political profluoridation stance has evolved in to a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues." - Dr. Edward Groth, III, Senior Scientist at Consumer Union, WHO/FAO Expert on Science and Ethics in Food Safety (1991)

 

Fluoridationists are trained to dismiss ethics, deny science, denigrate opposition, disrupt civil dialgoue and distract focus because they don't have evidence that stands up to scrutiny or anything resembling a risk assessement. Consequently, David (apparently recruited to this thread by the American Fluoridation Society (AFS) who realized they were outmatched) is the perfect foil. Since David does not have any scientific or medical credentials to protect, he can be as outrageous and abusive as he wants without bothering about scientific or historical facts and evidence. 

 

  1. Ethics: Using municipal water to mass medicate the population results in worsening the health of millions, plus there is no dose control. Fluoridation contributes to arthritis and other diseases in seniors. 

  2. Science: Fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a significant degree but does result in an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children, a lifelong impact which results in costly dental bills and is associated with increased learning disabilities, bone fractures and kidney disease. 

  3. Opposition: Over a dozen credible organizations oppose fluoridation as do thousands of scientists, dentists, doctors, lawyers and other professionals. Selectively citing Wiki and even worse the extremist 'Rational Wiki' or controversial 'Quack Watch' in an attempt to discredit credentialed opposition is slanderous and desperate. 

  4. Discussion: For three years, about 20 AARP members peacably participated in this thread amassing about 60 posts until the trolls attacked it in an effort to disappear that valid discussion from the web and hide coherent comments and personal testimony from AARP. 

  5. Rhetoric: All the claims about fluoridation being 'safe & effective' are smoke and mirrors. Besides from  being untrue, teeth aren't the issue. Fluoridation trolls are taught that instead of honestly discussing science they can't adequately address, to avoid those discussions by 'reframing' the conversation to an argument that emphasizes dental endorsements rather than evidence. In this way, their logical fallacies are more effective in influencing the uneducated who have been primed by toothpaste advertisements to believe the medical myth. It's a political ploy. 

  

SUMMARY:

Fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that benefits corporate financial health by forcing contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of the negative impact on individual consumers or on the environment.  

As an advocate for seniors, AARP should oppose fluoridation policy. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1009
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
989
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

989 Views
Message 985 of 1,300

David,

Clearly we do not have the same definition of "evidence based" or "reputable."  

 

You are still going down the path of "endorsements" rather than "evidence."  

 

Consider:  The organizations you list do not determine the safety or efficacy or dosage of any substance.  Not one.   Please provide the scientific position paper on fluoride ingestion and/or fluoride supplements of any of the100 organizations you rely on.  But you won't because most don't have scientificly backed position statements, because the scientific evidence is lacking for efficacy, safety, dosage. 

 

In Contrast: 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.   And you have not considered the www.IAOMT.org position paper on fluoride/fluoridation.  Read it and compare with any other organization's position paper.

 

And you failed to comment on the evidence I presented.   What caused the decline in dental caries prior to fluoridation?  

 

Until that question is answered, all studies on fluoridation have failed to control for a serious confounding factor and are not significant.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
989
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1011
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,011 Views
Message 986 of 1,300

Thank you, Dr. Bill.  I like to look at the evidence too.  That's why my comments, in looking at your motivation are evidence based.

 

Let's look at the evidence.  There is not one reputable health care or scientific organization in the world which opposes communitiy water fluoridation.  Not One. 

 

In arguing that fact, you cited several countries and holistic dentists; which as the evidence shows are, in the first case, are not scientific organizations, and in the second, not reputable.  I've shown you the evidence . . you've either denied it or ignored it.

 

More evidence:  There are over 100 reputable health care and other scientific organizations which have gone out of their way to endorse community water fluoridation.  These include the World Health Organization, the United States CDC, the American Cancer Society, the Mayo Clinic . . . the 8000 character limit prevents me from listing them all.

 

These reputable health care & scientific organizations represent hundreds of thousands of experts in their fields.

 

Now, let's look at you.  In the past few exchanges between you and I, you have shown that you are either unable to comprehend what is written (you accused me of citing Wikipedia as an example of a reputable scientific organization -  when I did not), or you don't take the time to read something before you comment on it, or you just say things and you don't care if they are true or not.

 

So, you are telling me, that of the over 4000 studies which have been devoted to fluoride, somehow you have gleaned the "truth" of the matter of optimally fluoridated water when it has somehow escaped the hundreds of thousands of experts who stand by, and endorse the practice of water fluoridation.  Really?  When you can't even seem to get through two comments, which would have taken under 5 minutes to read, before coming to the wrong conclusion?  Really?

 

Let's look at some more evidence.  Carrie Anne, one of your commrades, has said the Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the addition of anything to water which is intended to treat people.  That was false.  I asked her to show me the evidence and cite the statute.  She was unable to do so.  Dr. Sauerheber has said that according to the FDA, pregnant women are prevented from ingesting fluoride compounds.  I asked him for any evidence of this, because . . we like to base our conclusions on the evidence, and he provided none.  On the other hand, I provided a label from a bottle of FDA regulated fluoridated water.  No such warning appears on any fluoridated water bottles . . which is, again, regulated by the FDA.   And these are only two of very many examples which I have encountered in these recent exchanges.

 

What I'm getting at is, when an objective reader looks very closely at what you and your fringe, extreme minority organization are saying, much of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  

 

So, since I like to draw my conclusions based on the evidence, it is very unlikely that someone who can't even get through 5 minutes of reading before reaching the wrong conclusion has more credibility than hundreds of thousands of experts who stand by and endorse community water fluoridation.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1011
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1020
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,020 Views
Message 987 of 1,300

David,

 

Excellent, you are using the term "evidence based."   So much better than "trust based" or "tradition based."  Evidence based health care may reject tradition, such as fluoridation.

 

"define evidence based - Google Search

  1. denoting disciplines of health care that proceed empirically with regard to the patient and reject more traditional protocols."
     
    Lets look at empirical evidence from the US Centers for Disease Control in their graph below.  The early version of this graph was used in my dental school as evidence fluoridation was working.  The graph has been updated to add additional years. 
     
    Over time, the percentage of the population on fluoridated water increased and the rate of dental caries decreased.  Wow.  I was impressed.  Caution: just because two events happen, does not mean they are related.  Consider the impossibility that a 17% of the entire population increase in fluoridation would cause a huge, 70% decrease in caries. . . for the entire population?  Not reasonable.  The fluoridation would have had to target only those high risk individuals, not everyone. Possible if fluoridated water were sent directly to high risk individuals.  Not possible if random cities were fluoridated. . . and that is what happened.  
     

 

CDC graph Caries F-page0001 II.jpgAnd now lets look at empirical evidence by Colquhoun over a longer time frame.  Indeed, caries have decreased over time significantly.  In fact, most caries declined PRIOR to significant implementation of fluoridation in public water.  The decline in caries remained relatively constant regardless of fluoridation.  So many important questions.

 

What caused the decline in caries prior to fluoridation and did that cause continue after fluoridation started?   In other words, there was a powerful huge crushing caries reduction unknown which has never been included in any caries research.  Until that huge factor is known and controlled for, any other research is suspect.  

page0001.jpgDavid, the CDC is made up of well meaning people, but sometimes they are wrong.  Showing one graph without a larger time frame, has lead to erroneous conclusions.  Even empirical evidence needs to be used with caution and not cherry picked.  Simply believing in tradition or the empirical evidence of those with vested interests may not be the full picture.

 

For the CDC to now back up is extremely difficult.  Instead they hunker down and keep saying the same thing over and over.

 

Add that evidence to the NHANES, FDA, HHS and primary empirical evidence and we realize the evidence of efficacy is mixed and of lower quality. 

 

Before fluoridation can be introduced, the World Health Organization advises to determine how much fluoride individuals in the community are already getting.  Only if the dosage is inadequate, then supplement the inadequacy.  Well, we don't know an adequate dosage.  And we don't know how much people are already getting in the USA.  Except that 60% of adolescents are show a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.

 

Good job David looking at empirical evidence.  Now your turn to post empirical evidence.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1020
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1089
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,089 Views
Message 988 of 1,300

Carrie Anne says, "

"BTW: On the topic of 'holistic dentistry' and cherry picking, the Wikipedia entry David cited lays out the following basic principles of the holistic approach to dentistry: 

  • Proper nutrition for the prevention and reversal of degenerative dental disease
  • Avoidance and elimination of toxins from dental materials
  • Prevention and treatment of dental malocclusion (bite problems=physical imbalance)
  • Prevention and treatment of gum disease at its biological basis"

Response:  Yes, Carrie Anne, these are the PRINCIPLES of holistic dentistry.  Principles are opinions and approaches.  More relevant to empiricism and science, the article also says,

 

"Many practices and opinions among alternative dentists are criticized as not being evidence-based by the mainstream dental community and skeptics of alternative medicine in general."

 

A principle, or an approach, which is not evidence based is worthless.  I didn't cherry-pick.  I didn't cite holistic dentistry "principles" because they are irrelevant.  The principle behind Crystal Healing is to free the flow the energy throughout the body and allow healing.  So what.  It doesn't work.

 

On the other hand, this would be an example of an evidence based statement from the Wiki/Holistic Dentistry article:  " . .  fees charged by such practitioners are generally several times higher than those of mainstream dentists."

 

Evidence based statements are relevant.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1089
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
985
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

985 Views
Message 989 of 1,300

Carrie Anne says, "

"BTW: On the topic of 'holistic dentistry' and cherry picking, the Wikipedia entry David cited lays out the following basic principles of the holistic approach to dentistry: 

  • Proper nutrition for the prevention and reversal of degenerative dental disease
  • Avoidance and elimination of toxins from dental materials
  • Prevention and treatment of dental malocclusion (bite problems=physical imbalance)
  • Prevention and treatment of gum disease at its biological basis"

Response:  Yes, Carrie Anne, these are the PRINCIPLES of holistic dentistry.  Principles are opinions and approaches.  More relevant to empiricism and science, the article also says,

 

"Many practices and opinions among alternative dentists are criticized as not being evidence-based by the mainstream dental community and skeptics of alternative medicine in general."

 

A principle, or an approach, which is not evidence based is worthless.  I didn't cherry-pick.  I didn't cite holistic dentistry "principles" because they are irrelevant.  The principle behind Crystal Healing is to free the flow the energy throughout the body and allow healing.  So what.  It doesn't work.

 

What is relevant, and evidenced based, about Holistic Dentistry is this:  " . .  fees charged by such practitioners are generally several times higher than those of mainstream dentists."  

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
985
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1117
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,117 Views
Message 990 of 1,300

"... evidence has shown that these early researchers had it backwards. It now appears that fluoride acts only on teeth that have already erupted... there are more direct ways of bringing fluoride into contact with tooth enamel. The most common of these is the use of fluoride toothpastes."  - Lahey Clinic website (similar statement on many other medical websites) 

 

“…. for decades we have believed that fluoride in small doses has no adverse effects on health. …. But more and more scientists are seriously questioning the benefits of fluoride even in small amounts.” -  UNICEF in Waterfront, Issue 13, December 1999

 

However, despite significant evidence of harm and lack of proof of efficicacy validated by credible objections from reputable organizations and experts who include Dr. Bill Osmunson, Dr. Richard Sauerheber & chemist Susan Kanen on this forum thread, 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 as well as apparently affording some with the emotional satisfaction of engaging in online harrassment. 

 

Nevertheless, this isn't really about teeth. The issue is fluoride consumption is medically contraindicated for many with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and renal disease as well as being ill advised for vulnerable populations who include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, the elderly and any in fragile health.

 

Consequently, fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that causes misery in millions of consumers who include senior citizens. 

 

 “… subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds … include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems.…” - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 1993)

 

Family.jpg

 

BTW: On the topic of 'holistic dentistry' and cherry picking, the Wikipedia entry David cited includes the purpose of holistic dentistry as adding to dental school curriculum with  'additional options for treatment with a primary goal to teach and to learn' following the basic principles of the holistic approach to dentistry: 

  • Proper nutrition for the prevention and reversal of degenerative dental disease
  • Avoidance and elimination of toxins from dental materials
  • Prevention and treatment of dental malocclusion (bite problems=physical imbalance)
  • Prevention and treatment of gum disease at its biological basis

That some Wiki author inserted an opinion that fees might be higher and disparages the field doesn't make a healthy diet, avoidance of poison and searching for root cause remedies to gum disease rather than total reliance on treatment of the symptoms an invalid approach to dentistry - it just makes it more holistic.  

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1117
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet