Looking for a part-time job? AARP's online career fair Jan. 24 can help! Register for free.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
342
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

342 Views
Message 91 of 996

  Yes I'm happy to be an actual scientist. And I can tell you that the biased views of fluoridation promoters cause gross misinterpretation of data. The study you cited is one I've looked over before and it proves nothing. The confidence intervals for caries incidence in the fluorotic and nonfluorotic molars grossly overlap. The lower end of the interval for the nonfluorotic is 0.74 and the uper interval end for the fluorotic is 0.89. The profluoride ingestion comments are therefore insignificant. As always.

  And by the way no discussion is made of the overall health, bone strength, IQ, thyroid status, etc. of these individuals. Of course, because of the pre-occupation of those who agree with fluoridation to convince others that fluoridation works.  It does not work, nevr has,and neer will. Fluorosis develops in childhood from the blood-borne ion interfering with normal enamel formation. Normal enamel is devoid of fluoride, which is a contaminant of the bloodstream. It is entirely possible that fluoridationists might never understand this. A total mess.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
342
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
356
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

356 Views
Message 92 of 996

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed six comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
356
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
326
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

326 Views
Message 93 of 996

Richard,

 

"CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

 

No doubt you won't accept this study, you will have some problem with it, because it contradicts your pre-established bias.  Some scientist.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
326
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
319
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

319 Views
Message 94 of 996

Bill O.  Thank you for your condescing remarks.  Did it ever occur to you that you might be the one who needs to slow down and think?  Go back, re-read my comment stating what it actually says on a tube of Crest toothpaste, why it would say that, and what it means.  

 

Then before you act on your knee-jerk reaction to prove me wrong, reflect.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
319
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
325
Views

IRe: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

325 Views
Message 95 of 996

The insanity is mind boggling. Promote dental fluorosis thin enamel, to attempt to fght dental caries, when enamel is what protects underlying dentin ftom caries in the first place.

A cavity is the destruction of enamel by bacterial acid. Enamel does not cause a cavity. It is the absence of enamel that is a cavity.

So absence if fluoride doesn't cause a cavity. It is not brushing after eating sugar that does. This is,ancient news.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
325
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
322
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

322 Views
Message 96 of 996

David,

 

You are so obsessed with proving me wrong, you don't read carefully.  

 

Please, slow down.  Think.  If your Crest toothpaste does not say, "Do Not Swallow" then I'll buy it from you.  Read it again.

 

Yes, the FDA permits variable wording, such as  "If more than the intended amount used for brushing is accidentally swallowed . . "  More than the intended amount, which is a pea-sized drop.  

 

Now THINK, David.   The amount used for brushing is a different concept than "Do Not Swallow."  Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  The reason for a small amount is so that if the person swallows, it will not be so much.  

 

Would you agree, neither Crest nor the FDA suggest it is safe to swallow toothpaste?  No.  I think we agree.  

 

Now take the next step in reasoning.  How much fluoride is in a pea size of toothpaste?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
322
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
307
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

307 Views
Message 97 of 996

How convoluted can one person be? Here we have a fluoridation advocate blaming toothpaste for dental  fluorosis, but who then admits that "mild fluorosis" is caused by water fluoridation without toothpaste. What?  Both toothpaste and fluoridated water contribute together to cause the current fluorosis endemic. That is precisely what I have been saying all along.  And that is precisely why you cannot sue and win against a water district because they will say the straw that broke the camel's back was toothpaste which came later (as this person here claims). While toothpaste people continue to sell their wares by assuming as long as you don't intentionally or accidentally swallow it, then water fluoridation is the main culprit. Again, they are both contributors, and it's mainly water, as published by the NRC. The toothpaste people are correct. Why argue with the exposure data the NRC tabulated and published? Original studies by Ziegelbecker indicate that fluoride in drinkng water causes dental fluorosis which increases progressively as the fluoride a concentration in water increases. Even fluoridationists accept that all fluoridated cities have increased incidence of dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia. There are no exceptions.

And the data on fluorotic teeth and caries are dismal. The notion that they have fewer caries is ludicrous because the studies published are limited, and the means have standard devations that always overlap. There is no significnat decrease in caries due to fluorotic enamel hypoplasia (as one would expect with thinned enamel.) This is a waste of time since we've gone over this stuff over and over.It's a joke.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
307
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
316
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

316 Views
Message 98 of 996

Allow me to illustrate the type of deceptive behavior that anti-fluoridation folks employ.  In another thread on this AARP website I asked your own Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

 

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

 

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

 

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

 

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
316
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
321
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

321 Views
Message 99 of 996

BillO, your quote:  "Yes, the FDA requires the label to say, "Do Not Swallow" fluoride toothpastes.  Seems clear."

 

Not quite.  My tube of Crest says, "If more than the intended amount used for brushing is accidentally swallowed . . "  More than the intended amount, which is a pea-sized drop.

 

So the question is:  Why would someone swallow more than the amount that would be on a toothbrush?  Because they wouldn't be taking it off of a toothbrush.  They would be taking it directly from the tube.  And if a parent walked in on his or her toddler with an empty tube of toothpaste, then you might have an overexposure to fluoride . . since toothpaste has about 2000 times the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water.  

 

"And I don't see where you bring up the fluoride added to water.   Do you think the toothpaste is a problem but not fluoridated water?"

 

I've already addressed that.  Since we weren't seeing the sharp increases in moderate fluorosis in the 1960s - 1990s, a period in which water fluoridation was on the rise, but we do see more moderate fluorosis now, when toothpaste marketers are catering more to the tastes of children, with bubble-gum or cotton-candy flavored toothpaste, then, no, fluoridated water does not appear to be a contributing factor to the rise in moderate fluorosis.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
321
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
316
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

316 Views
Message 100 of 996

Richard, please . . . 

 

Your quote:  "Excuse me? On what basis does this person claim a "lie"?"

 

Excuse me. this is where I used the word lie:  "Either admit you were mistaken, you misspoke, or you lied.  And then we can move on."  

 

I know it must be enjoyable to play the injured victim . . but it is not warranted in this case.  

So, you said:   'Toothpaste makers argue the bulk of blame goes to fluoridated water.'   No they don't.  You made the original claim in the context of lawsuits - toothpaste manufacturers blame water distributors, water distributors blame toothpaste . . and no one can get sued.  That was the context of your mis-statement. 

 

This is from the link you just provided:  "Another possible culprit of white spots on baby teeth is fluorosis, the white staining that develops when children’s developing teeth are overexposed to fluoride via drinking water or oral care products such as toothpastes and rinses."

 

Again:  "Oral care products such as toothpastes and rinses."  Crest is taking responsibility.  Crest is not "putting the bulk of the blame" on fluoridated water.  

 

Now either admit that you misspoke, you were in error, or you lied, and then we can move on.

Your link also says, "However, there’s a surprising silver lining to excess fluoride intake. According to the American Dental Association (ADA), experiencing fluorosis as a child can actually make your teeth better equipped to avoid future decay."

As you know, teeth with mild and very mild fluorosis are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Your own link says that.  Mild fluorosis, which is associated with CWF, does not diminish quality of life.  Dental decay does.  So this paranoia that you want to generate is meaningless.   One can only surmise what your reasons for doing it are.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
316
Views