Take control of your brain health with Staying Sharp! Try it today.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
575
Views

Re: Salmon Collapse in the Sacramento River

575 Views
Message 1011 of 1,448

Dr. Sauerheber, I am glad to see that you have rejoined the conversation.  

 

Before I switch issues with you, let's clarify one thing.  You stated that the Salmon industry was destroyed in the Sacramento River in 2010 when water fluoridation began in South Sacramento.  

 

That's not true is it.  We have seen that the salmon collapse hit an all time low in 2009, and in 2010, the same year that water fluoridation began, the salmon return began to improve, until 2013, when it began to decline again.  Therefore, water fluoridation had nothing to do with declining salmon numbers in Sacramento, did it.  

 

Moreover, for the record, you had no knowledge of what the average daily discharge of effluent was into that river, you had no knowledge of the volume of river flow at the point of effluent discharge, and fluoride levels had never actually been measured in effluent discharge.  In short, you made a statement with no data to support your theory, other than the fact that you said the river was narrow enough to throw a stone across it, and that was good enough for your kind of science.

 

Will you now admit that you were wrong about the whole thing?  That since salmon returns increased and improved when fluoridation began, your theory was based on little more than your personal hope that it was true?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
575
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
593
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

593 Views
Message 1012 of 1,448

The NRC committee was not tasked with assessing community water fluoridation, for either  effectiveness or for safety. They were tasked with examining evidence of harm at levels of fluoride that occur naturally (which can range far above fluoridation levels of 1 ppm).There are data in the report for effects at 1 ppm, but again water fluoridation was not specifically assessed. 

The statement that 4 ppm fluoride in water causes increased bone fractures is true, but water fluoridation is limited to 1 ppm. The data the NRC used were from non-fluoridated cities with natural fluoride levels above 1 ppm. Natural fluoride is always accompanied with abundant calcium and magnesium from salts other than fluoride salts in the water, which minimize assimilation of fluoride. Industrial fluoridation does not have this protection and is a different situation, especially in soft water cities and, again, the NRC was not permitted to evaluate community water fluoridation.  There are bone weakening effects at 1 ppm by extrapolation, where the incidence progressively increases above this level. There were no populations examined at fluoride levels near zero to compare with the 1 ppm group and the NRC was not charged to examine health effects below 1 ppm.   

The EPA does not regulate community water fluoridation. The EPA does not monitor caries incidence in fluoridated cities and instead informs people not to drink water at contaminant fluoride levels of 2 - 4 ppm because lifelong this would cause serious harm. No assessment by the EPA has been made for 1 ppm fluoridated water on health or on effectivess in affecting dental caries because the EPA has no interest in regulating community water fluoridation, as stated before. That is the job of the FDA.

Many people do not ever develop dental caries their entire lives. And yet fluoridation promoters force fluoridation of public water supplies to treat all people in a region. This is against medical ethics. Recent data indicate that aspirin does not reduce incidence of heart disease in patients who have no history of heart disesase (while it does reduce incidence in those who do have such a history). Are we to force aspirin on the entire population when only a subset benefits? Of course not.

Community water fluoridation is like this only even less ethical. If some were to experience reduced caries, that would be an argument to treat some (but not all) people in a population. But the bizarre thing is there are no controlled human clinical trials that have ever proved that eating/drinking fluoride ion reduces dental caries. In fact, the vast data we have from observational studies indicates eating/drinking fluoride has no effect on caries at all (Teotia; Ziegelbecker;Yamouyiannis, etc.)

Ironically, the data in the NRC report at 1 ppm do indicate harm especially in iodine deficient or calcium deficient people and in diabetics, etc.  But the Doull claim, made seven years later from memory, bypasses this and does not consider the data that at the time strongly suggested adverse effecfs of blood fluoride on brain. These effects are now more substantiated, while the Doull statement implies that this has been considered fully, when the NRC report most certainly did not. The notion was left as a possibility and was certainly never disproven to justify a claim such as Doull made. He did not do the reasearch in all the investigated areas the NRC discussed and is not in a positon to claim no adverse effects of fluoridation on anyone after lifelong consumption of intentionally fluoridated water. The NRC was not charged with investigating community water fluoridation.   

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
593
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
630
Views

Re: IAOMT deceptive Position Statement on Water Fluoridation

630 Views
Message 1013 of 1,448

Please, allow me to put the statement from the IAOMT in its proper context. 

 

The majority of the Committee concluded that lifetime exposure of fluoride at drinking water concentrations of 4 ppm or greater is likely to increase bone fracture rates in the population, compared to exposure at 1 ppm.

 

In other words, the “consensus” of the NRC felt that fluoride in drinking water at over 5 ½ times the optimal level is more likely to cause these problems after a lifetime of drinking it, than if someone were to drink water with 1 ppm F, (which is also over the optimal level) over the course of a lifetime. 

 

This statement from the NRC which has nothing to do with optimally fluoridated water was taken out of context and put in an opinion piece about water fluoridation to support the IAOMT position.  

 

Isn't that correct?  

 

So, if you want to provide links to deceptive opinion pieces, call it science, and say, "they (iaomt) have enough and better than any CWF promoters," I would have to respond by saying that "CWF promoters" don't make a habit of using deceptive opinion pieces and calling it science.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
630
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
629
Views

Re: IAOMT deceptive Position Statement on Water Fluoridation

629 Views
Message 1014 of 1,448

Dr. Bill,  

 

While I appreciate your commentary on what a concensus is, it is a bit irrelevant.  

 

Let's recap so that we don't get lost in your revisionist history.  You said:  

 

"Compare the lack of primary research and lack of scientific position papers by promoters of fluoride to the IAOMT position paper and you will see the huge difference. 

 Concensus is not scientific evidence.    I request  facts, primary research, not estimates based on assumptions as so much of fluoridation is based on.  

 Give us some primary evidence on total exposure, . . "  That is what you said.

 

In response, I simply pointed out that the iaomt link you provided is not "primary evidence," "primary research," or primary anything.  It is a "Position Statement" about fluoridated water.  

 

So, when I look at that "Position Statement, and see quotes about Bone Fractures and Weakened Bones which may occur under certain conditions, which have nothing to do with water fluoridation, I think a normal person would conclude that this statement was cherry-picked and taken out of context.  

 

If you would like to explain what those certain conditions are, and provide primary evidence from the 2006 NRC Report explaining the statement, so that we can all see it in its full context, that would be fine.  But to provide a link to a deceptive opinion piece is hardly "primary evidence" of anything.

 

If you feel that my pointing this out to you is some kind of an attack against you personally, I suggest your objectivity isn't what it should be, and you are too personally involved to call yourself an objective scientist.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
629
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
670
Views

Re: There is NO Consensus on CWF

670 Views
Message 1015 of 1,448

David, David, David,

 

You confirm my concerns about your lack of reading the evidence.  Have you read the IAOMT document and reviewed the references?  Obviously No.  You simply want to argue and defend your position.  

 

For you, CWF is like a team sport, not science.  You claim to have more on your team because you refuse to accept the majority of developed countries which have rejected fluoridation.   But that side steps science.

 

For example, a claim is made, "the concensus here supports the Republican position" if made at the Republican Convention we would agree, but that is not the concensus of all of America.

 

For example, "concensus supports the Seahawks" while attending a Seahawks home game.  Yes, but not a consensus of all football fans.

 

For example, "the concensus here is that Catholicisum is the truth," while attending mass.

 

For example, "consensus is that CWF is safe and effective" while only looking at research supporting one side.  Or only listening to like minded believers.  Or looking at historical evidence.  Or claiming that any scientific organization which does not support CWF are quacks.  Limit the scope under consideration and we can prove anything by rejecting any evidence which does not support what we want.

 

Like minded believers have like minded beliefs.  Like mindedness is not science.  Looking to science to support a position is not science.  Science looks at all the evidence and uses reasoned judgment.

 

David, I asked Johnny to provide a position paper based on primary research for one of the organizations which endorse CWF.  

 

Instead of answering, which is hard to do, you attack those trying to defend themselves, protect their health, asking for freedom to choose, claiming they are being over dosed, and refusing CWF . . . and you demand perfect evidence differing from your belief.  You are like the big chemical and pharmaceutical companies claiming their chemicals and drugs are safe because the patient consumer has not provided absolute proof the chemical/drug is harmful to humans at all ages and degrees of health.

 

Your standard of evidence makes no sense and is not science.

 

You don't like IAOMT's consensus statement, voted on by many dentists.   OK, my request is for you to provide the consensus statement which convinces you that everyone needs fluoride supplementation and not getting too much fluoride.   Show me better.  Show me what you think is good evidence.  

 

Have you paid your $45 plus shipping for the ADA "Fluoride Facts?"  

 

Have you read the evidence and jurisdiction for the CDC and PHS position?

 

Have you read the evidence and reservations by the WHO?

 

For example, go to the NIH National Cancer Institute.  Look at their references on cancer.  They list bogus advertising, such as "I like My Teeth."  And where are the studies listed reporting an increase in cancer?   None.   That is not science, that is marketing.  Public Health Agencies must not cherry pick the evidence to support their jobs.  They are to support health and the public, not vested interests. 

 

Instead the NIH NCI list research which compared two bone cancers not finding a statistically significant increase of one cancer over the other cancer with fluoridation.  

 

OK, they measured fluoride bone concentration rather than estimates, very good.  But they did not compare "normal" bone, cancer free bone, fluoride concentrations with cancerous bone.   Age controlled, cancer free people on average have just over 200 ppm fluoride in the bone, those with tumors had about 600 ppm and those with ostesarcoma about 800 ppm.    

 

Once again:  

 

Cancer free bone has about 200 ppm fluoride

Tumor bone has about          600 ppm fluoride

Osteosarcoma bone about   800 ppm fluoride

 

Of course fluoride increased the rate of osteosarcoma.  But to muddy the waters, the researchers compared two cancers and without thinking critically, many fall victim to flawed research. 

 

These yo yo's are trying so hard to prove fluoridation is safe and effective, they refuse to use simple logic and simple critical thinking.

 

So David, you think IAOMT is less than your standards for science.  Cool, stick it up with better science or back off.   IAOMT did not list all the research, but they have enough and better than any CWF promoters.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
670
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
684
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

684 Views
Message 1016 of 1,448

Thank you for your input, Carry Anne.  It is always appreciated.

 

Since you feel that Dr. Doull's comment was taken out of context, any readers of this thread may freely judge for themselves the meaning and the context of this comment which you have questioned.  Again, here is the comment:  

""I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level."

 

Again, the full context of his comment may be viewed here.  https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Doull-Email-on-CWF-March-2013.pdf

 

Readers of this thread may judge for themselves the context of the comment from Dr. Doull which I have provided.  May we see the comments which you have provided from Dr. Doull in their full context so that we may judge for ourselves if those comments are a reflection of his actual views regarding water fluoridation?

 

I mean, when we follow your link, we see a biased opinion piece which does indeed quote Dr. Doull, but there is no context for his remarks.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
684
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
698
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

698 Views
Message 1017 of 1,448

“People tend to think that it’s settled: But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [water fluoridation] has been going on.” - Dr. John Doull, chairman of 2006 NRC on Fluoride in Drinking Water (in Scientific American, 2008) 

 

The thyroid changes do worry me.” - Dr. John Doull, chairman of 2006 NRC on Fluoride in Drinking Water (in Scientific American, 2008)  

 

John Doull made his later comment in response to a political request from the project leader who has made a career out of promoting fluoridation and another fluoridationist whose paycheck was likewise attached to promoting fluoridation who were attempting to do damage control

 

As to the political manipulation of the 2006 NRC, I suggest reading the following by a career EPA scientist: 

Carton RJ. Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water. Fluoride 39(3)163–172. July-September 2006 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
698
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
777
Views

Re: IAOMT deceptive Position Statement on Water Fluoridation

777 Views
Message 1018 of 1,448

Dr. Bill, your quote:  "Compare the lack of primary research and lack of scientific position papers by promoters of fluoride to the IAOMT position paper and you will see the huge difference."

 

With all do respect, Dr. Bill, your link does not lead to a primary research paper which was conducted by the IAOMT.  As the title suggests, it is a "Positon Paper."  It is an opinion peice against water fluoridation which cherry-picks statements from other sources and uses them out of context.  

 

For example, this is from your link: 

 

"In fact, in its 2006 report, the National Research Council (NRC)’s discussion on the danger of bone fractures from excessive fluoride was substantiated with significant research.

Specifically, the report stated: “Overall, there was consensus among the committee that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures.” (My emphasis)

 

While that may be true, this has nothing to do with community water fluoridation.  That is why I say it is taken out of context.  If this statement, was relevant to water fluoridation, the Chair of the 2006 NRC, Dr. John Doull, would never have said:  

"I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level." https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Doull-Email-on-CWF-March-2013.pdf

 

Compare this opinion piece by the iaomt to actual primary research and you will see a huge difference.   

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
777
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
811
Views

Re: Scientific Consensus on CWF is Lacking

811 Views
Message 1019 of 1,448

Randy,

 

The title here is "Scientific Consensus; however, your comments are about "Endorsement Consensus."  

 

Please provide the names and internet links to the top three organizations' position papers on fluoridation.   No.  Why don't you send me links to at least one of the position papers of organizations who endorse fluoriation and lets see the primary research to support fluoridation.

 

Randy, relying on these organizations for endorsements is quite different than relying on them for quality position papers referenced with primary research.  

 

Yes, like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to support fluoridation.

 

Compare the lack of primary research and lack of scientific position papers by promoters of fluoride to the IAOMT position paper and you will see the huge difference.  https://iaomt.org/iaomt-fluoride-position-paper-2/

 

Concensus is not scientific evidence.    I request  facts, primary research, not estimates based on assumptions as so much of fluoridation is based on.  

 

Give us some primary evidence on total exposure, desired total fluoride intake, optimal fluoride tooth concentrations, measured cost benefit for the population at large, and safety studies.

 

With 60% of adolescents having dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe, many are ingesting too much.  Certainly you would agree, like the NRC 2006 report, that severe dental fluorosis is an adverse health risk.  

 

My concern is that we are way past too much fluoride exposure for most fetuses, infants, children and adults.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
811
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
902
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

902 Views
Message 1020 of 1,448

I have answered Randy's questions in this AARP thread and on my own local newspaper where the 'rapid response' pro-fluoride team which includes Randy who lives 2,000 miles away  attacked me and every other opponent, just as they do on small town papers from California to Maine. The same small team swarmed  this AARP thread on June 27, 2018. Click here to go to my original comment and use PREVIOUS to advance chronologically. 

Below is one example of what happens when people respond to the fluoride lobbyists' questions online: 

 

TreachorousTrolls_2017.11.19.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
902
Views