- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Invest, Diversify, Integrate Your Financial Life
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Comunidad Hispana de AARP
- Dogs, Cats and Pets
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Love, Sex & Dating
- Our Front Porch
- Random Thoughts and Conversations
- Singles Perspective Revisited
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Rewards for Good
- AARP Rewards for Good archive
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Caregiving Forums
- Grief & Loss
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
CONFIRMATION BIAS: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.” - Dr. John Colquhoun BDS, PhD, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand and leading proponent turned opponent (1998)
It took over 70 years and the dogged persistence of Clair Patterson to get the lead out of gasoline. Leaded gasoline, like asbestos and fluoridaton, was defended by the Kettering Institute under the direction of Robert Kehoe for whom the infamous Kehoe Paradigm was named. I already referenced over a dozen credible organizations with scientific, environmental or human rights missions who oppose fluoridation in the 21st century and provided links to several documents from EPA scientist unions likewise opposed to fluoridation and the politically set EPA MCL/MCLG.
I've also quoted dozens of individual doctors, dentists and scientists who have studied emerging scientific data and changed their minds - a few of whom have openly opposed fluoridation on this forum. Many more, like several in my home town and even some sitting on boards of medical organizations, admit that they know fluoridation is ineffective and harmful to some consumers but they won't speak publicly because of fear of retalitation from abusive fluoride trolls, their rabidly pro-fluoride peers, and even their patients. A lawyer I know called me this week to tell me that another lawyer is threatening to file charges against him with the bar if he continues to openly oppose fluoridation. Dentists are even more vulnerable to this sort of bullying as the ADA will revoke their membership if they persist and the ADA provides financial business benefits to dentists just as fluoride interests provide financial benefits to the ADA. Bullying is effective - but only for so long.
Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt. I provided a quote from Dr. David Michaels, author of "Doubt Is their Product" and referenced the $289 million award last week to a man with cancer that unveiled the duplicitous deceit by vested interests that involved collusion between Monsanto with professional liars for hire and the EPA. I also provided a link to a relatively recent revelation that the sugar industry subverted dental authorities from pursuing sugar as a cause of cavities by diverting their attention to fluoridation; here's another that straignt out says that public health officials should recognize the sugar industry as an adversary. I also provided scads of links to modern science documenting harm, a number of which actually include words to the effect of 'in light of these findings, we suggest municipal fluoridation schemes require a fresh re-examination' and a few of which are more blunt 'avoid the fluoridation of drinking water.'
Emerging modern science, evolving medical opinion and the persistant voices of victims will end fluoridation. I'm doing my part to protect people & planet, just as vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions.
2014: Controversy Manual
AARP - Your voice as an advocate with lobbying power matters. Oppose fluoridation!
NO CONSENSUS OF HARM: Fluoridation is a safe and effective public health initiative
CarryAnne – You still have provided no rational explanation for why community water fluoridation (CWF) opponents have been unable to change the scientific consensus. Why would rational, unbiased individuals choose to accept the consensus of a small minority of outlier experts and their non-expert followers instead of the consensus accepted by the majority of relevant experts? Accusations that “fluoridation, like fluoridation promotion, is profitable to many vested interests” is simply another unsupported, libelous claim that fluoridation supporters conjure up when they lack legitimate evidence to convince the scientific/health communities their opinions have merit.
Your philosophical bias is evident when you arbitrarily claim that “even if fluoride did prevent cavities and did not cause dental fluorosis, fluoridation policy is still immoral medication“, and your statement highlights the importance of personal, non-scientific beliefs to anti-science activists when evaluating and interpreting the evidence.
By your “logic” those who demand that drinking water chlorination be halted because chlorine has been used as an immoral chemical weapon (and creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts which have not been proven by randomized controlled trials to be completely safe) have a legitimate argument. Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy is immoral poisoning??
Stating that there are “substantial objections of leading scientists and over a dozen organizations “ does not make those “objections” scientifically validated.
I am not, as you claim, “dismissing hundreds of reproducible studies proving harm”, I am stating that CWF opponents have selectively extracted and misrepresented those studies from the thousands conducted and published over the last 70+ years which can be used to try and support their strongly-held opinions. When one actually reads those cited studies, it is obvious that by, the time fluoridation opponents have presented them to the public, this “evidence” will have one or more of the following characteristics: 1) The study will have nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW); 2) The study will deal with exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW; 3) Actual conclusions have been deliberately distorted/misused/misstated to fit anti-F propaganda; 4) Conclusions will only suggest a possible correlation without proper adjustment for other potential causes, and they are proof of nothing; 5) The study will be unrepeatable; 6) the study will be demonstrably flawed &/or 7) The claim will be a complete fabrication.
The misrepresentation and fabrication of evidence is one of the reasons the reputable science and health organizations mentioned/listed (and their representatives) have not accepted the anti-F opinions and continue to publically recognize the benefits and safety of CWF.
I would like to bring attention to another of Dr. Osmunson’s comments on 07-09-2018; “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished. They [CDC, ADA and AAP] do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists. Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust. Those allegedly ‘credible scientific organizations promoting fluoridation at 1 ppm have not and did not review the science and follow the science. They all waited for someone else to stand out from the herd and protect the public. I do not call those organizations following the herd scientifically credible, when it comes to fluoridation. Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation. Change is very slow when following the herd. Change is faster when following science.”
So, the CDC, ADA and AAP, are according to Dr. Osmunson, “so called ‘scientific’ organizations” – Really??? Do you accept his claims as valid? How about the rest of the organizations that recognize the benefits of CWF – do you believe they are all “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” as well???
Dr. Osmunson seems to be trying to make an arbitrary and absurd distinction between organizations and the members and representatives of those organizations. Do you believe that “they are the best in their field and experts” in everything non-fluorine-related, yet they are completely ignorant, don't protect the public and are unable to recognize and correctly interpret legitimate scientific evidence when it has anything to do with CWF?
I would also like to see Dr. Osmunson justify and prove his claims about all the science and health organizations (and presumably their members) that accept the scientific consensus on CWF.
Since 2000, there have been a number of scientific literature reviews that have concluded that CWF reduces dental decay, and none of these reviews reported any health risks from drinking optimally fluoridated water, only an increased risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis. They include: the 2018 Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents review; the 2018 Water Fluoridation Health Monitoring Report for England; the 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report; the 2017 Swedish report, Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water; the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health; the 2016 Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council Fluoridation Report; the 2015 Manual of Dental Practices, Council of European Dentists; the 2015 U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries; the 2015 Cochrane Water Fluoridation Review; the 2014 Royal Society of New Zealand, Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence; the 2013 Congressional Research Service, Fluoride in Drinking Water Review: and the 2000 York Water Fluoridation Review; the 2000 Community Preventive Services Task Force, Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation – not to mention the 2018 National Toxicity Program fluoride study.
Again, if the alleged health risks alleged to be caused by drinking optimally fluoridated water have been proven valid, how do you explain the fact that 100+ science and health organizations listed elsewhere (and their many thousands of members) have gone against all scientific and health principles and not accepted this evidence? The only explanation that makes sense is that the evidence, in fact, does not prove there are significant health risks of CWF, and the evidence actually confirms the benefits of reducing tooth decay (which do have real, well documented health risks) far outweigh any alleged risks.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
There are many concepts that are false and yet are assumed true by those considered to be in mainstream science. It is not only artificial fluoridation of water with industrial chemicals.
1. The idea that life came to exist through spontaneous generation from inanimate matter in a naturalistic way has not been observed or proven to have happened, and yet Biology texts teach it as though it were a proven scientific fact.
2. Time does not slow down or dilate due to motion as is believed by physicists since the idea was proposed in 1905 in special relativity theory. Time dilation has been disproven theoretically, mathematically, and experimentally, and yet Physics trextbooks still teach that time slows down for objects in motion with respect to an observer, as though it were a proven verified scientific fact.
3. Fluoridation has been proven to be ineffective and also is harmful, causing abnormality particularly in bone strucutre. And yet mainstram textbooks still state the myth that ingesting fluoride somehow with an unknown mechanism prevents dental decay and hardens the hardest substance in humans, enamel, while at the same time fluoride in blood doesn't cause a single harmful event whatsoever even after lifelong consumption.
There is no proof for any of these three concepts and yet organizations endorse them all.
This is nothing new or surprsing. People generally prefer to stick to stories they are told because it's easier, and particularly if they invented the stories themselves..
Eating fluoride does not and cannot improve the structure of enamel but does alter the structure of bone. Life did not create itself. And time does not slow down for any event simply because an observer is in motion who watches it. Time does not sense motion and respond to it, time simply marches on.. But making these statements in a typical college science class can cause you to be removed from the room because it is not considered 'mainstream thought'.
Organizations can be dead wrong, just as much as people who imagined the notions in the first place.
CONSENSUS OF HARM: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” - Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)
“The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude. Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement.”- Prof. Hubert A. Arnold, Ph.D. (1980)
Refusal to acknowlege the substantial objections of leading scientists and over a dozen organizations is not the same thing as there not being substantial objections. Similarly, dismissing hundreds of reproducable studies proving harm that are peer-reviewed and published in valid journals does not mean they do not still exist. However, fluoridation persists because fluoridation, like fluoridation promotion, is profitable to many vested interests, such as but not limited to the sugar industry.
But even if fluoride did prevent cavities and did not cause dental fluorosis, fluoridation policy is still immoral medication of many with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and kidney disease for whom fluoride causes harm.
Moreover, fluoride not only builds up in bones where it causes or worsens arthritis and brittleness, fluoride crosses the blood brain barrier where it contributes to dementia. Particular concerns of seniors.
For a change of pace, here are a few video interviews:
2001 Testimony of Dr. J. Wm. Hirzy, EPA scientist to Congress & interview (28m): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViNNIwmzTzI
2013 Documentary featuring interviews with scientists and lawyers (64m): http://www.fluoridegate.org/the-film/
2015 Telemundo Atlanta 3 part series (5m each): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTZQveF6LAE
Demand AARP Take Action = Anti-Scientific Un-Consensus
CarryAnne – That’s exactly my point – if there were actually “substantial scientific objections to fluoridation” that were confirmed by legitimate, reproducible, properly interpreted scientific evidence, I can’t imagine a rational explanation that would explain why the hundreds of thousands of members of those science and health organizations that publically recognize the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation (CWF) would keep silent. Unless, of course, they are mindless minions of (to quote the 07-09-2018 comment of Dr. Osmunson) “All the so called "scientific" organizations [which] were all puppets of each other with fluoridation. None reviewed the science. … CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC. Circular referencing.”
If I were a current or retired member of any organization that publically recognizes the safety and benefits of CFW, I would be more than a little offended by these unsupported, libelous charges. These organizations do not exist without their members, and they include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), etc.
I accept the hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of members of these organizations are caring and informed contributors to the scientific and health communities, and they have not joined the anti-F crusade because they accept the scientific consensus (which the anti-F activists have been unable to change for over 70 years) and not unsupported fear-mongering.
What exactly do you propose to accept as a legitimate conclusion for 70+ years of evidence if not the scientific consensus – as established by those respected (except by anti-science activists) national and international organizations?
Unless you can provide a rational explanation for why anti-F activists have been unable to provide legitimate evidence sufficient to convince a majority of members of all (or even a few) of the organizations that continue to recognize the safety and effectiveness of CWF a rational reader will come to the conclusion that fluoridation opponents (FOs) are promoting an outlier anti-science un-consensus.
If FOs actually had legitimate scientific evidence to support their philosophical beliefs, they would not have needed to spend the last 70 years trying to scare the public into blindly accepting their opinions and joining their crusade – the evidence would have changed the consensus. That is how science works.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Consensus is a political construct that validates there are no substantial objections. There is and has always been substantial scientific objections to fluoridation. Therefore, there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety.
That doesn't stop fluoridationists from trying to use organizational endorsements of policy that originated in the 1950s as their 'evidence' - that's endosemental science. For examples of evidentiary science, then and now, see these two examples that invalidate the claim of consensus:
- Now: IAOMT 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use:
- Then: Sutton P R N. Fluoridation: Errors & Omissions in Experimental Trials. 2nd ed. Australia: Melbourne University Press, 1960.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
CarryAnne – Your frogs in a pot cartoon misrepresent the precautionary principle which is legitimately used in situations where the risks and benefits are not yet clearly understood. In the case of community water fluoridation, the burden of proof that the public health measure is safe and effective has been met for 70+ years. The same precautionary principle “logic” could be used to support the anti-chlorine activists’ claims that “we should discontinue public water chlorination until it is proven that there are no harmful health effects that can be caused by the public health measure. Do you have that evidence? Do you support chlorination?
Read “Paradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle“
You just claimed the “evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive. The hesitation to speak out against fluoridation is based on rhetorical devices, intimidation and disinformation”.
If that claim is even remotely valid, how can you possibly explain the fact, which has been brought up and ignored numerous times, that all of the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation is safe and effective and that there are no such organizations that support the anti-F agenda.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
RS: "The claim I don't care is insulting. CalEpa does not care. Unless there is absolute proof which neither i nor anyone has, the agency will not make any demands on the city of sacramento."
I guess it is easer to convince readers of a thread on an AARP website, who are not familiar with the science, of something, than it would be to convince the scientists, toxologists, and environmental experts whose sole duty is to protect the environment from toxic waste.
RS: "Absolute proof of visible harm with dental fluorosis has not halted fluoridation."
Why would it. Mild Dental Fluorosis, which can be associated with water fluoridation, makes teeth stronger and more resistant to decay. Kumar demonstrated this, and you know it. Therefore, quality of life is not dimished. It is anti-fluoridationists like yourself who attempt to blurr the degrees of dental fluorosis, as though they were all the same thing, as part of your scare-mongering campaign. I'm sure the experts at Cal EPA are aware of that little trick.
RS: "Absolute proof sufficient for CalEpa to act is an unreasonable request by the agency and yet this is the way it is for this government advocated policy of fluoridating the country."
Then you have contacted them? Please allow us to see the correspondence sent and received by you so that we can judge for ourselves the level of apathy that you claim Cal EPA has.
RS: "There is no math that describes it adequately. Math without chemistry in a chemical problem is not useful and in fact misleads."
Then provide empirical evidence. That is, after all what science is. Here's how you do it. Take samples at marked and documented intervals at a cross section of the river at points downstream of the discharge. You should be able to make a fairly accurate map of fluoride levels in that river. If you know that salmon are affected at 0.5 ppm, it shouldn't be that hard to prove your theory. This would actually be a fairly simple proceedure.
But, as I said, it is far easier to frighten readers of a thread who are unfamiliar with the science than it would be to convince actual experts in the field who are dedicated to protection of the environment. I guess that's what you're going for here.
- healthy brain
- AARP Global Council on …
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Brain booster
- brain food
- brain health experts
- Clean water
- Corrupt Law Enforcement
- dental costs
- dental fraud
- dental health
- Diet and memory