Know someone over 50 who is making a difference? Nominate them for the AARP Purpose Prize.

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist
2
Kudos
233
Views

Re: Cancer and fluoride

233 Views
Message 171 of 1,248

Wow! Thank you for this insight, Dr. Osmunson!
Sodium fluoride, and probably other fluorides as well, are the chosen means to cause artificial cancer in test animals. This shows knowledge and callous disregard for the fact that fluorides are carcinogenic agents of destruction. And of course, this is directly in violation of the Safe Water Act, which prohibits any addition of chemicals into the water supply, which may cause cancer. I would not trust American Cancer Society, or any other industry affiliated association, to tell the truth as their livelihood depends on certain type of messaging. Just with a quick search I found this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Sodium+fluoride+to+cause+cancer+in+test+animals

 

US population is subject to mass poisoning without their informed consent! What kind of a country is the United States anyway? What happened to basic freedoms to life, liberty, and justice, when this fluoridation policy is in effect? It appears US population has been conned to swallow the lies of petrochemical-fluoride-sugar industry to use the people as consumers and filters of the most noxious chemical agents without their knowledge and informed consent. Brainwashing does not count as an informed consent. Of course now the industry has launched an attack to hold on to this policy of destruction! 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
233
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
211
Views

Re: Cancer and fluoride

211 Views
Message 172 of 1,248

It is very diffricult to prove in living human beings that a slow acting poison causes or does not cause cancer. I avoid the conclusion that fluoride does so in humans even though much evidence suggests it could, from the in vitro data on its mitogenic properties. Studying fluoride in tissue culture with a particular, convenient  cell type also is not much help in deciding whether it does or does not cause cancer in any other tissue. Bone tissue cannot be cultured.  It is a dififcult question for any scientist to address in humans. But in animals that can be placed in cages that are perfectly controlled, it most certaintly causes cancer when given for a significant fraction of the animals known lifespan.

As far as effects on dental caries in kids, the same problems arise only more so. Proving fluoride reduces decay or does not is diifficult in humans who cannot be put in cages. The Cochrane review found very few studies that could even be considered semi-decent. and in those no one could control variables such as how much candy one ate between groups, or how well brushing habits were, or so many other variables that affect the oral cavity exposed to the surroundings betwen the control and experimental groups..Experiments with caged animals prove no effect of fluoridated water on spontaneous caries. Period.  

Further, when teeth were scored in the original human experiments in Grand Rapids and Newburg, the absence of teeth were scored as absence of dental caries. We now know that fluoride ingestion causes delayed teeth eruption due to probably its effect on the thyroid.  So no teeth, no caries, and voila fluoride "reduces dental decay". i could say the same thing if one were to remove my teeth with a hammer. The procedure reduced caries. So what? For this we expose millions of innocent victims to chronic systemic poisoning by fluoride?

Fluoride is a toxic substance at any concentration in the blood. It is not listed in nursing texts, the Merck Manual, or any Clinical Chemistry text as being a component of normal human blood--because it is a contaminant of blood.

At 3-4 ppm in the blood, as during an overfeed where one actually consumes lots of water, death ensues due to heart block as occurred in Hooper Bay from an accidental overfeed.

Aat 1 ppm in blood, as occurs in paitents using municipal fluioride water in kidney dialysis wards, mortality increases over periods of months due to cardiac failure.

At 0.1 pppm as occurs in the average consumer of 1 ppm fluoridated water (NRC, 2006)  chronic poisoning occurs. Skeletal fluoride incorporation begins with the very first sip and progresses throughout life, causing formation of bone of poor quailty.

These are the facts.

The fluoridation scam is just that, a misguided attempt to help kids but we now know is actually harming them and everyone else.

The Safe Drinking Water Act prohbits requiring any substance added into U.S. waters other than that required to sanitize the water. Fluoridationists, including the dental officials at the CDC especially, follow the law and leave the rest of society alone please. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
211
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
222
Views

Cancer and fluoride

222 Views
Message 173 of 1,248

David,

 

Like you, I questioned whether fluoride caused cancer.  Instead of going to a historical news society column, I went to PubMed and did a search for the words "cancer" and "fluoride"  in the primary literature.  Try it.  

 

In reading the articles, I came on one where a pharmaceutical company was testing their cancer TREATMENT drug on live animals.   The drug showed promise in curing the cancer.

 

Of interest to me was how they caused cancer in their test animals.   After all, finding a hundred cancer animals of the same age and cancer would be rather difficult with many many hundreds of thousands of animals or millions to find the cancers to test.  Imagine raising all those animals and simply testing each animal for cancer, the stage and kind of cancer.   An unimaginably massive and cost prohibitive task.

 

So the pharmaceutical companies CAUSE cancer in the animals.   That's right.  They cause the cancer so they can test the new cancer drug.  Not so human, but at least they get the cancer animals to test in a predictible timely manner.

 

Can you guess what chemical they used to CAUSE the cancer to test their drug?

 

You guessed it.  SODIUM FLUORIDE.

 

To argue that fluoride does not cause cancer shows a lack of careful evaluation of the literature.

 

The arguement is dosage, synergistic chemical effects, host sensitivity, genetics, etc.

 

With two thirds of children showing a toxic overdose of fluoride ingestion, hundreds of new untested chemicals being created each year, synergistic effects of known cancer chemicals, it is long past time to reduce total exposure.

 

Perhaps the final truth on all science has not been discovered and we need a safety factor, a margin of error, a "we don't know everything" and protect the public rather than assume government scientists are not politically influenced.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
222
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
225
Views

Re: Tobacco Industry & Fluoridationists

225 Views
Message 174 of 1,248

"Carrie Anne,"  

 

This is interesting, since you decided to chime in on the cancer issue that Dr. Richard brought up, here is a list of 116 things that can cause cancer.  .  .  I don't see fluoride or fluoridated water anywhere on it.  Hmm . . How do you explain that?  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/28/116-things-that-can-give-you-cancer-list

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
225
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
221
Views

Re: Tobacco Industry & Fluoridationists

221 Views
Message 175 of 1,248

"Carrie Anne,"

 

Thank you for providing cigarette advertisements from the 1950s.  If that is your idea of science, it says a lot about why you take statements from legitimate studies out of context. 

 

Please show me the peer-reviewed studies from the 1950s which demonstrate the positive health effects from smoking.  

 

Here are 3 demonstrating positive health effects from drinking optimally fluoridated water.  

 

1.)    Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/?fbclid=IwAR1zG0dD79ylheW-aFjOYuORp8ekEGAR4mnUU...

"children residing in areas with ≥0.7 ppm fluoride in the water supplies had both lower caries prevalence and lower caries experience."

 

2.)   Fluoride Concentration of Drinking Water in Babil-Iraq

http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/jas/2011/3315-3321.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3AuGPkThTk0lwJZWA1X_Yx_ZV2emwK4T...

"... it is found that the level of fluoride is far below the upper level recommended by WHO and by Bureau of Iraqi Standards. To prevent dental caries, it is recommended that drinking water in iraq should be fluorideated."

 

3.)   Water fluoridation in 40 Brazilian cities: 7 year analysis

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-77572013000100013&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=e...

"The majority of samples from cities performing fluoridation had fluoride levels within the range that provides the best combination of risks and benefits, minimizing the risk of dental fluorosis while preventing dental caries"

 

It is interesting that you would cite Dr. Dean Burk who worked for the National Cancer Institute and who also said water fluoridation leads to cancer, since the National Cancer Institute is on the record saying there is no relationship between water fluoridation and cancer:  

 

"After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water"  https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/myths/fluoridated-water-fact-sheet

 

Oh . . by the way, before I forget, Ken P, a retired chemist living in New Zealand, invited you for a scientific exchange on his blog page, "Open Parachute."  The advantage of such an exchange on that forum is that comments won't be lost or buried by other people commenting who are in fact attempting to bury them.  You wouldn't know anything about that though, would you.  

 

So I am confused by your response.  It is rather vague.  Is that a "Yes," you would be delighted to engage in this proposed discourse, or is that a "No," you would rather have your out-of-context citations remain unchallenged, . . . and if challenged, have the corrections buried?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
221
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
238
Views

Tobacco Industry & Fluoridationists

238 Views
Message 176 of 1,248

1950s

  • "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette" 
  • "Ask your dentist, I would recommend Viceroys!" 
  • "Scientific evidence on the effects of smoking - Chesterfields are best for you!" 

2018

A Federal Court has ordered Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Philip Morris USA to make this statement about the health effects of smoking.

  • Smoking kills, on average, 1,200 Americans. Every day.
  • More people die every year from smoking than from murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes, and alcohol, combined.
  • Smoking causes heart disease, emphysema, acute myeloid leukemia, and cancer of the mouth, esophagus, larynx, lung, stomach, kidney, bladder, and pancreas.
  • Smoking also causes reduced fertility, low birth weight in newborns, and cancer of the cervix.

We all live in our own time and are consequently subject to opinions of those times. We all remember that even after it finally was accepted that smoking kills, the tobacco giants insisted there was no danger from second hand smoke - right up until a few years ago when internal memos revealed they knew for decades that even 2nd hand smoke causes cancer and other disease.

 

  • Fluoridation is on its way to having the same reveal, and fluoride players are just as desperately trying to 'win' the argument with disinformation campaigns.  

As to the cancer data, cancer isn't my go to but I hate to see tobacco style misdirection from today's fluoridationists that misrepresents historical as well as scientific facts :

 

“I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started.” - Dr. Dean Burk, biochemist at National Cancer Institute (1982)

"Over the course of five months (in 1978), the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities..My decision regarding the fluoridation of the public water supply, made during my tenure as a trial judge almost twenty years ago, was on appeal, purely a jurisdictional issue... That the practice is deleterious is more and more accepted -- its utility doubted." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

  • in HIGHLIGHTS IN NORTH AMERICAN LITIGATION DURING THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ON FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES by JR Graham  & P Marin, J. Land Use and Envtl. Law, Vol 14:2 (Spring 1999) 
    • In response to NIH objections: “Dr. Burk and his colleagues had a remarkable answer:  The available and pertinent data for the years after 1950, were 1953-1968. Without the trends in these years, nobody would suspect that there is a causal relationship between fluoridation and cancer. In its adjustment, the NCI considered l950 before fluoridation began in the experimental cities, and 1970 after fluoridation had already been initiated in the control cities, and did not consider the years 1953- 1968 which were the whole basis of concern. In other words, the NCI simply derived their CDRo values from data reported for 1950 and 1970, and ignored all else, as if 1953-1968 were unimportant. 

    • Having omitted all available and pertinent data in their adjustment, it is not surprising that the NCI came up with the wrong answer. In the same hearings before Congress, it was demonstrated by a colleague of Dr. Burk that, if the adjustment proposed by the NCI is undertaken using all available and pertinent data after 1950, there emerges an impressive association between fluoridation and age-race-sex adjusted cancer mortality.” 

LicenseToKill.jpgLicense to Kill

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
238
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
221
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

221 Views
Message 177 of 1,248

Dr. Richard,

 

Still trying to fear-monger using a pamphlet whose author (the guy who said HIV doesn't lead to Aids) was discredited by reputable organizations in the last century. 

 

Your quote:   "These reports are whole country averages in fluoridated and nonfluoridated regions and cannot show the effect of fluoride in impairing death rate declines. Yiamouyiannis used well controlled city cases."

 

Of Yiamouyiannis' work, the National Cancer Institute said, "The National Cancer Institute, whose figures are cited in the Federation report, in March noted errors, omissions, and statistical distortions in the Federation report and stated that "Results of this analysis fail to support any suspicion of hazard associated with fluoridation."   Please, take a look.   -  https://www.dentalwatch.org/usphs/fl-76.pdf  Your argument is with the National Cancer Institute, not with me.

 

I'm confused by this quote from you --  "the notion that fluoridation does not affect cancer survival is not proven by the presented data. That suggests improved detrction and treatment methods are helping to bring rates,down."

Odd you would say that, since you are the one who brought up cancer mortality rates in the first place, (Timestamp ‎02-18-2019 01:28 PM)  . . and you're a really smart guy, . . so if "cancer survival" is irrelevant because of improved treatment, as you are saying now when presented with valid current data, why would you even bring it up in the first place?  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
221
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
225
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

225 Views
Message 178 of 1,248

"Carrie Anne," 

 

Ken P, that retired chemist living in New Zealand, invited you for a scientific exchange on his blog page, "Open Parachute."  The advantage of such an exchange on that forum is that comments won't be lost or buried by other people commenting who are in fact attempting to bury them.  You wouldn't know anything about that though, would you.  

 

So I am confused by your response.  It is rather vague.  Is that a "Yes," you would be delighted to engage in this proposed discourse, or is that a "No," you would rather have your out-of-context citations remain unchallenged, . . . and if challenged, have the corrections buried?

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
225
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
233
Views

Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

233 Views
Message 179 of 1,248

Fluoridation advocates and their political partners ”share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.” - A. Gesser-Edelsburg & Y. Shir-Raz in Communicating risk that involve ‘uncertainty bias’… Journal of Risk Research. August 2016.  

 

KenP revealed his identity on 2/18/2019 when he wrote "Read my recent article on.... OpenParachute.wordpress.com...."

 

The blog posts of a retired chemist living in New Zealand are not science and the efforts of a small team of fluoridationists who overwhelm every online conversation in the English speaking world with vindictive is not ethics. It's an orchestrated disinformation campaign

If you want to brush your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, I won't stop you. If you want to buy a gallon of fluoridated water for a buck to drink at your kitchen table, more power to you - but not the power to enact an immoral medical mandate to add this drug to municipal water supplies where it worsens the health of those with arthritis, psoriasis, thyroid disease, kidney disease, etc. 

 

2017 in Revista médica de ChileThe impact of tap water fluoridation on human health (don't - fluoridation causes various diseases in the asthmatic-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin systems)  https://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28453591

 

2018 in Scientific ReportImpact of Drinking Water Fluoride on Human Thyroid Hormones (Recommends RO and distilled water because even 0.5 mg/L has an adverse impact)https://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805681/

 

2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004

 

2019.02.18_KenP_SelfIdentifies.jpgKenP self identifies as NZ blogger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
233
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
248
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

248 Views
Message 180 of 1,248

Bill, I feel the need to warn you that I am the Ken who you blocked on social media in an attempt to close down a discussion. I will understand if you now retreat from this one.

However, it is surely hypocritical to block me on social media and then expect to enter into a discussion with me here.

The question of persistence of calcium, phosphate and fluoride transferred to saliva and plaque from food was discussed in my exchange with Paul Connett. I suggest you refer to that for citations (I am away from home on holiday at the moment so do not feel like doing that search for you - ex=specially with your blocking behaviour.)

As for studies showing the efficacy of CWF, you could start with the Cochrane review. If you argue about quality, etc.. then I challenge you to provide a citation of higher quality showing no benefits - particular a replicated, blinded controlled study. The ball is in your court.

No, the pathetic graphs Connett's crowd produce comparing changes in tooth decay prevalence in various countries from WHO data does not qualify as a study, let alone a reputable one. There is nothing new in your observation of socioeconomic effects. Nor is there anything new in ethnic effects showing up in health statistics. 

I have often shown the New Zealand data shows a clear difference when ethnic effects are removed (something the anti-fluoride activists locally dishonestly refuse to do. And the NZ Oral Health Survey used populations selected to balance out socioeconomic and ethnic differences and showed a clear difference.

I honestly cannit get my head around anyone who pretends to have any authority on this subject making the claims you do.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
248
Views