Content starts here
CLOSE ×

Search

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

 

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 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
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

362,145 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

26,321 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

25,065 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

16,742 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

 

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

 

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

 

Really? 

 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

 

 

View solution in original post

12,620 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

This urine study also agrees with previous studies published demonstrating the progressive lowering of IQ as a direct function of progessive increases in fluoride concentration in the blood. At fluoride levels found in blood of consumers of 1 ppm fluoride in water, the IQ reduction is significant compared to those with a lower blood fluoride level in people in non-fluoridated areas.

Unlike the problems that plague dental researchers, where tooth brushing habits and sugar eating habits confound any attempt to interpret small samples studies on fluoride and dental decay, blood fuoride levels and brain IQ are far removed from environmental diffrences taking place in the oral cavity and are thus more clearly interpreted. 

See the Journal of Environmental and Public Health #439490 (2013)  and the upgraded version in Chapter 8 of Top 10 Contrilbutions on Environmental Health (2018).

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,612 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck:

 

Courts:  I only know of two court cases where the issue before the court was science.  One is currently before the court and has not been decided.  The other years ago and the judge ruled that fluoride was a carcinogen, later to be overruled on proceedural grounds.  (My understanding).

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

4,835 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

What I've noticed over the years is that fluoridaion promoters continue to be unable to explain how it is that fluoride affects teeth caries. For a long time it was argued that it must do so from the bloodstream by incorporating into developing teeth during childhood to make stronger teeth. This was based on the fact that fluoride indeed incorporates into bone and so it was also believed to incorporate into teeth. But fluoride was not found in the enamel matrix from ingesting fluoridated water, so the CDC published a new argument, that systemic fluoride is not responsible for its (believed) effect and so it must work topically. But since fluoride does not enter teeth enamel upon topical application even at high concentrations in dental gels, the mechanism remained stil unknown for the assumed topical effect.

All the Agencies mentioned on this site that supposedly either promote fluoridation or at least don't formally in writing as an official declaration oppose it, provide no information whatsoever on how fluoride water swallowing works on teeth topically. One reference by Featherstone cited by the EPA claims that fluoride water ingestion incorporates fluoride into plaque on teeth surfaces where it can exude out to help toothpaste fluoride between brushings. But saliva fluoride that bathes teeth continuously is only 0.016 ppm, and this fact was not mentioned in the discussion that was theoretic. Nor was it made clear that most dentists now request that plaque be removed from teeth regularly anyway.

And water fluoride is only present on teeth for seconds during swallowing and is only 0.7 ppm, 2,100 times less concentrated than in toothpaste. . 

So I ask you all, how does fluoride affect dental caries?

The answer is that first of all, it doesn't affect dental caries. And second, there is no actual known mechanism by which fluoride could strengthen teeth. Enamel hydroxyapatite is so hard that there is no fluoride -- hydroxide ion exchange, as occurs in bone hydroxyapatite, a completely different allotropic-type form.

And none of these "many supporting" agencies has ever answered the crucial question of even if it did work, how are people who live to advanced age supposed to remove the fluoride that incorporates in their bones during lifelong consumption? How, when it is biochemically irreversibly incorporated into bone? Understand, there is no concentration in blood low enough above zero at which fluoride does not bind bone. So lifelong consumption if one lives long enough will eventually lead to significant bone pathology.  Are these symptoms and problems in elderly lilfelong fluoridated poeepe expendable because they are presumed to have been coupled with fewer dental caries?  What about people who don't eat sugar and never have dental caries? They are supposed to accept this fate as well?

Where are the answers from these Agencies that supposedly promote lifelong whole body fluoridation for everyone? (Hint: there are no answers from them. So their "support" is essentially meaningless).

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,851 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

You asked three questions and I was going to answer the next, but the answer to your question #2 answers the rest of you questions.

 

I'm EVIDENCE based, NOT organization or individual based.  I am persuaded by facts, not people.  (Money persuades people.  Facts are less biased.)

 

The questions you asked are not scientificly based and cannot be answered by empirical evidence. You questions are political, personality, and human based.  

 

Start thinking FACTS, evidence based rather than people based.  Ask a science question rather than a people question.

 

I answered your four questions.  Now please answer mine.

 

1.   How many people with moderate/severe dental fluorosis is acceptable to you and are too many ingesting too much fluoride?

 

2.   Bashash 2017 (Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes) did not find a "no effect" threshold.  Mother's urine samples mean of 0.90 mg/L and for every 0.5 mg/L increase showed 2.5 IQ drop.  

 

Till just published a study reporting pregnant mothers in Canada have a similar fluoride urine concentration in fluoridated communities.  Most studies I have read report urine fluoride concentration in fluoridated communities is close to 1 mg/L regardless of country, including the USA.  

 

Question: What empirical evidence (evidence based science, measured evidence) can you provide which reports that fluoride urine concentration at 0.9 mg/L is neurologically safe for the developing fetus?

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

4,698 Views
19
Report
Trusted Contributor

Bill – Wow!  Trying to get specific answers from you to my specific questions might be compared to pulling teeth. (10-23-2018 02:48 PM, 10-23-2018 03:00 PM, 10-23-2018 05:24 PM, 10-21-2018 09:44 PM)

 

In response to your most recent 10-23-2018 05:24 PM & 03:00 PM comments:  All legitimate scientists base their conclusions on the evaluation of scientific EVIDENCE.  Scientists and health professionals are frequently members of organizations, but I’m not sure what you mean by “[I am] NOT organization or individual based” –– is that part of your lemming/puppet “theory”? 

 

All legitimate scientists are persuaded by facts – but facts are also interpreted by people who can be exceptionally biased and/or don’t understand science.  Members of the Flat Earth Society claim their beliefs are based on facts.  Anti-vaccination activists claim their beliefs are based on facts as do all other anti-science activists

 

That is precisely why the scientific consensus is critical.  The consensus of a majority of experts (members of the major science and health organizations, for example) is a provisional agreement on how best to interpret the entire body of evidence in context.  The scientific consensus is a firewall to help keep the scientific community from becoming a pinball machine where theories bounce, spin, crash and get flipped around based on every new unverified, unvalidated, unconfirmed, incompletely understood “fact” that gets dumped into the hopper.  The fact is that a consensus changes when new, legitimate evidence is presented, tested for relevance, evaluated in context with the rest of the evidence and found to conflict with the existing consensus in a manner that requires a change.  Changing a consensus is, and should be, a challenging and rigorous process that examines all relevant evidence and not just the evidence that appears to support strongly held beliefs of individuals.

 

Yes, the scientific consensus is “people based”, but it is also “FACTS, evidence based”.  That is what makes the methods of science and the scientific consensus completely unique – completely different from any other human consensus; philosophical, political, religious, artistic, judicial, moral, etc.  Fluoridation opponents (FOs) seem to believe that science-based conclusions can and should be validated by strong personal opinions.

 

Do you accept the concept of scientific consensus as traditionally defined, “the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity”? (Wikipedia)  If not, what is your alternative – a “scientific” free for all, based on everyone’s personal interpretation of the FACTS?

 

The questions I have asked you (10-21-2018 09:44 PM and others) are based on trying to understand the FACTS of your specific statements.  The opinions of Dr. Limeback you posted don’t count – they answer none of my specific questions to you – nor do any of your other answers.

 

The only conclusion I can reach based on your (10-23-2018 03:00 PM) comment and lack of specific answers is that you are not perfect, you were “raised in a religious cult”, and you seem to believe all scientists and health care providers in the world who have not accepted the anti-F interpretation of the complete body of scientific evidence as legitimate or credible are members of a cult (or cults?) who blindly follow beliefs that are “based on fraud, lies, and mistakes”.  That would explain your earlier comments.

 

I will take your failure to address my specific questions about your specific comments, (08-19-2018 02:18 AM), (08-19-2018 07:15 PM), (07-09-2018 09:09 PM) as strong evidence that you believe ALL scientists and health care providers who don’t accept the anti-F opinions “don't think for themselves”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, have “seriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, are “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” and “None reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.

 

Is this a correct interpretation and summary of your comments and beliefs about the scientific and health communities?  If I don’t hear otherwise, I will assume you agree with my summary, and you would use it to describe all members of the 100+ science and health organizations who either support or do not denounce fluoridation.  If you disagree then provide other specific explanations (with supporting evidence) as rational reasons why none of the major science and health organizations referenced by Dr. Haynie, 07-04-2018 12:51 have accepted the so-called “evidence” provided by FOs as sufficient to change the consensus.

 

You claim to be “EVIDENCE based … persuaded by facts”.  However:

~> You ignore all the evidence that supports the conclusion that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure that improves health. 
~> You ignore the fact that most scientists and health professionals accept that supporting evidence as legitimate and compelling. 
~> You ignore the fact that most science and health professionals care deeply about understanding as much as they can about their profession and protecting the health of their patients and fellow citizens. 

~> You focus exclusively on a small, carefully selected subset of available evidence which FOs believe proves CWF is ineffective and dangerously harmful to health.
~> You ignore the fact that relevant experts continually review that “subset of available evidence” presented by FOs (in context with the rest of the evidence FOs ignore) and find sufficient limitations to prevents the FOs' “evidence” from changing the majority consensus. 

~> However you and other FOs “adjust” and present this inconclusive, flawed “evidence” to the public –– as demonstrated in this discussion –– in a manner designed to create fear and sow distrust of the science and health establishments they depend on to protect and improve their health.

 

In reality, you and other FOs are actually EVIDENCE biased … persuaded by carefully selected “facts”.

 

I do not want members of the public to blindly follow any person, organization or me either.  I also don’t want them to blindly follow a group of anti-science activists.  However, if members of the public do not have the training, experience, inclination or time to seek out and evaluate a significant number of relevant studies for themselves, they must – by default – trust some person or organization. 

 

According to your comments (and those of other FOs) anyone who disagrees with the anti-F interpretation of the evidence –– which includes most members of the science and health communities –– are not really scientists and are not to be trusted.  If they can’t be trusted with making an accurate decision about the benefits and risks of CWF, how could they be trusted with any other health-related decision???  You and other anti-science activists deliberately sow and promote distrust against the major science and health organizations and their members.  That tactic, along with carefully orchestrated fear mongering (trust in me, CWF is ‘proven’ to lower IQ, cause cancer, diabetes, thyroid problems, etc.), are the cornerstones of your anti-science strategy.

 

I trust the current scientific consensus, for two reasons:

First: Overall, I trust the scientific and health communities to draw the best conclusions and make the best decisions possible based on a continual and accurate evaluation of the available body of evidence as understood at any given time.  Science is not perfect, nor is it settled – new evidence is always available for review.  However, I trust that the conclusions, as accepted by the majority of relevant experts, have the best potential for protecting the publicIn the case of CWF, as in vaccination and other recognized public health measures, I trust the majority of professionals.  I do not trust the few outliers who are unable to change the consensus, who have no unified cohort of relevant experts and who resort to fear-mongering techniques and sowing distrust of major science and health organizations to influence public opinion and promote their agenda.

 

Second: I have experience in the sciences and in evaluating studies, and I have examined the “evidence” presented by FOs, (including The Fluoride Deception, Connett’s publication and others).  I have also examined actual scientific evidence (which has been rejected by FOs) that supports the consensus that CWF is safe and effective.  I am not an expert in the specific areas related to fluoridation, but I can recognize when the content of studies has been used out of context by FOs to misrepresent the conclusions.  I can identify when conclusions of a suggestion of a possible, potential correlation has been exaggerated by FOs and presented as “proving” a cause and effect relationship to bolster the fear-factor, and I recognize and understand other tactics all anti-science activists utilize to scam the public.  That is why I continue to challenge you to answer specific questions about how you interpret and understand evidence and conclusions reached by the scientific and health communities.

 

What was the point, for example, of you Gish gallop frenzy (9/4 – 9/5), copy/pasting a bunch of studies you seem to believe proved that CWF causes cancer?  Are most members of the public ever going to read your posts, and why would you expect any non-expert who read these comments to legitimately come to a different conclusion than members of several cancer societies – who have not reached that conclusion

 

Are you more qualified than those professionals to evaluate the evidence and draw those conclusions?    If you have such an excellent understanding of carcinogens, why not present your case (your ‘professional’ analysis of the evidence) to the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute instead of online to a group of non-experts?  Neither organization has concluded that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes cancer, but perhaps they missed evaluating the studies you listed.  What is your explanation – Do you believe members of the ACS and CCS are "the best in their fields", but they can’t get it right when evaluating the carcinogenic risks of CWF?

 

Unfortunately two of your previous claims, 09-04-2018 02:04 PM, are true, “Marketing can change public opinion – Anti-Science Activists simply throw out masses of fear-laced misinformation and misdirection to try to scare the public into trusting their conclusions, and because of that mistaken trust, “the masses can be wrong“ ––  which continues to remind me of the scene in Jungle Book where Kaa claims (1:25), “I'm not like those so-called fair-weather friends of yours. You can believe in me” then places Mowgli in a trance and instructs him to “Trust in me, just in me” in preparation to eating him.  Substitute ‘mainstream scientists and health care providers’ for ‘fair-weather friends’ and you will have an excellent illustration of the deceptive tactics of anti-science activists.

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
4,720 Views
18
Report
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to have a discussion with. . . . impossible.

 

Attack, name calling, attack, name calling, disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric unscientific attacks.  Your response clearly answers your own questions.  Not one reference to science, all opinion and attack.  Try being professional and see where that gets you.  

 

What about scientific evidence based discussion scares you?  Just evidence, not guns or a train going to run you over.  

 

The first stage to change is denial.  Of which you are doing.

Lacking evidence to support their position denial is closely followed by attacking the messenger rather than the message.  Which you are doing.

In time, those opposed will say it was really their idea in the beginning.  Not long from now you will also be opposed to ingesting excess fluoride.  

 

Because, I am confident, good scientists will stop fluoridation in the not distant future.  And then what will you say?  They are wrong?  Or will you start thinking for yourself rather than being faith, trust based.

 

Ask a scientific question and I will respond with the best science I'm aware of.  If you continue with gossip and attack, I won't waste my time.

 

Until then, be kind, gentle, friendly, and use polite words.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

4,874 Views
16
Report
Trusted Contributor

Bill.  You are accusing me of “name calling, disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric unscientific attacks.” 

 

Please list the specific personal attacks and names I have called you that are “disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric”.  I will certainly apologize for any unwarranted personal attacks I have made on you.

 

However, as I described in my previous comment (10-24-2018 02:23 PM), I stand by my support of the scientific consensus which supports community health measures (like fluoridation, vaccination, community water disinfection, etc.) that are under attack by anti-science activists.  I continue to support the majority of science and health organizations and their hundreds of thousands of members who support the consensus.

 

I am seriously opposed to, and will not apologize for, exposing the fear-mongering and various deceptive tactics of anti-science activists whose agenda is to scam the public into trusting their distortions of the evidence and fearing and doubting the scientific and medical communities. 

 

I repeat – if anti-science activists have legitimate evidence to support their opinions, convince the relevant science and health experts, and the consensus will change – that is how science progresses – not by scamming the public and basing your comments on what you hope will happen in the future – fluoridation opponents have been fighting and claiming they have incontrovertible supporting evidence for over 70 years.  Your unsupported, libelous accusations against the science and health professionals in your comments below are the actual unprofessional attacks.

 

Let’s take a look at your comments that I have responded to and have been trying to obtain clarification of and rational explanations for.  I have a similar set of quotes from CarryAnne which I have asked her to clarify without success.  Both your comments and those of CarryAnne have all the characteristics of the “attacks” you accuse me of.

 

(08-19-2018 02:18 AM) “The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.

(08-19-2018 07:15 PM) “CDC, ADA and proponents of fluoridation think fluoride is a magic element unaffected by other chemicals, everyone benefits and everyone needs more and no one is at risk.  That kind of simplistic thinking might be good for first grade, but not science.”

(07-09-2018 09:09 PM) the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.”and  “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science.” and “the credibility of those so called ‘scientific’ organizations [AAP, ADA, CDC] has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the publicThey are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.”  and “They were silent because they never looked at the science.”, and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“   

 

You still have not answered my question about whether you apply these accusations to all the other organizations (and their hundreds of thousands of members) that that continue to publically support CWF or do not publically accept the anti-F opinions.  I believe it is safe to conclude from your arguments (unless you publically provide an alternative interpretation) that you would also apply the same descriptions to all members of the 100+ science and health organizations who either support or do not denounce fluoridation.  These organizations include the WHO, the AMA, the APA, the CDA, the CMA, the CPS and the other 100+ organizations listed here, 07-04-2018 12:51, by Dr. Haynie.

 

Until then, be kind, gentle, friendly, and use polite words – are the words you use above (and those used by CarryAnne) examples of what you are recommending?

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
4,884 Views
15
Report
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

Lets move on to the science.  But one more try at answering your questions

 

I have asked you to discuss science and you keep diverging onto people.  If you can't see the unprofessional, cruel, vulgar, barbaric unscientific attacks in your posts, I'm not sure pointing them out would help.  Trumpian words/labels in your last post which is more mellow than most of your posts, has two example.

 

"anti-science."    Really?  Any scientist who disagrees with the CDC, ADA (or you?) is anti-science?  I don't know anyone on this discussion list who is anti-science.  The term has no point other than defamation, sensation and irritation.    What scientist on this list will kneel down and confess their "sin" of being opposed to science.  The intent of the term here is to be cruel and vulgar.  Simple basic science questions have been asked, and you call me anti-science. 

 

"fear-mongering"  Really?   Scared of science?  When I present National Health Assessment and Nutrition Evaluation Survey results reporting 60% of adolescents with fluorosis and 20% moderate/severe dental fluorosis as evidence millions are over exposed to fluoride; is that NHANES data "fear-mongering?"  

 

You appear to have taken personal offense when CarryAnne or I have spoken harshly against the ADA and CDC Oral Health Division.     You are not the ADA or CDC. . . are you?   Are you even an ADA member or employeed by the CDC Oral Health Division?  If anyone would take offense, it might be the dentists here.  But most know the limitations of the ADA and CDC Oral Health Division.   

 

Clearly you have great respect and trust the CDC Oral Health Division to determine the dosage, safety and efficacy of fluoride ingestion.  Would you kindly forward the names of the Oral Health Division Director, Senior Toxicologist, Senior Epidemiologist, Senior Pharmacist, Senior Chemist and their respective degrees?   Who are the scientists at the CDC OHD who are continually digesting the current science and advising you?  

 

Remember, the American Dental Association testified in court that they were not responsible for anyone being harmed from the products they recommend, they had no duty to protect the public.  If their members pull the license of a dentist opposed to a toxic dental substance, that is not the ADA problem.  I trust the ADA to protect their paid members and corporate sponsors.  I do not trust the ADA to protect the public at the expense of their members and corporate sponsors.  And the CDC OH division responds within days of a change in the ADA's position on items like fluoride.  ADA and CDC OH Division are in lock step.  Can you give any example where the CDC OHD and ADA have different positions?  They move like dance partners with the ADA taking the lead. . . and the ADA protects dentists not the public.  "If scientists agree, hang on to your wallet."

 

May I suggest you consider that when  we speak of these corporations and government agencies that we are not speaking of you.   Don't read more into the words than written.

 

I am slowly understanding that you may have no seperation of identity with these organizations.  People and organizations make mistakes.  Fluoridation is one of their mistakes.  Mercury fillings is another, and the list can go on and on.  Blind trust is not advised.

 

Now don't misunderstand what I'm saying.   I am not saying everything these organizations do and stand for is wrong.  Both the ADA and CDC are essential and vital to the health of our country.  But they make mistakes and fluoridation is one of them.  And we must not trust them for things they do not claim to have authority for.   For example, the CDC has been clear they do not determine the safety of fluoride ingestion.

 

Remember, 50% of what we scientists think is right is actually wrong.  Our job is to find out which 50% is in fact correct and improve, change or abandon the 50% which is wrong.   Excess fluoride exposure is wrong and needs to be changed.

 

Randy, because the ADA and CDC have put so much capital into fluoridation, and defend the practice without careful scientific review of all the evidence, they fail to protect the public by looking outside the box for other better public health measures.  Their knee jerk response to dental caries is adding more assurance that fluoride is safe and the ever increasing dosages and use is safe and adding more fluoride to more dental products is safe.   Wow . . . when is it too much?  They never say. . . at least they never admit when too much is too much.   

 

Comments about the CDC and ADA are not about you.  Seperate your ego from those organizations.  Think for yourself.  Chose your own identity and thinking.  God gave you a mind, use it.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH                        

 

 

 

 

5,117 Views
14
Report
Trusted Contributor

Bill – You requested (10-25-2018 02:27 PM), “Lets move on to the science” and “I have asked you to discuss science and you keep diverging onto people.”  However, you are the one diverting away from the Science.

 

Actually, I am discussing some of the most serious aspects of science and trying to obtain some specific answers about those issues which you brought up in the first place – and which you continue to ignore.

 

Your comments are the root of the problem.  Anti science activists ignore science. – they don’t just exhibit the single characteristic you mentioned, “Any scientist who disagrees with the CDC, ADA (or you?) is anti-science?”  That is not my position, as you would have understood if you actually read my comment – or chose to report it accurately.  

 

It is perfectly acceptable and quite scientific to disagree with any given scientific consensus and the organizations (and individuals) that support it – provided the disagreements are accompanied by legitimate, conclusive supporting evidence presented accurately and fairly.

 

Disagreements and legitimate challenges are precisely how the scientific consensus evolves. Without vigorous disagreements, challenges and a continual supply of new research and evidence, science and health care would be stuck – probably in the 1700s or 1800s (or perhaps earlier).

 

Anti-science activists not only disagree with the scientific consensus, they exhibit all of these additional characteristics:  

  • They ignore the normal processes of legitimate science by ignoring all supporting evidence and summarily dismissing any scientific consensus (and the supporting evidence) they disagree with.
  • They fail to work successfully with other experts to modify or revolutionize the consensus based on the evidence they believe supports a change.
  • They ignore the fact that their “evidence” is inconclusive &/or poor quality and is not sufficient to change the consensus.
  • When their evidence does not change the consensus they bypass science and try to influence public opinions by creating an illusion of serious, significant disagreement within the science and health communities, sowing distrust of the scientific and health communities among members of the public (for example, your comments referenced below) and irresponsibly and disingenuously spreading unwarranted fear into the public consciousness by misrepresenting the actual scientific evidence.

 

I fully understand that you and CarryAnne have “spoken harshly against the ADA and CDC Oral Health Division”, and to summarize, you believe that the CDC, ADA and AAP and their members “don't think for themselves”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, haveseriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, arelemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientistsandNone reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.” (08-19-2018 02:18 AM, 08-19-2018 07:15 PM, 07-09-2018 09:09 PM)

 

Obviously you are upset that these organizations and their members accept and publically recognize the scientific consensus on community water fluoridation (CWF) and reject your interpretation of your “evidence”.  I am certainly not offended, but I am astounded at your complete distrust and dismissal of those professionals, and I am simply trying to obtain answers to some very obvious questions that arise from your “spoken harshly” words.  I will try again…

 

Q1) Is my summary above of your accusations an accurate representation of your opinions of why the CDC, ADA and AAP don’t accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure? If not, please correct it for me.

 

You continue to make a great fuss about the ADA and CDC, but those are only two of more than 100 respected science and health organizations in the world (with hundreds of thousands of members) that also publically accept the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective?  I will try again to obtain your explanation of why all these other organizations continue to trust and accept the interpretation of evidence by the majority of experts instead of your opinion of how a few studies should be interpreted.

 

Q2a) You still have not answered my specific question:   Do you apply the accusations above to all the other organizations (and their hundreds of thousands of members) that that continue to publically support CWF or do not publically accept the anti-F opinions.  I believe it is safe to conclude from your arguments (unless you publically provide an alternative interpretation) that you would also apply the same descriptions to all members of the 100+ science and health organizations who either support or do not denounce fluoridation.  These organizations include the WHO, the AMA, the APA, the CMA, the CPS and the other 100+ organizations listed here, 07-04-2018 12:51, by Dr. Haynie.

 

Q2b) If you choose not to apply those accusations above to the other organizations (and individuals) that do not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate, then provide a rational explanation for why they would all continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF. 

 

These are extremely important scientific (not personal) questions and issues:
Q3)  If relevant experts in these 100+ organizations (and other experts they consult) can’t be trusted to honestly, accurately and reliably interpret the incredible complexity of the relevant bodies of scientific evidence and reach a relevant, accurate and reliable scientific consensus in the areas they represent (fluoridation, disinfection, vaccination, etc.), how can they possibly be trusted to “protect the public” by supporting any of the other science or health conclusions formed and decisions that are made?

 

Protection against anti-science activists is precisely why the scientific consensus is critical.  The consensus of a majority of experts (members of the major science and health organizations, for example) is a provisional agreement on how best to interpret the entire body of evidence in context.  It is provisional and changes when legitimate evidence is presented – that is how science has always progressed – not by demanding the consensus be changed because of strong personal beliefs and opinions by a few biased outliers. 

 

As stated in my previous comment, the scientific consensus is a firewall to help keep the scientific community from becoming a pinball machine where theories bounce, spin, crash and get flipped around based on every new unverified, unvalidated, unconfirmed, incompletely understood “fact” that gets dumped into the hopper.  The fact is that a consensus changes when new, legitimate evidence is presented, tested for relevance, evaluated in context with the rest of the evidence and found to conflict with the existing consensus in a manner that requires a change.  Changing a consensus is, and should be, a challenging and rigorous process that examines all relevant evidence and not just the evidence that appears to support strongly held beliefs of individuals.

 

It is the responsibility of legitimate scientists and health professionals who have relevant, legitimate evidence they believe should change the scientific consensus to present that evidence to relevant experts for review and consideration, to have it evaluated within the context of the relevant scientific and health communities and to work aggressively to reach a new consensus.

 

Anti-science activists abandon that responsibility when their "evidence" does not change the consensus and deliberately engage in fear-mongering.  Yes – fear mongering – which, by the way, is not being Scared of science” as you implied.  Fear-mongering is those deliberate activities designed to manufacture and distribute ”evidence” specifically designed to scare people into fearing specific science-based conclusions when legitimate supporting evidence does not exist. 

 

Q4) As I asked in a previous comment – What was the real purpose of you Gish gallop frenzy (9/4 – 9/5), copy/pasting a bunch of studies you seem to believe proved that CWF causes cancer?  Were you really expecting any non-expert, rational members of the public to read these comments, and if they did, to be able to evaluate them and legitimately come to a different conclusion than members of several cancer societies? 

 

Q5) Bill, do you consider yourself more qualified than those professionals in the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute to evaluate the cancer-related evidence and draw those conclusions?  Neither organization has concluded that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes cancer, but perhaps they missed evaluating the studies you listed.  What is your explanation – Do you believe members of the ACS and NCI are "the best in their fields", but they can’t get it right when evaluating the carcinogenic risks of CWF?

 

However, anti-science activists repeatedly hand the “evidence” directly to the public along with a highly inflated interpretation of harm with the expectation of adjusting the beliefs of those who unwittingly accept the propaganda as legitimate because they have been carefully instructed that mainstream scientists and health professionals “don't think for themselves”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, have “seriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, are “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” and “None reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.”

 

As I requested before, please list the specific personal attacks and names you claimed I called you that are “disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric”.  I will certainly apologize for any unwarranted personal attacks I have made on you.

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
5,123 Views
13
Report
Regular Contributor

In Basic methods for assessment of renal fluoride excretion in community prevention programmes for oral health, World Health Organisation, 2014, it is stated that ingested fluoride from all sources, whether deliberately or unintentionally ingested, is excreted primarily in the urine. Thus, studies of urinary fluoride levels are ideal for assessing the total intake of fluoride in populations and, more particularly, such studies also provide a basis for decisions on the use of fluoride for caries prevention.

This WHO report also clearly states that public health administrators should assess the total fluoride exposure of a population before introducing any additional fluoridation or supplementation programmes for caries prevention.

Fluoridation advocates in this conversation might wish to comment on epidemiological researches (if any and with methodologies) undertaken by or for any health authority (world-wide), using fluoride in urine as a biomarker to determine total levels of fluoride exposure in any exposed population which comply with WHO advice before a community water fluoridation regime is implemented.

5,122 Views
12
Report
Conversationalist

Ross,

 

You bring up two powerful concepts.

 

A.  Urine fluoride concentration, although not perfect, is a good measure of fluoride exposure.  The 2017 Bashish study reporting lower IQ for children when their mothers had increased urine fluoride concentration.   The study has been marginalized by some, such as Martinez-Meier, because they claim we do not have urine fluoride concentrations in the USA population.  

 

After 70 years of fluoridation, the USA has not thought to actually measure urine fluoride concentrations in the public.  Oh, yes, Mexico, Canada and other countries have, but blind faith and trust has ruled in the USA rather than measured science.   

 

Failure to measure is not proof of safety.  And lack of measured evidence is no reason to give everyone more fluoride in fluoridated water.

 

However, we do have current measured evidence out of Canada which reported pregnant women on fluoridated water have similar urine fluoride concentrations as pregnant mothers in Mexico.

 

I'm waiting for fluoridationists to say, "BUT MEXICANS AND CANADIANS ARE NOT AMERICANS."  I suppose as proof they would ask for passports.  

 

Fluoridationists have responded, "We trust the CDC and ADA."

 

The head of the CDC Oral Health Division has an MPH degree.  No serious science background.  Who are the Toxicologists, Epidemiologists, Pharmacists at the Oral Health Division or the American Dental Association reviewing the science as it is published??????   There are none.  No competent scientists are reviewing the studies.  

 

Therefore, fluoridation promoters are trusting organizations not competent or capable or with jurisdiction of determining the dosage, efficacy AND safety to ensure we are not ingesting too much fluoride.  

 

B.   WHO also says fluoridation should not be started until total fluoride exposure is determined.  

 

Lack of measured evidence is not proof of safety.

 

Neither the CDC Oral Health Division nor the American Dental Association have qualified experts to assess the dosage, efficacy AND safety of fluoridation.

 

FDA does.  And the FDA  regulatory process has not approved ingesting fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries.

 

Ross, Now to your comment on fluoride as a bio-marker of urine fluoride exposure.  

 

From my memory, there are quite a few studies using fluoride urine concentration.  However, getting consistent results has had some problems.  For example, the fluoride concentration varies throughout the day.  Some kidneys can excrete fluoride better than others.  Just because a chemical in urine is low (mercury, fluoride, etc.) does not mean exposure is low.   And several other concerns.

 

However, the testing of fluoride in urine has become more standarized and more reliable.  Do we need more studies. . . always.  Never enough, but we do have enough to know from several streams of evidence (urine, serum, fluorosis, bone, pineal gland etc.) that many are ingesting TOO MUCH FLUORIDE. 

 

We have enough evidence now, and the new evidence is robust, that we must start to use caution and lower total exposure.   What are the best places to reduce exposure????   The main sources of fluoride are from fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste.  Topical from toothpaste has some benefit, increased fluoride in water has much less benefit.   The obvious answer is to give people freedom of choice and stop wasting money on fluoridation of public water.

 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

4,947 Views
9
Report
Trusted Contributor

Bill, the WHO reference cited by RossF clearly stated, “The World Health Organization (WHO) World Oral Health report 2003 noted (p2-3) that dental caries can be controlled by the joint action of communities, professionals and individuals aimed at reducing the impact of sugar consumption and emphasizing the beneficial effect of fluorides. …At the 60th World Health Assembly, Member States agreed on an action plan for oral health – Oral health: Action plan for promotion and integrated disease prevention. The resolution calls upon countries that do not have access to optimal levels of fluoride, and have not yet established fluoridation programmes, to consider the development and implementation of such programmes, giving priority to equitable strategies through automatic administration of fluoride (i.e. in drinking water, salt or milk), and to the provision of affordable fluoride toothpaste. ... Population-wide automatic fluoridation measures are effective and are the most equitable ways to prevent dental caries. However, some degree of unsightly enamel fluorosis results when children are exposed to fluoride above optimal concentrations.

 

And, of course, there is the 2015 World Health Organization report, Fluoride and Oral Health I referenced in my previous comment – and these other studies and reviews I have referenced previously, here and here, which clearly support the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure.

 

The fact, which you have completely failed to address, is that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize and support community water fluoridation (CWF) as an effective public health measure to reduce dental decay.  The challenge is balancing the well-known benefits of CWF with the slight, well established, non-health-related, risk of dental fluorosis – most significant dental fluorosis can be traced to swallowing toothpaste, rinses, etc.

 

It is very clear now that you believe the CDC, ADA and AAP and their members actually “don't think for themselves”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, haveseriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, arelemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientistsandNone reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.” (08-19-2018 02:18 AM, 08-19-2018 07:15 PM, 07-09-2018 09:09 PM)

 

Q) I am still waiting for an answer to my ongoing question –– Do you apply your description above (of the CDC, ADA and AAP) to the authors of both WHO reports cited – and to all members of the World Health Organization and the 100+ other science and health organizations referenced in previous comments who accept the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective? If not, provide your alternative explanation for why members of all the organizations that accept the current CWF consensus don’t rebel and publically accept the anti-F opinions?

 

Q) I am still waiting for an answer to other ongoing questions –– If you believe you have legitimate evidence that supports your opinions, why do you abandon the practice of working with the majority of relevant experts to adjust the consensus? Why do you (and other anti-science activists) take your ‘adjusted’ interpretation of the available evidence to the public in a manner designed to influence public opinions by creating an illusion of serious, significant disagreement within the science and health communities, sow distrust of the scientific and health communities among members of the public (for example, your comments referenced below) and irresponsibly and disingenuously spread unwarranted fear into the public consciousness by misrepresenting the actual scientific evidence – fear-mongering. 

 

The “two powerful concepts” you just spent several paragraphs describing (while dodging my questions) is another example of bringing discussions that should be taking place among relevant experts in the relevant scientific fields onto the public stage where few readers will be able to understand or care about the “evidence” and accusations against the scientists and health professionals you presented. 

 

Readers will, however, be taking another hit from the arrows of doubt fired by anti-science activists against the very science and health organizations that are trying to protect and improve the health of citizens worldwide using the collective wisdom of real experts who have evaluated the body of evidence and formulated the best, most accurate conclusions possible.

 

The newest “evidence” I have seen presented by FOs does not appear any more conclusive of anything (same significant limitations) than the previous “evidence” trotted out by fluoridation opponents for decades as conclusive “evidence” that “proves” CWF causes cancer, lowered IQ, hives, etc.  However, it is up to the relevant experts to evaluate any new evidence in context with all the other evidence to improve the scientific consensus.

 

Anti-science activists deliberately skip the critical consensus-building part of science because they are aware of the severe limitations of their so-called “evidence”, and they are aware that their only hope of changing public policy is by hijacking the democratic process and scaring the public into forcing the changes they Demand.

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
4,902 Views
8
Report
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

I rely on evidence based science.  I am a professional scientist and not as you label me, "anti-science."  Stop telling lies about me.  Do not be a Trump bully.  

 

You have asked questions and I have answered them and will add more to my answers here.  You have not even attempted to answer my questions.

 

I rely on evidence based science and you rely on consensus from organizations. . . and at one time, so did I.   And then I asked a basic question, "who at these organizations are the pharmacologists, toxicologists and epidemiologists charged with jurisdiction to determine the efficacy at a specific dosage which is safe?   I couldn't find those people.  Would you please provide the names of those people.  

 

Lets look at the EPA for an example.  The EPA has a Maximum CONTAMINANT Level Goal for fluoride of 4ppm.  Who at the EPA determines the efficacy at a specific dosage which is safe for the fluoride contaminant?  They don't exist.  EPA does not determine the efficacy at a specific dosage which is also safe.  We might as well rely on the Federal Aviation Administration or the Department of Commerce.  EPA does not determine the efficacy at a specific dosage of fluoride which is also safe.  Congress has not charged the EPA to determine the efficacy at a specific dosage which is safe for fluoride or any chemical.  That job is the FDA's.

 

But lets dig deeper into the EPA.   

 

When I read what the EPA scientists are saying about fluoride, I was shocked.

 

1)   "In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."

-Dr. J. William Hirzy, Senior Vice-President, Headquarters Union, March 2001
 
I was confident I could see the benefits of fluoride in my patients.  How could these good scientists call fluoride into question?  The EPA scientists statement was very troubling to me, so I looked further and found the science supported their conclusion.
 
2)  Congress requires the EPA to review contaminants in water, as I remember, about every 10 years.  EPA charged the National Research Council to review fluoride.  The NRC 2006 reported in 2006 that EPA's MCLG for fluoride was not protective.  EPA has essentially ignored the NRC 2006 report.  MCLG is still 4 ppm.
 
3)  EPA's Dose Response Analysis (DRA) and Relative Source Contribution Analysis  2010 (RSCA), used the 90th percentile water ingestion.  NRC 2006 p. 379 reports the median water intake is about 1 liter/day.  90th percentile about 2.3 L/day, 99th percentile 4.8 L/day and 100th percentile over 10 L/day.   EPA ignores the 10% of the public which consume the most water.
 
4) EPA does not include infants in their DRA and RSC.   Why are infants, the most vulnerable, ignored by the EPA?  Because those on formula with fluoridated water are way above safe dosages.  There is no excuse, rational, scientific evidence to suggest those massive dosages are safe for infants.  Mother's milk in most samples contains no detectible fluoride.
 
5) Excluding infants, 10% of the population drinking the most water, and proposing to increase the "safe" RfD for fluoride by 33%, still puts a third of children over EPA's "safe" dosage. See Figure 8-1 of EPA RSCA 2010  Yet EPA has failed to lower their MCLG.
 
6)  SDWA: “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. ”   Fluoride does not treat water contamination.
 
7) When an independent judge reviewed fluoride post-harvest fumigant approval by the EPA, the judge ruled against the EPA on all accounts.  (see previous posts for details)
 
😎  In 2013, Steven Neugeboren, Associate General Council, Water Law Office responded to Gerald Steel's question, "Your first question is whether, from the viewpoint of EPA, the purpose of a 1979 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) was "to take away from the FDA , and give to EPA, responsibility for regulating public drinking water additives intended for preventative health care purposes and unrelated to contamination of public drinking water?"  EPA legal counsel responded, "No."  
 
Randy, you are trying to persuade me to trust the EPA to regulate the public drinking water additive fluoride, intended for preventative health care purposes and unrelated to contamination of public drinking water, when the EPA explicitly denies that is their job.
 
Randy, you have failed to persuade me to blindly trust the EPA.  Calling me derogatory names is not persuasive.  Show me the science or direct statements from the EPA that they regulate the dosage, efficacy, and safety of adding fluoride to public water.   However, at one time I did trust the EPA and I don't fault you for thinking the EPA should be trusted. . . because they should, but they cannot be trusted for fluoridation.  Stop trusting the EPA for fluoridation.  That is not their job.
 
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
 

                                                       
 
 
4,801 Views
6
Report
Trusted Contributor

You have ignored most questions completely, and those you claim to have answered have been reinterpreted before “answering” – thus answering your questions and not mine, as demonstrated below. 

 

Let’s start over with one very simple yes or no question: 

Question) Do you believe that ALL the science and health experts in the world who accept the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is safe and effective (or who don’t publically accept the anti-F opinions), don't think for themselves … No conspiracy….  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, haveseriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, arelemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientistsandNone reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.”?  Depending on that answer, I will provide others.  Despite your protestations to the contrary, my questions have everything to do with science-based evidence.

 

This question is in reply to your comments on, (08-19-2018 02:18 AM), (08-19-2018 07:15 PM) & (07-09-2018 09:09 PM)

 

Below are all your previous “un-answers” to my questions (you can read here) that I have found

U-A12) 10-28-2018 12:10 PM, You claim, “I rely on evidence based science.” And then go off on a rant against the EPA. 
That still does not answer one of the primary questions I started with – repeated above.  Answer that single question and then other specific questions can be answered one at a time until you answer questions I ask instead of your interpretation of my questions.

 

U-A11) 10-26-2018 07:03 PM, You claimed, “Instead of focusing on the research, fluoridationists focus on the people talking about the research.
Actually, my concern is that a primary tactic of anti-science activists is to focus on the conclusions of people who are outliers talking about their interpretation of the research instead of the scientific consensus.  For example your interpretation of the 2017 IQ study by Bashash et al. in this comment presents only your personal, biased interpretation of a complex study presented in a public format that is not conducive to discussing and evaluating the conclusions.  You fail, for example, to quote the second paragraph of the conclusion which begins, “Community water and salt fluoridation, and fluoride toothpaste use, substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries and is acknowledged as a public health success story.” And you don’t mention the five long paragraphs of limitations the authors discuss which include their inability to determine whether exposure to toxins, like arsenic, might be responsible for any observations.  In other words you present an excellent example of selective reporting of study conclusions, out of context in a manner deliberately designed to cause fear = Fear-Mongering.  I will defer to several discussions which cover the same study limitations I was able to spot when I read it – and more.  Ken Perrott, Johnny Johnson, Jr. DMD, MS, Steve Slott, DDS, ADA, AADR, Snopes

 

U-A10) 10-25-2018 02:27 PM “Lets move on to the science.  But one more try at answering your questions. I have asked you to discuss science and you keep diverging onto people.  … Your last post which is more mellow than most of your posts, has two example.. ‘anti-science’  Really?  Any scientist who disagrees with the CDC, ADA (or you?) is anti-science?  … ’fear-mongering’  Really?  Scared of science?” 

As I carefully explained in my 10-26-2018 02:17 AM reply, you completely and deliberately misinterpreted my description of ‘anti-science’ as anyone who disagrees with science and ‘fear-mongering’ as moving away from science and “diverging onto people”. 

If you actually read and understood my question and my reply, you would comprehend the fact that my questions to you have EVERYTHING to do with science and the way people with extreme beliefs will ignore science and do anything to protect and promote those beliefs.  Science does not exist without people, and I have seen absolutely no rational explanation from you on why, if the “evidence” you wish to keep dumping onto the public is legitimate, only about 13 alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (along with groups like INFOWARS [Alex Jones] and Natural News [Mike Adams]) oppose CWF.

 

U-A9) 10-24-2018 07:58 PM – You accuse me: “Attack, name calling, attack, name calling, disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric unscientific attacks.  Your response clearly answers your own questions.  Not one reference to science, all opinion and attack.  Try being professional and see where that gets you.  What about scientific evidence based discussion scares you?  … In time, those opposed will say it was really their idea in the beginning.  Not long from now you will also be opposed to ingesting excess fluoride.” 

As I have pointed out repeatedly, my question are not directed against any scientists or health professionals who hold conclusions that differ from the scientific consensus and work as scientists to resolve those differences. 

As I have pointed out over and over, questioning the scientific consensus is one of the fundamental and critical aspects of science – it is the only way science progresses

My questions are about the disingenuous tactics of small bands of anti-science activists who go far beyond legitimate disagreements and normal procedures of working to resolve them.  The tactics of anti-science activists consist of:
a) dismissing the scientific consensus of relevant experts and accepted by virtually all recognized science and health organizations,
b) demanding that their opinions be accepted based on their interpretations of carefully selected “evidence”,
c) instead of working with the scientific and health communities (which is the accepted scientific procedure if legitimate evidence exists) they take their arguments – and interpretations of the “evidence” – to the public (most of who don’t have the training and experience to accurately evaluate the evidence),
d) they employ a variety of techniques including fear-mongering, adjusting/fabricating (evidence), and casting suspicion on the majority of science and health experts who accept the scientific consensus to influence public opinion.

 

I have always been “opposed to ingesting excess fluoride“.  That is the kind of irrational statement commonly employed by anti-science activists to misdirect the public.  Currently, the consensus of organizations like the WHO, ADA, CDC, AAP. AMA, etc. does not define drinking optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) along with other sources of exposure to fluoride ions as “ingesting excess fluoride”. 
Again, my question – if the “evidence” you present is legitimate, obvious and as damaging as fluoridation opponents claim
a) why have a majority of professionals in all (or any) of these organizations (and the 100+ others) not recognized those alleged dangers?
b) why have anti-science activists not worked within the science and health communities to alert them and change the consensus?
c) why have anti-science activists taken the battle to the public using the tactics listed above.

 

When I first became aware of the anti-F arguments several decades ago I became concerned about the possible consequences that I read about, and I began examining the evidence and the conclusions drawn by both sides.   The alleged damage to health presented by fluoridation opponents were initially very troubling, but as I began tracking the anti-F claims back to their sources I began to recognize the same tactics (outlined above) I had seen employed by other anti-science activists.  When FOs demanded that Denver stop CWF in 2015, I decided not to remain silent and began exposing the tactics of fluoridation opponents whenever they attempted to hijack the processes of democracy by employing the disingenuous tactics of anti-science activists.

 

U-A8) 10-23-2018 05:24 PM “I'm EVIDENCE based, NOT organization or individual based.  I am persuaded by facts, not people.  (Money persuades people.  Facts are less biased.)  The questions you asked are not scientificly based and cannot be answered by empirical evidence. You questions are political, personality, and human based. … I answered your four questions.

Anti-science activists are not evidence based, they WEAPONIZE EVIDENCE.  You have answered none of my questions.  Once you answer my questions about the tactics of anti-science activists, then the specific “empirical evidence” and the way anti-science activists distort it can be discussed.

 

U-A7) 10-23-2018 03:00 PM – In answer to my specific Q2) “I will ask you specifically, what makes you a better expert in fluoridation than the members of all the organizations that continue to support CWF?  It could be argued that you are a lemming, follower, part of a herd of FOs that allow their irrational fear of fluorine to bias their selection, evaluation and presentation of the scientific evidence."  You repliedBecome "EVIDENCE BASED" rather than ‘human based, individual, organization based.”  and you followed that with a description of your experience, “When the evidence became clear that the cult was based on fraud, lies, and mistakes, I left the cult.That seems to be a not-so-subtle attempt to suggest that all organizations that support CWF are part of a global cult based on fraud, lies and mistakes and all those who accept the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective are members of a cult?  That fits well with your “lemmings/puppets” descriptions that I have been trying to get you to clarify.
People design and implement scientific observations and experiments; people evaluate the resulting evidence and draw conclusions; people develop the scientific consensus based on the best interpretation of the conclusions from all studies and observations. 

I am trying to figure out how you can believe that the hundreds of thousands of people (trained science and health care professionals) who are members of the 100+ organizations that support CWF and who don’t publically accept the anti-F opinions have all completely missed or misinterpreted the “evidence” which you keep focusing on.

 

U-A6) 10-23-2018 01:39 PM  “I have also answered most of your questions but you fail to read, or at least fail to respond to the answers.” 
As noted above and below – your responses were not answers to my questions – they were answers to your rewriting of my questions.

 

U-A5) 10-23-2018 02:15 PM “provides partial answer to some of your questions
This is a copy of Limeback’s opinion piece and answers none of my specific questions to you.

 

U-A4) 10-21-2018 04:14 PM  “Do not cherry pick science to prove a point.   Twisting and manipulating science and claiming it says something it does not, is not scientific.” 
That is the only rational and accurate response to my questions I have read.  However, as I and others have demonstrated repeatedly, it is the anti-science activists who cherry pick any shred of “evidence” they believe can be used to support their opinions, and they are masters at twisting and manipulating science and claiming it proves something it does not.  That is why the major science and health communities follow an accurate and considered evaluation of the entire body of evidence and have concluded nearly unanimously that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay.

 

U-A3) 09-15-2018 08:22 PMI stand by my statements because you do not provide evidence to the contrary.   If you would spend more time checking the endorsements rather than simply regurgitating the mantra, you would be shocked.  Circular referencing is a huge problem.” 

This comment is an excellent example of how you divert the conversation away from providing specific answers to my specific questions by trying to play the “evidence game”.  You provide what you believe to be examples of organizations allegedly cherry picking evidence that only supports CWF and then engaging in the game of “circular referencing” and “endorsing” each other. 

 

You apparently believe, no one in any of those organizations has ever considered and evaluated all the evidence – you seem to believe some individuals simply decided CWF was safe and effective based on their sloppy research, ignorance and a deluded belief that CWF could help reduce dental decay (perhaps an ouija board and tea-leaf readings were involved), and the other science and health professionals blindly followed that conclusion like lemmings or puppets – is that an accurate presentation of how you would describe all members of the 100+ organizations that support CWF who have not rebelled?

 

And, just for the record, how do you differentiate the listing of studies and reviews which support CWF in this comment with the list of references in the IAOMT  “Position Paper against Fluoride Use…” you continually reference.  That paper is simply a blanket condemnation of exposure to fluoride ions from any source at any exposure level and includes newspaper and magazine articles, blogs, etc. provided as “references”.  I discussed that further, 08-29-2018 05:58 PM, Q5

 

U-A2) 09-04-2018 02:04 PM “Lets talk science rather concensus.  The next few posts will be just a touch on one aspect of fluoride, carcinogenicity.  Remember, the masses can be wrong.  Marketing can change public opinion.” 

That begins your Gish Gallop postings of 14 comments packed with “evidence” you seem to believe causes cancer – yet the organizations of experts responsible for understanding cancer have not concluded those studies proved CWF causes cancer.  Do you believe these experts on cancer are all “lemmings, followers, not scientists” who “don't think for themselves or review the research”?  Are they all uninformed puppets with fluoridation opponents the only “experts” on cancer? This is another example of you playing the “evidence game”

Fact alert!  The scientific consensus depends on the legitimate interpretation of scientific evidence by expert scientists – You can’t “talk science rather than consensus” they are inseparable.

 

U-A1) 08-27-2018 01:40 AM “The title here is "Scientific Consensus; however, your comments are about ‘Endorsement Consensus.’” and “Yes, like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to support fluoridation.

Irrelevant nonsense – Whatever you mean by “Endorsement Consensus” is based on the Scientific Consensus!

If the public support of CWF by the 100+ science and health organizations does not demonstrate the scientific consensus (along with the lack of support of the anti-F opinions), then please explain your understanding of the Scientific Consensus as it relates to three public health measures – community water disinfection (and other water treatment processes), vaccination, and CWF. 

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
4,822 Views
5
Report
Conversationalist

 Randy,

In 2013, Steven Neugeboren, Associate General Council, Water Law Office responded to Gerald Steel's question, "Your first question is whether, from the viewpoint of EPA, the purpose of a 1979 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) was "to take away from the FDA , and give to EPA, responsibility for regulating public drinking water additives intended for preventative health care purposes and unrelated to contamination of public drinking water?"  EPA legal counsel responded, "No."  

 

Do not expect the EPA to regulate or approve the dosage, efficacy or safety of adding fluoride to public water.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

5,122 Views
4
Report
Trusted Contributor

Bill, How does your most recent comment answer my very simple Y/N question that I have been trying to get you to answer since mid August.  Since I had previously asked multiple questions which apparently confused you, I thought a single question using your own words would help you formulate a relevant answer.  Apparently not.

 

Whatever conclusion you came up with in your most recent comment about the EPA, FDA and regulations, take it up with the appropriate authorities. 

 

Your comment had absolutely nothing to do with my question which is directed at trying to understand your reasons for absolutely rejecting the scientific conclusion that community water fluoridation is safe and effective (which is accepted by virtually all of the science and health organizations worldwide) and failing to work within the scientific and health communities to convince the actual experts (instead of the public) that your interpretation of the evidence is valid.

 

I'll try asking my question again - if you would like me to clarify any part of the question, just let me know.

Question) Do you believe that ALL the science and health experts in the world who accept the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is safe and effective (or who don’t publically accept the anti-F opinions), don't think for themselves … No conspiracy….  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, haveseriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, arelemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientistsandNone reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.”?  Depending on that answer, I will provide others.  Despite your protestations to the contrary, my questions have everything to do with science-based evidence.

This question is in reply to your comments on, (08-19-2018 02:18 AM), (08-19-2018 07:15 PM) & (07-09-2018 09:09 PM)

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
7,135 Views
3
Report
Conversationalist

Randy,

I hope you did not treat your high school students with such loaded questions and expect unreasonable answer.   Your questions are not "Yes" or "No" questions.  

 

Let me turn the question around to you.  .

 

Q. Do you support the US Public Health Service and the US Centers for disease in all of their positions and actions including the Tuskegee Syphilus study https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm on African Americans without their consent, and are you an anti-science person who believes in conspiracies by government agencies harming the public?  Yes or No.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

7,192 Views
2
Report
Regular Contributor

Dr. Osmunson, are we clear that you believe community water fluoridation is the ethical equivalent of the Tuskegee Syphilis study?
7,127 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

 

 

Bill, No! 

 

I am amazed and astounded that you believe governmental agencies (and apparently the WHO, AMA, ADA, AAP and other science and health organizations) today are following the same unethical, immoral behavior exhibited in the Tuskegee Syphilis study?

 

Now answer my question, modified with your most recent beliefs.

 

Modified Question) Do you believe that ALL the science and health experts in the world who accept the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is safe and effective (or who don’t publically accept the anti-F opinions),, don't think for themselves … No conspiracy….  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, haveseriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, arelemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientistsandNone reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation and exhibit the morality of those responsible for the Tuskegee Syphilis study.”?

 

For those just reading these comments, the question above is based on Bill’s previous accusations – in his own words.  It is obvious he believes those charges apply to the specific organizations mentioned (and presumably their members).  I am simply asking him if he applies the same explanation to all of the other organizations that publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation and their members who don’t publically support the anti-F opinions as well.  Since Bill made the claims in his own words, if these are “such loaded questions”, then he loaded them.

(08-19-2018 02:18 AM) “The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.

(08-19-2018 07:15 PM) “CDC, ADA and proponents of fluoridation think fluoride is a magic element unaffected by other chemicals, everyone benefits and everyone needs more and no one is at risk.  That kind of simplistic thinking might be good for first grade, but not science.”

(07-09-2018 09:09 PM) the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.”and  “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science.” and “the credibility of those so called ‘scientific’ organizations [AAP, ADA, CDC] has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the publicThey are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.”  and “They were silent because they never looked at the science.”, and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation

Randy Johnson
7,175 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Environmental Health Perspectives in September 2017.

 

This 12-year-long government-funded study showed significant reductions in children’s IQ when their mothers were exposed to fluoride during pregnancy. In this carefully-controlled study of Mexican mother-offspring pairs by American and Canadian researchers, mothers were receiving the same fluoride doses as mothers in the US who live in communities that add fluoride dental treatment to their water.

The results of the 2017 study by Bashash et al. included up to 299 pregnant women and their offspring. Fluoride exposure was determined by measuring fluoride in the urine of the pregnant women because that is a very reliable measure of total fluoride exposure. The researchers found a correlation between the urine fluoride of the pregnant mothers and a loss of up to 6 IQ points in their children when the children were tested at age 4 and again between 6-12 years of age. 

 

The authots state:  "In this study, higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure) that are in the range of levels of exposure in other general population samples of pregnant women as well as nonpregnant adults were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 6–12 y old."

 

The new study found a very large effect. An increase in urine fluoride of 1 mg/L was associated with a drop in IQ of 5 to 6 points. To put this into perspective with the fluoride levels ingested by the Mexican mothers and the levels ingested in fluoridated parts of the USA, the average fluoride intake in the Mexican mothers was about the same as that in women in the USA. It was not substantially higher. The range of fluoride levels in Mexico also corresponded closely to the range found in most of the USA. The higher levels were similar to what is found in areas in the USA with fluoridated water, and the lower levels were similar to what is found in most unfluoridated parts of the USA.

Most of the Mexican women had urine fluoride between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L.

 

Studies have found that adults in the USA have between about 0.6 and 1.5 mg/L, almost exactly the same range. From the low end of that range to the high end is a difference of 1 mg/L which is what caused the 5 to 6 IQ point difference in the children of the study mothers.

 

This new study had fluoride exposures almost the same as what is found in fluoridating countries like the USA.

 

Instead of focusing on the research, fluoridationists focus on the people talking about the research.  

 

Randy, I have answered your questions several times.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

7,196 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Ross,

 

You bring up two powerful concepts.

 

A.  Urine fluoride concentration, although not perfect, is a good measure of fluoride exposure.  The 2017 Bashish study reporting lower IQ for children when their mothers had increased urine fluoride concentration.   The study has been marginalized by some, such as Martinez-Meier, because they claim we do not have urine fluoride concentrations in the USA population.  

 

After 70 years of fluoridation, the USA has not thought to actually measure urine fluoride concentrations in the public.  Oh, yes, Mexico, Canada and other countries have, but blind faith and trust has ruled in the USA rather than measured science.   

 

Failure to measure is not proof of safety.  And lack of measured evidence is no reason to give everyone more fluoride in fluoridated water.

 

However, we do have current measured evidence out of Canada which reported pregnant women on fluoridated water have similar urine fluoride concentrations as pregnant mothers in Mexico.

 

I'm waiting for fluoridationists to say, "BUT MEXICANS AND CANADIANS ARE NOT AMERICANS."  I suppose as proof they would ask for passports.  

 

Fluoridationists have responded, "We trust the CDC and ADA."

 

The head of the CDC Oral Health Division has an MPH degree.  No serious science background.  Who are the Toxicologists, Epidemiologists, Pharmacists at the Oral Health Division or the American Dental Association reviewing the science as it is published??????   There are none.  No competent scientists are reviewing the studies.  

 

Therefore, fluoridation promoters are trusting organizations not competent or capable or with jurisdiction of determining the dosage, efficacy AND safety to ensure we are not ingesting too much fluoride.  

 

B.   WHO also says fluoridation should not be started until total fluoride exposure is determined.  

 

Lack of measured evidence is not proof of safety.

 

Neither the CDC Oral Health Division nor the American Dental Association have qualified experts to assess the dosage, efficacy AND safety of fluoridation.

 

FDA does.  And the FDA  regulatory process has not approved ingesting fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries.

 

Ross, Now to your comment on fluoride as a bio-marker of urine fluoride exposure.  

 

From my memory, there are quite a few studies using fluoride urine concentration.  However, getting consistent results has had some problems.  For example, the fluoride concentration varies throughout the day.  Some kidneys can excrete fluoride better than others.  Just because a chemical in urine is low (mercury, fluoride, etc.) does not mean exposure is low.   And several other concerns.

 

However, the testing of fluoride in urine has become more standarized and more reliable.  Do we need more studies. . . always.  Never enough, but we do have enough to know from several streams of evidence (urine, serum, fluorosis, bone, pineal gland etc.) that many are ingesting TOO MUCH FLUORIDE. 

 

We have enough evidence now, and the new evidence is robust, that we must start to use caution and lower total exposure.   What are the best places to reduce exposure????   The main sources of fluoride are from fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste.  Topical from toothpaste has some benefit, increased fluoride in water has much less benefit.   The obvious answer is to give people freedom of choice and stop wasting money on fluoridation of public water.

 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

7,436 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

RossF – Thank you for your input.

 

You referenced a World Health Organization article, so I assume that you trust and accept other scientific conclusions supported and published by this organization. At least we have something in common – respect for the conclusions of a major health organization.

 

Read the 2015 World Health Organization report, Fluoride and Oral Health which presents an excellent summary of the scientific consensus regarding the benefits and risks of community water fluoridation (CWF).  If the anti-F opinions and alleged supporting “evidence” are even remotely legitimate, how do you explain the conclusions of this report?

 Relevant Conclusions:
—> “Fluoride is effective at controlling caries because it acts in several different ways. When present in dental plaque and saliva, it delays the demineralization and promotes the remineralization of incipient enamel lesions, a healing process before cavities become established. Fluoride also interferes with glycolysis, the process by which cariogenic bacteria metabolize sugars to produce acid. In higher concentrations, it has a bactericidal action on cariogenic and other bacteria. Studies suggest that, when fluoride is ingested during the period of tooth development, it makes teeth more resistant to subsequent caries development. Fluoridated water also has a significant topical effect in addition to its systemic effect (Hardwick et al., 1982). It is well known that salivary and plaque fluoride (F) concentrations are directly related to the F concentration in drinking water. This versatility of action adds to fluoride’s value in caries prevention. Aiding remineralization is likely to be fluoride’s most important action.” (p70)
—> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.” (p78)
—> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.” (p78)
—> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.” (p79)

 

Do you accept Bill Osmunson’s explanations of why the CDC, ADA and AAP accept the scientific consensus regarding CWF, and would you apply them to the authors of this report – and to members of the World Health Organization and the other science and health organizations referenced in previous comments who accept the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective?

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
7,427 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Quite a tirade. But I know of no fluoridation opponent who regards scientists as "fairweather friends." Nor do I know any who are saying "trust just me" while having plans to eat and kill people, instead of helping them have a clean bloodstream free of useless fluoride contamination.

Scientists are often right and are often wrong in data interpretation. The claim by Dean that in 21 cities the higher fluoride level, the lower the caries incidence did not pan out. It was mistaken. When all cities are examined there is no correlation between caries incidence and water fluoride all the way up to 6 ppm. There was no caries reduction capability for ingested fluoride . And this is fully consistent with recent data indicating that saliva fluoride is only 0.016 ppm, 96,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste, and with spectroscopic data indicating fluoride cannot penetrate into teeth enamel. 

Again, scientists in 1943 in the AMA were correct that fluoridation should not be instituted, and have been verified by scientists today. So what is the problem?  The problem is belief that the original correlation proved causation. It is a belief, not a fact and has been disproven.

Between fluoridation opposition and whole body fluoridation promotion, I know which one turned out to be a scam.  It is not anyone on either side's desire I am sure to harm patients, but nevertheless intentionally fluoridating blood is the unnatural action that harms.  Fluoridated bone is abnormal bone. Fluoridation is not physiologic, it is pathologic. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
7,239 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"I was conned by a powerful lobby.” - Richard G. Foulkes, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Calgary, AB and former Canadian fluoridationist  (1992)

 

The topic is fluoridation. No one is right about everything and everyone is limited to the information available to them at any given point in time - especially in the beginning of exploration of a topic. Heck, doctors used to recommend smoking and earned money advertising for various cigarette brands. My dad took up smoking because of his doctor's recommendation.

 

Over the decades, more and more well-educated experts looking at both the sum of research and the latest research available to them have determined that yes - fluoridation is a public harm policy that should stop.

 

Fluoridationists depend heavily on denigration & endorsement because fluoridation has been proven ineffective and dangerous. 

TobaccoAdPG.jpg

DentistsDoctors2.jpgDentistsDoctors1.jpgIQf.jpgDentalMentalDamage.jpg

6,903 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

CarryAnne,

 

You have made some excellent posts on this thread.  I would like to emphasize your comments on an article in Environmental Health Newshttps://www.ehn.org/we-add-it-to-drinking-water-for-our-teeth-but-is-fluoride-hurting-us-2611193177.... is powerful and has great quotes. The studies cited:

  1. Iodine deficient adults with higher urine levels of fluoride have a greater risk of hypothyroidism
  2. Pregnant women with higher urine fluoride levels give birth to children with higher ADHD rates (funded by NIH)
  3. Fluoride levels in pregnant women were almost twice as high in areas that had fluoridated water than in unfluoridated areas.

 

The lead author of the hypothyroidism study, Ashley Malin, said “I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure. And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years . . . Research is showing more and more that subclinical elevations are associated with bad health effects.”

 

The lead author of the ADHD study, Christine Till, said she is “certain the safety of fluoride ingestion has not been proven. The problem is that it’s an uncontrolled dose – everyone is exposed to different levels. It may be prudent for pregnant women to reduce ingesting fluoride during pregnancy.”

 

Dr. Manish Arora: “A question that is becoming increasingly important – is fluoridation of water supplies the best way to deliver the oral health benefits of fluoride? . . . now is the time to have the scientific debate.”

 

However, I don't know of any scientists at the CDC even considering the dosage or risks of fluoride.  The acting director has an MPH.   From my experience, my MPH degree simply gave me the authority to quote policy, certainly no authority to disagree.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH.   

 

7,450 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

370 Johy Yiamouyiannis - Aids - HIV doesn't Cause it.JPG

Dr. Sauerheber, Yiamouyiannis wrote a book claiming that a virus was not the cause of AIDS.   Individuals promoting ideas totally opposite to reality as he did disqualify themselves from serious consideration.   A copy of the book cover is attached.  It can still be purchased on Amazon.

0 Kudos
6,870 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Thanks Dr. Osmunson for the response regarding Dr. Yiamouyiannis. Yes scientists don't know everything and in fact allow personal bias and their own thoughts to affect understanding sometimes.  But such mistaken extrapolations do not negate what the scientists did that was correct, or the actual true data that were compiled. 

 

For example Einstein was correct about the photoelectric effect and other items, even though he committed the blunderous thought that absolute time could be slowed if someone were to move quickly. That mistake that has been disproven does not negate the correct work that he did.

Likewise, the incorrect thoughts Yiamouyiannis had about AIDS does not negate the data demonstrating that fluoridated water consumption has no signfricnat effect on tooth decay.  

 

People who are often wrong are sometimes correct, and mostly-correct careful people are sometimes wrong. The data are what count. His analysis of fluoridated vs nonfluoridated cities and dental decay were compelling--and agree with the large studies of Ziegelbecker; and Teotia; and the CA study. Small sample studies such as are typically done by fluoridation promoters are subject to large effects from altered diets, brushing habits, etc. They are not reliable and usually have mean differences that are a small effect size. Kumar for example tries to claim fluoridated water lowers tooth decay but the mean diffrerences tell the story. The effect size is less than 1, with the standard errors being larger than the mean difference. A scientist would conclude that there is no signficant effect, but a fluoridation promoter is not so careful and attempts to claim the difference is significant when, from the large studies we know, there is no effect in reality.   .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
7,215 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The fact that there are so many agencies that endorse fluoridation is being argued on this site as proof that fluoridation is good. This of course is absurd. It is a defense of the claim but contains no evidence proving it.   

Jumping on band wagons is as old as civilization itself and is very common in our society. For example many people support and belielve claims made by the White House, such as "Democrats organized the train of refugees to march toward the U.S." and that "Democrats want a wide open border" and that "there are Middle East terrorists and MC13 gang members in the train."  People actually believe what their leader or authority figure tells them. It was admitted that there is no proof of the terrorist claim, but neverthtless the claim was again made by rephrasing it as "there could be such individuals in the train".

 

What actually matters in the end is the truth, the facts that do not change. And