10 things you need to know before voting in the midterm election. Find out more.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
271
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

271 Views
Message 31 of 598

“Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems…. Post menopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at risk of fractures.” United States Public Health Service Report (ATSDR TP-91/17,  Sec.2.7, April 1993)  

 

Fluoridationists have been organized and trained by marketing gurus to frame the conversations around teeth or whatever minor or discredited piece of science that can create doubt. However, the fact of the matter is the weight of the scientific evidence supported by testimony of seniors as well as evolving medical opinion is that fluoridation is an immoral medical mandate that causes disease, disability and even death in millions of consumers.  

 

Pew2slides.jpg2012 training for social media trolls

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
271
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
285
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

285 Views
Message 32 of 598

Hi William,

 

Do this for me and I will answer your points below.

 

Please address the findings of the National Toxicolgy Program's Report "An Evaluation of Neurotoxicity Following Fluoride Exposure from Gestational Through Adult Ages in Long-Evans Hooded Rats".  You were ecstatic when the NTP agreed to study fluoride intakes at 0ppm fluoride in water, 10ppm (equivalent to 0.7ppm of fluoride in community water fluoridation), and 20ppm fluoride in water (equivalent to the EPA's MCL of 4mg/L [ppm]).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12640-018-9870-x

 

 

They found “no exposure-related differences in motor, sensory, or learning and memory performance” for any of the nine different tests they conducted.

 

Nor were thyroid hormone levels were affected.

 

No IQ changes, organ changes, and no brain cell death.

 

Since this study has come out, there has been no mention of it by you or FAN.  Why is that?

 

Warmly,

 

Johnny

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
285
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
285
Views

Re: IAOMT deceptive Position Statement on Water Fluoridation

285 Views
Message 33 of 598

Dr. Osmunson – Your grumbling about perceived slander or defamation is a good opportunity to revisit the questions I have been asking for several weeks now (without answer) about your slanderous accusations of the CDC, ADA and AAP on 7-9-2018: “CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.” and “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the publicThey are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust.” and “I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation.”

 

You must know that those three organizations are a small fraction of the well over 100 recognized and respected (except by anti-science activists) science and health organizations (and their hundreds of thousands of representatives) that continue to publically recognize the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation for protecting public health. These organizations include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American  Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), and so on…

 

Q1) I will ask you again – do you also claim that, because all these organizations and their members accept the scientific consensus of relevant experts that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure, “They do not protect the public?”  Do you also claim that all these organizations and their members “are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists”?

 

Q2) I ask you again to explain how you can possibly claim, “Yes, they [any of the organizations and their members you recognize as’ lemmings’] are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation”  All of these educated, experienced professionals (many with patients who drink optimally fluoridated water) who are “best in their field” will have training on evaluating evidence, they will have better access to and understanding of the scientific literature on fluoridation than the general public, they will hear the anti-F accusations continually, and they will evaluate it long enough to recognize the anti-science distortions of that evidence. I am not a health professional, but I can recognize the way fluoridation opponents have distorted and reinterpreted their alleged “evidence” for presentation to the public after it has been thoroughly rejected by the relevant scientific/health communities.

 

Q3) I ask you again to explain why only a small group of outlier, alternative health organizations support the anti-F opinions – in contrast to all major science and health organizations (and their members) that either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not made public statements that CWF is a harmful public health measure.  Do you really believe the opinions accepted as gospel by the 13 alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations you listed as opposing CWF constitutes or defines a scientific consensus?  By the way, you might want to add two additional anti-F organizations to your list, INFOWARS: Alex Jones, "I grew up in Dallas, Texas, drinking sodium fluoridated water. All the scientific studies show my IQ has been reduced by at least 20 points." and Natural News: Mike Adams

 

Q4) I ask you again to explain your understanding of the scientific consensus as it relates to fluoridation and other conclusions made about safe and effective health initiatives.  If you dismiss the concept of scientific consensus, explain what you accept to replace generally agreed upon conclusions about a scientific issue.  Two examples:
~> Do you accept the scientific consensus that vaccinations are safe and effective? 
~> Do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of drinking water disinfection outweigh the risks of the created disinfection byproducts?

 

Actually, challenging the current Scientific Consensus (or Expert Consensus) with new, legitimate evidence is a critical element of the scientific method.  If fluoridation opponents had legitimate scientific evidence to support their opinions, the consensus would change.

Ethan Siegel: What Does 'Scientific Consensus' Mean?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/06/24/what-does-scientific-consensus-mean 

Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxyQNEVOElU

https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ted-naomi-oreskes-why-we-should-trust-scientists/

 

The entire agenda of anti-science activists (ASAs) is to propagate distrust of mainstream science  and promote their outlier agendas to the general public bypassing the processes of science.

 

Q5) What is your professional evaluation of the reviews and studies published since 2000 that have unanimously concluded that community water fluoridation reduces dental decay?  None of these reviews reported any health risks from drinking optimally fluoridated water, only an increased risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis.  The reviews/studies include:
the 2018 National Toxicity Program fluoride study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815826/
the 2018 study, Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents;
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022034518774331
the 2018 Water Fluoridation Health Monitoring Report for England;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-fluoridation-health-monitoring-report-for-england-2...
the 2018 study, Contemporary evidence on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of childhood caries – Australia;
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdoe.12384
the 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report;
https://www.fsai.ie/news_centre/tds_fluoride_30042018.html
the 2018 CDC Statement on the Evidence Supporting the Safety and Effectiveness of Community Water Fluoridation

https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/guidelines/cdc-statement-on-community-water-fluoridation.html

the 2017 Swedish report, Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water;
https://www.ifau.se/globalassets/pdf/se/2017/wp2017-20-the-effects-of-fluoride-in-the-drinking-water...
the 2017 National Health and Medical Research Council 2017 Public Statement – Water Fluoridation and Human Health in Australia;
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e44-0
The 2017 EPA Response:  Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water; TSCA Section 21 Petition
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/27/2017-03829/fluoride-chemicals-in-drinking-water...

the 2017 history of public health use of fluorides in caries prevention

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5329778/

the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health;
http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/fluroide-oral-health/en/
the 2016 (update) Best Practice Approach - Community Water Fluoridation -  Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors

https://www.astdd.org/bestpractices/BPAFluoridation.pdf

the 2016 systematic review of published studies:  Does cessation of community water fluoridation lead to an increase in tooth decay?

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/9/934

the 2015 Manual of Dental Practices, Council of European Dentists;
https://cedentists.eu/library/eu-manual.html
the 2015 U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries;  Demonstrates how the scientific consensus changes based on legitimate evidence – not fearmongering.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547570/
the 2015 Cochrane Water Fluoridation Review;
https://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay
the 2015  Health Effects of water Fluoridation - An Evidence Review.  Ireland Health Research Board

http://www.hrb.ie/fileadmin/publications_files/Health_Effects_of_Water_Fluoridation.pdf

the 2014 AAP Clinical Report: Fluoride Use in Caries Prevention in the Primary Care Setting
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/3/626

the 2014 Royal Society of New Zealand, Health effects of water fluoridation;
http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Health-effects-of-water-fluoridation-Aug2014.pdf
the 2013 Congressional Research Service, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues;
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33280.pdf
the 2013 Community Guide Systematic Review, Dental Caries (Cavities): Community Water Fluoridation

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/dental-caries-cavities-community-water-fluoridation

The 2011 SCHER Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water:
https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf
the 2011 Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document – Fluoride

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidelines-canadian-drin...

the 2007 Dutch Ministry of Health and Welfare and Sports:  Economic evaluation of prevention: further evidence, GA de Wit;
https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/270091004.pdf
the 2006 Australian NHMRC systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18584000

the 2000 York, Systematic review of water fluoridation;
https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855.full.print
the 2000 Community Preventive Services Task Force, Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation
https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/Oral-Health-Fluoridation-Archive.pdf

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
285
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
268
Views

Re: IAOMT deceptive Position Statement on Water Fluoridation

268 Views
Message 34 of 598

Johnny,

 

Do not continue to slander or defame me.  You don't know what you are talking about, i.e. Potsdam.  Call me, email me, but don't make claims about people you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

You have made serious public allegations that I am doing malpractice, yet you have never seen my patients or my work (that I know of).  You have not talked to me.   Without talking to me you publicly defame me.  Very unprofessional, Johnny.  Are you a currently practicing dentist and in what state?  What is your license number?  How many adult patients have you diagnosed with dental fluorosis.

 

Failure to diagnose is malpractice.  According to NHANES 2011-2012, we dentists should have over half of our adolescents documented in their charts with dental fluorosis and a third of young adults.  If not, we are failing to diagnose pathology.  Yes, I diagnose dental fluorosis daily and document.

 

Second, the slides of treated dental fluorosis are not my patients and I did not treat them and have never met them.  You accused me in public of malpractice on patients not of record and I have never seen.  Very unprofessional.  Are you or I or any clinician responsible for patient treatment you or I have never seen?  Of course not.

 

The work in those photos was exceptional from my friends and mentors and I respect their work and they gave me permission to use their pictures. Cosmetic dentistry is not malpractice.  If a patient is not satisfied with other forms of treatment, or the patient wants the best, porcelain is an accepted option.  Treatment of dental fluorosis is happening and is ethical.  Clearly, you are not a general or cosmetic dentist.  

 

Goodness sakes, Johnny, people request all kinds of cosmetic surgery and with informed consent, cosmetic dentistry is not malpractice. . . but forced medication without consent is, i.e. fluoridation.

 

Now specific to your post on sealants.  You tell me the diagnosis of those bombed out teeth?  What is the diagnosis, cavitated lesions, caries, decay, fluorosis?  No dentist in their right mind would put sealants on those teeth instead of fillings, unless they liked endodontics.  With sealants and a typical American sugar diet, I would give those teeth 2 to 4 years before one would hurt.   No dental board would accept sealants over those seriously bombed out cavitated teeth.  No dental school would accept a sealant over those two teeth I showed in my presentation.  My dental school did not permit sealants over deep caries.  Does yours?

 

Please send reference of the evidence-based research which shows sealants arrest huge caries like the ones shown in the pictures of my presentation.   RCT studies expected.

 

I question whether you are actually an active practicing dentist or been up at night with emergency patients in pain because some dentist experimented with a sealant over caries and the tooth now needs an endo.   Seen too many failed sealants, and yes, I agree with sealants.  But not for teeth like that.  Sealants may temporarily slow down caries, but not long term.  Sealants prevent caries, and not long term arresting of bombed out carious teeth.  

 

Research please, to back up your claim those teeth I showed would have had long term success with sealants. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
268
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
309
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

309 Views
Message 35 of 598

Johnny,

 

Do not continue to slander or defame me.  You don't know what you are talking about, i.e. Potsdam.  Call me, email me, but don't make claims about people you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

You have made serious public allegations that I am doing malpractice, yet you have never seen my patients or my work (that I know of).  You have not talked to me.   Without talking to me you publicly defame me.  Very unprofessional, Johnny.  Are you a currently practicing dentist and in what state?  What is your license number?  How many adult patients have you diagnosed with dental fluorosis.

 

Failure to diagnose is malpractice.  According to NHANES 2011-2012, we dentists should have over half of our adolescents documented in their charts with dental fluorosis and a third of young adults.  If not, we are failing to diagnose pathology.  Yes, I diagnose dental fluorosis daily and document.

 

Second, the slides of treated dental fluorosis are not my patients and I did not treat them and have never met them.  You accused me in public of malpractice on patients not of record and I have never seen.  Very unprofessional.  Are you or I or any clinician responsible for patient treatment you or I have never seen?  Of course not.

 

The work in those photos was exceptional from my friends and mentors and I respect their work and they gave me permission to use their pictures. Cosmetic dentistry is not malpractice.  If a patient is not satisfied with other forms of treatment, or the patient wants the best, porcelain is an accepted option.  Treatment of dental fluorosis is happening and is ethical.  Clearly, you are not a general or cosmetic dentist.  

 

Goodness sakes, Johnny, people request all kinds of cosmetic surgery and with informed consent, cosmetic dentistry is not malpractice. . . but forced medication without consent is, i.e. fluoridation.

 

Now specific to your post on sealants.  You tell me the diagnosis of those bombed out teeth?  What is the diagnosis, cavitated lesions, caries, decay, fluorosis?  No dentist in their right mind would put sealants on those teeth instead of fillings, unless they liked endodontics.  With sealants and a typical American sugar diet, I would give those teeth 2 to 4 years before one would hurt.   No dental board would accept sealants over those seriously bombed out cavitated teeth.  No dental school would accept a sealant over those two teeth I showed in my presentation.  My dental school did not permit sealants over deep caries.  Does yours?

 

Please send reference of the evidence-based research which shows sealants arrest huge caries like the ones shown in the pictures of my presentation.   RCT studies expected.

 

I question whether you are actually an active practicing dentist or been up at night with emergency patients in pain because some dentist experimented with a sealant over caries and the tooth now needs an endo.   Seen too many failed sealants, and yes, I agree with sealants.  But not for teeth like that.  Sealants may temporarily slow down caries, but not long term.  Sealants prevent caries, and not long term arresting of bombed out carious teeth.  

 

Research please, to back up your claim those teeth I showed would have had long term success with sealants. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
309
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
309
Views

Re: IAOMT deceptive Position Statement on Water Fluoridation

309 Views
Message 36 of 598

William,

 

Explain to me why you chose to ignore accepted evidence-based research which shows that if a lesion is not cavitated (without pushing an explorer into the lesion) that a sealant should be placed over the occlusal crevices?  Your “bombs” that you showed in Potsdam, NY are an example not of an indictment of water fluoridation, but instead of a situation where a clinician is failing to follow accepted dental therapeutics?

 

yours,

 

johnny

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
309
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
303
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

303 Views
Message 37 of 598

The U.S. EPA correctly lists fluoride in water as a contaminant that must be regulated.  At 4 ppm fluoride (naturally present as a contaminant in water) consumption is prohibited by the EPA because doing so chronically causes severe skeletal fluorosis. For water at 2 ppm the EPA requires warnings to be issued not to drink, where it is clear that doing so chronically during childhood causes severe dental enamel fluorosis (hypoplasia).  

 

But what fluoridation promoters fail to grasp is that the EPA does not regulate intentional infusion of industrial fluorides into water (artificial water fluoridation), where the EPA Office of Water writes that this is the purview of the U.S. FDA because it is an attempt to use fluoride as an ingestible, to treat human tissue. So the EPA does not examine the long term effects of consuming water with artificially added fluoride at 1 ppm (or at 0.7 ppm).  These effects are not known with certainty to the EPA, and the EPA does not attempt to discover them either.

 

So what must be emphasized is that fluoride assimilation causes permanent accumulation of fluoride into bone where it is a contaminant that alters the crystal structure of bone in a pathological process. it is not biochemicallay reversible. Assimilatled fluoride is thus a cumulative poison. This means that the high stage bone fluorosis (usually with severe bone pain and bones being more subject to fracture) that is caused over several decades of drinking 4 ppm fluoride water can also be achieved by consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water by those consumers who happen to live long enough to accumulale fluoride to the bone level that 4 ppm water produces in decades.

 

So it must not be claimed that consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water is safe and harmless, even while assimilatling the fluoride for one's entire lifetime and for the life of their descendants in all perpetuity. Although this positiojn is posited by fluoridation advocates, it is false because, as stated, fluoride is a cumulative poison.

Pre-clinical, symptom-less bone fluorosis actually begins with the first sip of fluoridated water. This is because there is no concentration of blood fluoride that is low enough such that ALL fluoride is eliminated into the urine before ANY fluoride accumulates into bone. The concentrated calcium in bone hydroxyapatite strongly electrostatically attracts systemic fluoride ion. There is no escape that would allow anyone to claim that ingesting fluoridated water is harmless during liefelong continuous drinking. The claim is simply absurd. The FDA is also correct in its assessment ruling that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods and that fluoride ingestion has never been FDA approved.

The fact that easily noticed symptoms may be absent after long term fluoridated water consumption in many people does not mean it is "harmless" during lifelong consumption.

Understand?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
303
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
311
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

311 Views
Message 38 of 598

David,

 

Not all schools are the same and knowing where a person received their degrees can be helpful.  Those from Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and other Ivy league schools tend to do it more.  I sometimes list the school where I went to because we have our strengths in public health, international and areas of prevention.

 

However, we should probably more often or always list the schools we went.

 

By the way, did you receive your degree from Trump University?  Just kidding.  You can take a joke, right?

 

Bill  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
311
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
300
Views

Re: IAOMT deceptive Position Statement on Water Fluoridation

300 Views
Message 39 of 598

David,

 

You are correct, I miswrote.  The IAOMT is not THE primary evidence.  It is a compilation of primary evidence studies, some stronger and some weaker studies.  However, adequate to raise serious concerns.   (A list of primary references)

 

Now, go to those you rely on for your opinion, those who endorse fluoridation.  What is the primary sources they provide?  What is the list of primary references?   Mostly other opinions of like minded believers, reviews, committees of like minded believers and little primary evidence.  

 

And the NRC 2006 is another example of primary references.    ( A list of primary references)

 

In each of those, you will find some studies stronger and some weaker.  But the trend is serious concerns with over exposure.

 

Too much fluoride can be a serious risk.  We now have 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.(NHANES 2011)

 

David, we must weigh the research and use the same critical thinking for benefit.

 

You do not appear to accept any risk from excess fluoride because there are no RCTs, which are not ethical.

However, you accept weak studies on benefit and there are no RCT's but could be done.

And you accept weak studies on benefit which the FDA have ruled are "incomplete."

 

Strikes me as a double standard protecting your bias, based on endorsements of others supporting their positions.

 

We really do need to look at the studies on neurotoxicity.

 

Bill

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
300
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
475
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

475 Views
Message 40 of 598

Two that come to mind, where work was done at two institutions that was go at published when they were paid.by the second institution.

Im sure it happens when work spans a transfer between labs. 

 

But the questions I asked remain unanswered. Why for one is a person "fringe" for being the first to discover something?

 

Why should someone get no health treatment from a professional who happens to misunderstand one item while understanding other items well?

 

What gives a person a right to label someone as not opposing fluoridation simply because he does not conjoin FAN (even to the tune of a presumed seven million)? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
475
Views