Explore the possibilities of part-time work! Register today for AARP's online career expo Jan. 24.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
376
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

376 Views
Message 41 of 950

I don't have a problem with the studiy. It is what it is. My conclusion is justified.

The point I made about IQ is that fluoridationists are so busy trying to prove a useless substance effective that they have little time to consider its chronic toxicity.

Ive seen many effectiveness studies by kiumar but little from him of chronic toxicity studies to justify the fluoridation of people he, so widely defends. 

Bone fluoridation is not harmless.

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
376
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
372
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

372 Views
Message 42 of 950

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed ten comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
372
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
346
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

346 Views
Message 43 of 950

Dr. Sauerheber,

 

I love how you just say things without presenting a shread of evidence to support your claims.  This for example:  " . . people with fluorotic spots on teeth usually brush their teeth more rigorously and thoroughly than those who do not have fluorosis. Thiis is a common finding . . . "

Well, you said it so it must be true.  That's good enough for me.

 

Why am I not shocked that you have problems with the Kumar Study.  But this was the unexpected part that I liked the best which perfectly demonstrates the odd lengths you will go to for some kind of argument that supports your viewpoint:

"And by the way no discussion is made of the overall health, bone strength, IQ, thyroid status, etc. of these individuals."

 

Yes, that is a great observation, because as everyone knows when studies were conducted that proved Asbestos leads to Lung Cancer, the first thing they checked was bone strength and the IQs of the subjects.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
346
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
336
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

336 Views
Message 44 of 950

I accept studies that present good data. I reject those that don't. So what?

Another fact that dentists seem to not consider is that people with fluorotic spots on teeth usually brush their teeth more rigorously and thoroughly than those who do not have fluorosis. Thiis is a common finding since people can mistakenly think that it was poor dental care that led to the spots in the first place, or that if better care were used perhaps the teeth would be improved or at least will not worsen in structure. So the study you presented, where fluorotic teeth had a lower average caries incidence than nonfluorotic (but with error bars that overlap) is also degraded because brushing habits and diet do affect caries incidence. It is not the fluorosis, but the brushing habits and frequency of consuming sugars, etc. that actually affect caries incidence. Neither of these were controlled. or are controllable since humans cannot be caged like animals to conrol these variables. Animals have so been examined in perfectly controlled experiments, and fluorosis does not lower caries incidence. Fluoridated water is useles in fighting caries. It is great at causing bone fluorosis. One need not be a scientist to understand..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
336
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
331
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

331 Views
Message 45 of 950

  Yes I'm happy to be an actual scientist. And I can tell you that the biased views of fluoridation promoters cause gross misinterpretation of data. The study you cited is one I've looked over before and it proves nothing. The confidence intervals for caries incidence in the fluorotic and nonfluorotic molars grossly overlap. The lower end of the interval for the nonfluorotic is 0.74 and the uper interval end for the fluorotic is 0.89. The profluoride ingestion comments are therefore insignificant. As always.

  And by the way no discussion is made of the overall health, bone strength, IQ, thyroid status, etc. of these individuals. Of course, because of the pre-occupation of those who agree with fluoridation to convince others that fluoridation works.  It does not work, nevr has,and neer will. Fluorosis develops in childhood from the blood-borne ion interfering with normal enamel formation. Normal enamel is devoid of fluoride, which is a contaminant of the bloodstream. It is entirely possible that fluoridationists might never understand this. A total mess.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
331
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
343
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

343 Views
Message 46 of 950

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed six comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
343
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
314
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

314 Views
Message 47 of 950

Richard,

 

"CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

 

No doubt you won't accept this study, you will have some problem with it, because it contradicts your pre-established bias.  Some scientist.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
314
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
307
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

307 Views
Message 48 of 950

Bill O.  Thank you for your condescing remarks.  Did it ever occur to you that you might be the one who needs to slow down and think?  Go back, re-read my comment stating what it actually says on a tube of Crest toothpaste, why it would say that, and what it means.  

 

Then before you act on your knee-jerk reaction to prove me wrong, reflect.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
307
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
312
Views

IRe: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

312 Views
Message 49 of 950

The insanity is mind boggling. Promote dental fluorosis thin enamel, to attempt to fght dental caries, when enamel is what protects underlying dentin ftom caries in the first place.

A cavity is the destruction of enamel by bacterial acid. Enamel does not cause a cavity. It is the absence of enamel that is a cavity.

So absence if fluoride doesn't cause a cavity. It is not brushing after eating sugar that does. This is,ancient news.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
312
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
309
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

309 Views
Message 50 of 950

David,

 

You are so obsessed with proving me wrong, you don't read carefully.  

 

Please, slow down.  Think.  If your Crest toothpaste does not say, "Do Not Swallow" then I'll buy it from you.  Read it again.

 

Yes, the FDA permits variable wording, such as  "If more than the intended amount used for brushing is accidentally swallowed . . "  More than the intended amount, which is a pea-sized drop.  

 

Now THINK, David.   The amount used for brushing is a different concept than "Do Not Swallow."  Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  The reason for a small amount is so that if the person swallows, it will not be so much.  

 

Would you agree, neither Crest nor the FDA suggest it is safe to swallow toothpaste?  No.  I think we agree.  

 

Now take the next step in reasoning.  How much fluoride is in a pea size of toothpaste?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
309
Views