- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Invest, Diversify, Integrate Your Financial Life
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Dogs, Cats and Pets
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Love, Sex & Dating
- Our Front Porch
- Random Thoughts and Conversations
- Singles Perspective Revisited
- Comunidad Hispana de AARP
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Rewards for Good
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Good News
- Entertainment Archive
- Caregiving Forums
- Grief & Loss
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Re: Still unanswered questions from 08-21, 08-26, 08-30, 09-03, & 10-20
I have also answered most of your questions but you fail to read, or at least fail to respond to the answers. I understand there is a mountain of info here and I too am unable to devote full time to reading and responding. Perhaps if you picked one question, we could focus on one, but you would need to respond. I don't want to simply play intellectual exercises. I'm too busy.
If you get one question, it is fair that I should have one.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Still unanswered questions from 08-21, 08-26, 08-30, 09-03, & 10-20
I have been unable to find those specific answers. Provide links to those specific answers as I have done below (or simply copy/paste your answers), because unlike fluoridation opponents (FOs) and other anti-science activists I do not wish to quote you out of context or make unjustified, unsupported comments about your claims. I would like to see your specific answers to my specific numbered questions in your specific words – that way there will be no confusion or misunderstanding. If you do not understand a specific question I will try and clarify it for you. Some questions ask essentially the same thing in different ways – again, so there is no confusion about your answers.
Q1 – Please clarify your rather broad accusations – do you believe your description of CWF supporters as “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” is descriptive of all CWF supporters &/or those who do not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate or only the ADA, EPA and most dentists? The descriptions can be found in context here: (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) (07-25-2018 11:30 PM)
If your description is not inclusive of all CWF supporters, describe exactly which of the 100+ organizations and their members fall into which categories and why?
Q 2 – If your description above does not cover all CWF supporters then please explain why there continues to be support by all the major science and health organizations if any of the alleged “evidence” proved that CWF was harmful to health. Why would the majority of scientists, dentists, MDs and other professionals around the world continue to support a public health measure that obviously (according to your claims) caused the type and degree of harm to their patients and fellow citizens you and other FOs allege?
Q 3a – Do you accept that there is a 70+ year scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure? If not, please explain what the scientific consensus regarding CWF is and how it is determined.
Q 3b – If you don’t accept that there is a scientific consensus regarding fluoridation, please describe exactly what you would replace it with when deciding which mutually contradictory conclusions to believe regarding a complex scientific topic like pro- vs. anti-vaccination positions, for example.
The only “answer” of yours I could find was on (08-21-2018 01:14 PM) where you stated, “Consensus is a political construct that validates there are no substantial objections. There is and has always been substantial scientific objections to fluoridation. Therefore, there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety.”
That hardly answers my question – if there “is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety” regarding the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation then I ask yet again, how do you explain the FACT that the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF?
Q 4 – Why did you leave out the final two sentences in the US Public Health Service review you quoted on 09-13-2018 03:44 PM & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM which concluded, “Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations” and completely contradicted the point you were apparently trying to make in your quote. Unless you can provide another explanation, I will keep in in my list of examples of how anti-science activists deliberately distort evidence to try and scam the public.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf (P 162-163)
Q 5a – How do you explain the fact that, if the alleged evidence provided by FOs in these comments (and elsewhere) has been even remotely presented accurately, FOs have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years as evidenced by nearly universal support from the science and health communities? If you don’t believe there is such support, then provide specific, verifiable evidence that proves the majority of relevant experts actually agree with the anti-F opinions – all I have seen are quotes from some professionals and a list of .
Q 5b – If the evidence against CWF is legitimate, obvious and compelling, explain the fact that only about 6 alternative health organizations, 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (according to lists provided by you and BillO) plus other groups like INFOWARS (Alex Jones) and Natural News (Mike Adams) support the anti-F interpretations of that evidence.
Q 6 – If you mean what you said in your (10-22-2018 09:52 AM ) comment, “Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion” then please explain why you and other FOs go to extraordinary lengths to try and change public opinion instead of using what you believe to be legitimate, conclusive, obvious scientific evidence to change the majority consensus of relevant scientists and health care professionals.
The progress and knowledge gained in every field of science was made possible by challenging a current scientific consensus with new, legitimate evidence with conclusions different from the consensus. That legitimate evidence, if evaluated and tested by experts and found to be valid, eventually led to changes and advances in all areas of science and health care. The issue of CWF is no different – there has been no significant change in the consensus in over 70 years because the majority of relevant experts have found no legitimate evidence to abandon it.
As noted elsewhere, the conclusions of studies that show a possible suggestion of potential correlations between low levels of fluoride ions and some health issue do not evaluate or adequately consider relevant potential confounding factors (other potential reasons that can explain the possible correlation), and they do not provide sufficient evidence to change the expert consensus. Those study conclusions, however, are sufficient in many cases (particularly when the study limitations are ignored and health effects inflated) to create unwarranted fear and change public perceptions. Also, studies that confirm the effectiveness of fluoridated toothpaste, rinses and other fluoride treatments do not disprove the effectiveness of CWF as an effective public health measure for reducing the risk of dental decay in communities – particularly in those individuals who may not have access to good dental care.
Q 7 – Provide specific links to the comments where you claim I went “on and on about the legality of fluoridation”.
Your philosophical/moral bias is evident when you arbitrarily claim (08-21-2018 03:40 PM) that “even if fluoride did prevent cavities and did not cause dental fluorosis, fluoridation policy is still immoral medication“, and your statement highlights the importance of personal, non-scientific beliefs to anti-science activists when evaluating and interpreting the evidence. By your “logic” those who demand that drinking water chlorination be halted because chlorine has been used as an immoral chemical weapon (and creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts which have not been proven by randomized controlled trials to be completely safe) have a legitimate argument.
Q 8a – At what point with public health measures do you agree that benefits outweigh the risks, and what criteria do you employ to make your decisions? Do you use your personal opinions or the consensus of relevant science and health experts??
Q 8b – Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy could be legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral poisoning??
Q 8c – Do you believe that even if vaccination does help prevent diseases, vaccination policies could be legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral poisoning??
There are more specific questions that I would like to have your specific answers on, but this will do for now.
Bottom Line: So far, after over 70 years of effort, you and other FOs have been unsuccessful at changing the scientific consensus. Your only option then, is to carefully select and “adjust” the evidence so it is successful at scamming the public into fearing fluoridation and demanding fluoridation be halted. You just stated (10-23-2018 07:34 AM), that “Honest & intelligent people oppose fluoridation. Parry Sound, Ontario voted fluoridation out 2:1 this week.” That sounds suspiciously like a change made by public opinion instead of empirical data.
Unfortunately fear is an extremely strong motivating factor – Honest and intelligent people who are not scientists or health professionals and don’t understand the limitations and suggestions of weak possible correlations the actual empirical data, would have every reason to be scared to death if a group of vocal activists presented exaggerated claims as “scientific evidence” that “proved” CWF lowered IQ, caused cancer, thyroid problems, arthritis, diabetes ADD stained and brittle teeth, etc.
Three more quotes from FOs are not evidence of anything – that is precisely why understanding the scientific consensus is critical to understanding how best to interpret the existing body of evidence.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
"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.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
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.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
The idea that compromised immune system function by systemic fluoride might prevent resistance to AIDS and other infectious,diseases was his opinion. But im not talking about that. Im talking about the,data itself that clearty indicated, no significant effect of fluoridation on tooth decay in all age groups from children to the elderly.
His,expertise,was in epidemiology as a biochrmust. And the opinion he held btw,was based on the array of enzymes that are inhibited by fluoride at concentrations found in blood of 1 ppm fluoride,water consumers.
His work was confirmed by ziegelbecker and by teotia and teotia and also the study in CA of 39000 pchildten that cost 3.5 million in taxpayer money that found,ingesting fluoride water has no effect on dental decay.
This is also consistent with the biochemistry where fluoride cannot incorporate into enamel but can inhibit enzymes responsible for removing proteins in the developing stage of enamel formation.
Stubborn Fluoridationists Harangue & Harass - Smart Canadians Ignore Them
“I was speaking with a public health dentist on the phone about 10 years ago regarding fluoridation. He said, ‘we will promote fluoridation until a judge tells us otherwise.’ I asked about scientific evidence. He responded, 'I don't care about science and I don't care if it is right or wrong, I only care if a judge tells me the policy is wrong.'"- Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2018)
“When I tried to raise the issue with the Australian Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and in integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers….” - Dr. Andrew Harms, BDS, former fluoridation promoter and former President of the South Australian division of the Australian Dental Association (2013)
"It is my best judgement, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation is invalid in theory and ineffective in practice as a preventive of dental caries. It is dangerous to the health of consumers.” - Dr John Colquhoun, former chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand (1993)
I read everything. I answered all of the fluoride proponents questions multiple times here and elsewhere already. Their goal is to bury science and rational answers in order to discourage new readership of this thread and intimidate the uneducated into silence.
All three ot those quoted above promoted fluoridation until they actually did their homework. John Colquhoun was the leading dental officer for the country of New Zealand. His experience makes fascinating reading. http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm
Honest & intelligent people oppose fluoridation. Just north of us, Parry Sound, Ontario voted fluoridation out 2:1 this week. Vive le Canada! However, fluoridationists will continue to do what they do motivated by power, prestige and paychecks.
Re: Specious Comments and Unanswered Questions
Dr. Y is well representative of the "experts" who believe the water fluoridation is neither beneficial nor safe.
Re: Specious Comments and Unanswered Questions
"relevant experts" mentioned here are those who do not opppose fluoridation.
This ignores experts who oppose fluoridation including John Yiamouyiannis (Fluordie the Aging Factor); Ziegelbecker;Teotia and Teotia;Sutton; and others who found that fluoridated wter is useless in reducing caries and instead is most efficient at causing abnormal fluorotic teeth enamel in children.
This also ignores experts who found that water fluoridation harms consumers, elevating TSH, PTH and calcitonin, and converts normal bone into fluoroapatite (published by the NRC committee 2006), and as published in many studies lowers IQ.
As far as answering the ludicrous question of how could so many experts and agencies be deceived? You fail to recognize the power of false correlation. If you want to get a glimpse of how so many have been deceived since 1945 read Bryson, C. The Fluoride Deception. This is a chronicle of what took place to attempt to prove ingested fluoride is useful, as reported by this news reporter.
Specious Comments and Unanswered Questions
CarryAnne – Your Thomas Sheridan quote (10-22-2018 03:50 PM) would only make sense if the body of scientific evidence actually supported the opinions of fluoridation opponents (FOs) that community water fluoridation (CWF) was ineffective and harmful. If that were reality, however, the consensus would change.
The reality, as described repeatedly, is exactly the opposite. The majority of relevant experts have concluded (for over 70 years) that CWF is a safe and effective measure to protect the health of citizens by reducing dental decay in communities. Because of that scientific consensus, virtually all major science and health organizations publically recognize the benefits of CWF. I have asked you (several times without success) to explain this fact.
I have also asked you to explain the fact that only about 6 alternative health organizations, 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (according to lists provided by you and BillO) plus other groups like INFOWARS (Alex Jones) and Natural News (Mike Adams) support the anti-F interpretations of the evidence. A more accurate rendering of the quote based on current accepted science would be, “FOs have no conscience, no compassion about the people who at an increased risk of dental decay in communities with low levels of fluoride ions and poor diets and poor dental care, and they have no social responsibility.”
You have a remarkable ability to twist reality. You claim “Randy and his troop of propagandists were going on and on about the legality of fluoridation.” Did you even look at the comments which address the ”legality of fluoridation”? Virtually every comment over the past couple of months about the ”legality of fluoridation” was posted by FOs (mostly rs5526 and BillO) trying to make the case that fluoridation is illegal. My focus is on the scientific consensus – any legal rulings should be based on that consensus.
If you mean what you say in your (10-22-2018 09:52 AM ) comment, “Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion” then please explain why you and other FOs go to extraordinary lengths to try and change public opinion instead of using what you believe to be legitimate, conclusive, obvious scientific evidence to change the majority consensus of relevant scientists and health care professionals. So far, after over 70 years of effort, you and other FOs have been unsuccessful. Your only option then, is to select and “adjust” the evidence so it is successful at scamming the public into fearing fluoridation and demanding fluoridation be halted.
You still have not answered my specific questions.
Re: FOs Equate Abortion With Fluoridation - Really?
The point is that laws have changed for many issues, only one being fluoridation.
And the statement posted here by this fluoridation promoter is correct:
"The “legal rulings” you seem to be focused on are not a scientific consensus, and may not reflect the scientific consensus at all."
That is true. The legal ruling of the appealed case in Escondido that allowed fluoridation, and overturned the earlier ruling by the judge, does not reflect scientific consensus at all. A scientist knows full well that adding industrial fluoride into drinkng water alters the bodily chemistry of the consumer. It not only elevates the incidence of dental fluorosis abnormality but also causes incorporation of fluoride into bone to thousands of ppm over decades consuming it, causing formation of bone of poor quality and altered crystal structure. So when the case was ruled to alter body chemistry, it was correct. But when fluoridationists appealed the case and the judge then overturned the earlier ruling, that ruling was incorrect and certainly has nothing to do with scientific consensus.
- healthy brain
- AARP Global Council on …
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Brain booster
- brain food
- brain health experts
- Clean water
- Corrupt Law Enforcement
- dental costs
- dental fraud
- dental health
- Diet and memory