Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
594
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

594 Views
Message 541 of 1,448

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
594
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
582
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

582 Views
Message 542 of 1,448

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
1
Kudos
582
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
563
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

563 Views
Message 543 of 1,448

  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
1
Kudos
563
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
577
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

577 Views
Message 544 of 1,448

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
577
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
550
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

550 Views
Message 545 of 1,448

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
550
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
542
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

542 Views
Message 546 of 1,448

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
542
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
557
Views

IRe: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

557 Views
Message 547 of 1,448

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
557
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
555
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

555 Views
Message 548 of 1,448

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
1
Kudos
555
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
538
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

538 Views
Message 549 of 1,448

How convoluted can one person be? Here we have a fluoridation advocate blaming toothpaste for dental  fluorosis, but who then admits that "mild fluorosis" is caused by water fluoridation without toothpaste. What?  Both toothpaste and fluoridated water contribute together to cause the current fluorosis endemic. That is precisely what I have been saying all along.  And that is precisely why you cannot sue and win against a water district because they will say the straw that broke the camel's back was toothpaste which came later (as this person here claims). While toothpaste people continue to sell their wares by assuming as long as you don't intentionally or accidentally swallow it, then water fluoridation is the main culprit. Again, they are both contributors, and it's mainly water, as published by the NRC. The toothpaste people are correct. Why argue with the exposure data the NRC tabulated and published? Original studies by Ziegelbecker indicate that fluoride in drinkng water causes dental fluorosis which increases progressively as the fluoride a concentration in water increases. Even fluoridationists accept that all fluoridated cities have increased incidence of dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia. There are no exceptions.

And the data on fluorotic teeth and caries are dismal. The notion that they have fewer caries is ludicrous because the studies published are limited, and the means have standard devations that always overlap. There is no significnat decrease in caries due to fluorotic enamel hypoplasia (as one would expect with thinned enamel.) This is a waste of time since we've gone over this stuff over and over.It's a joke.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
538
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
544
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

544 Views
Message 550 of 1,448

Allow me to illustrate the type of deceptive behavior that anti-fluoridation folks employ.  In another thread on this AARP website I asked your own Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

 

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

 

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

 

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

 

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
544
Views