Reply
Highlighted
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1164
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,164 Views
Message 621 of 1,450
I have not followed the thread re the embarrassment but both of your assertions here are false.

Fluoride exposure from the concentration of water fluoridation decreases the risk of fracture. This is one of the few times that harm of any degree is reliably disproven for community water fluoridation because it has been shown that low fluoride and high fluoride in drinking water are both harmful; the best skeletal health is associated with optimized drinking water fluoride.

see:
J Bone Miner Res. 2001 May;16(5):932-9. Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. Li Y, et al; Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, California 92350, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11341339

The enamel fluorosis which can reasonably be attributed to community water fluoridation is almost all mild and less in degree. Teeth with all degrees of enamel fluorosis have fewer cavities than those without. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, this effect is considered by many to not even be undesirable, much less harmful as you believe.

see:
J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):855-62. The association between enamel fluorosis and dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren. Iida H, Kumar JV. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

Further analysis of the effect of enamel fluorosis and cavities on objective measures quality of life show that cavities severely harm the quality of life yet even severe fluorosis which is never due to community water fluoridation carries no harm to quality of life assessments.

see: J Dent Res. 2014 Oct;93(10):972-9. U Onoriobe, et al

and

Risk of Fluorosis in a Fluoridated Population. David G. Pendrys, The Journal of the American Dental Association 12/01/95 (126)1617-1624 http://jada.ada.org/content/126/12/1617.abstract

C. Haynie, M.D.; FACS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1164
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1132
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,132 Views
Message 622 of 1,450

Ha Ha. Very funny.

Statements of facts are not embarrasing.

And yes people have been harmed drinking fluoridated water. We've already gone over that. Altering the structure of bone is harm. Dental fluorosis is harm.

I think someone else needs some rest, not me.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1132
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
849
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

849 Views
Message 623 of 1,450

Richard Sauerheber, get some rest.  You are embarrassing yourself.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
849
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
836
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

836 Views
Message 624 of 1,450

Dr. Bill, your comment:  "And the next post was EPA legal counsel place responsibility for the addition of fluoride on the FDA."

 

Response:  I don't know what that means or how it is relevant.

 

Your comment:  "You don't acknowledge when you are wrong.  You have no intent to learn, just argue."

 

Response:  For some reason, you seem to believe you have a monopoly on knowledge.  You are condescending in your remarks.  You refuse to admit the reality that no Federal Agencey (and we know what this means) considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.  You are straining to make an argument against the face of reality.  Please, open your mind and get real.

 

Your comment:  "You were clear, Federal Agency and did not specify USA.  I'm not a mind reader.  Comments were specific and then you made a broad generalizing comment which was blatently wrong, and you know it.:

 

Response:  Dr. Bill, I have, in previous comments used the phrase "U.S. Federal Agency."  That is just a fact, and you are free to re-read my unedited comments to verify that fact.  You are harping on one instance in which I did not include the adjective "U.S."  That is pathetic, in the context of this discussion, in which no foreign entities have been mentioned, you are claiming that you believe the nation of Japan is a Federal Agency and that you are not a mind reader - How could you have known that I didn't mean "Japan" when I requested a Federal Agency that didn't consider optimally fluoridated water a "drug?"  

You accuse me of being "trump-like?"  There is no way, in the context of this discussion, that you could have interpreted my request for an example of a "Federal Agency" as meaning a foreign country.  And now, you are playing the victim who is "not a mind reader."  Pathetic.  Who are you trying to fool?

 

Your comment:  "Now, give me one agency which acknowledges they have responsibility for determining the dosage, safety at that dosage and efficacy at that dosage? None exist, so you will remain silent again."

 

Response:  Sure, I'll give you two.  1.)  The EPA has set the Maximum Contaminant Level for Fluoride in drinking water at 4 parts per million.  If any person were ever to have been harmed because they drank water with 0.7 ppm F (the optimal level - i.e., water fluoridation) the EPA itself would be responsible for that harm.  No question about it.  But there has never been even one authenticated, documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed by drinking water with 0.7 ppm F. 

 

2.)  States.  In my state, The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality oversees and enforces strict guidelines for Community Water Fluoridation.  If a local municipality were to "overdose" its citizens with fluoride, a few things would happen.  First, the MDEQ would have to be notified . . It then would oversee proceedures for informing citizens and flushing water mains.  It would be illegal, per the SDWA, for citizens not to be notified.  This is in the SDWA.  Don't you know that?  

 

If any person was harmed, that municipality would be liable.  If negligence was found to be the cause, the guilty party would be held accountable.

 

Do you imagine this is just a Helter Skelter setup with no one in charge?  Because that's the picture you're trying to paint.  That's why I say you are "deceptive," to say the least.

 

Your quote:  "Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence of safety, dosage, efficacy, not mine (the patient)"

Response:  Your comment implies that optimally fluoridated water is a "drug."  That's what you're saying.  You are being deceptive.  In fact you are lying.  In the United States of America, where this discussion is taking place, optimally fluoridated water is not considered a "drug," a "medicine" or anything that would prompt you to claim to be a "patient."  There is no reason for you to call yourself a "patient" because you drink optimally fluoridated water, other than your ambition to generate paranoia about safe tap water.  

 

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
836
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
835
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

835 Views
Message 625 of 1,450

And flujoridce ion is not a food. It has no digestible caloric content.

Fluoride is not a vitamin. There is no physiolgoic function or enzyme that fluoride modulates in a reversible dose dependent manner that all vitamins have.

Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient. There is no adverse pathology that develops in any human or animal birthed, developed, and grown lifetime in the complete absence of fluoride. 

Fluoride is not a water purifying agent. Fluoride in water does not kill microbes or decrease any known water contaminant or have any other desirable effect that water is required to have. . .

 

Fluoride is a toxic calcium chelator. Whether it is concentrated enough in the blood to lower the activity of ionized caclium, or whether it is so low a concentration in blood that its main effect is to attach to calcium in bone hydroxyapatite, it associates preferentially with calcium, causing adverse sequelea as a result.

Some claim it is a drug for valid reasons. Others argue it is a contaminant used as though it were a drug but without being an official drug. Who cares?  Its ingestion is useless, harmful, and is not endorsed or officially approved or required in water by the FDA or the EPA. The CDC requests it but knowws full well the SDWA prohibits them from requiring it. Any such Federal or State mandate requiring it is unlawful.   

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
835
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
834
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

834 Views
Message 626 of 1,450

The insinuaiton is that somehow I'm not only guilty of making false claims but also a liar. I have the letter from the FDA head Edna Lovering in my posession. The reason her claim is important, that fluoride added into water is an "uncontrolled use of a drug" is because of the claim on this site that no Federal agency labels fluoride a drug, as though no one in the FDA or EPA argues that it is.

There are many people in the FDA and the EPA who define the use of toxic industrial fluorides for the treatment of caries as a drug. Just because there is no official announcmenet on their websites does not mean no one has made the statement.  

The insinuation that we have no right to make the statement that fluoride in water can be labeled a drug because there is no evidence for it from Federal agencies is false. The head of the FDA wrote it. But we are not allowed to write it? 

Preposterous.

And again, I don't care if fluoridation is labeled a drug or if it is labeled a toxic substance, or a contaminant, or a mineral used for some perceived benefit to tissue. What matters is that it is not a nutrient and in fact exerts chronic toxicity especially in bone.

No one has rights to make the claim that it is not a drug AND at the same time claim it is not a calcium chelator or a poisonous substance with longterm side effects. It cannot be said to have zero adverse side effects in the entire population who ingests it during their entire lifetime. 

Don't call it a drug, fine. Then call it a poisonous substance because it is a contaminant of the bloodstream, not a physiologic ingredient in normal blood.  You can't have it both ways.

Either state that it is a drug with side effects, or state that it is not a drug and instead is a calcium chelator with side effects. The idea of not calling it a drug so as to claim it is either a food or a nutrient or a vitamin, etc. is false. It is either a taxic contaminant used as a drug, or it is a contaminant used as a mineral for believed effects on teeth.  Either way it is not innocent from side effects though fluoridation promoters claim so.  Again, what are we supposed to tell elderly people who have consumed fluoridated water lifetime when their bones are painful? Lie and claim that fluoridated bone has no ability to cause or exacerbate that?  No way.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
834
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
697
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

697 Views
Message 627 of 1,450

David,

 

And the next post was EPA legal counsel place responsibility for the addition of fluoride on the FDA.

 

 

 

You were clear, Federal Agency and did not specify USA. 

 

Now, give me one agency which acknowledges they have responsibility for determining the dosage, safety at that dosage and efficacy at that dosage? None exist, so you will remain silent again.

 

You have fun picking other people apart, but refuse to answer which agency accepts jurisdiction.   Remember, you want everyone to be given extra fluoride regardless of their choice, how much they get from other sources, regardless of any government Federal agency accepting responsibility for determining dosage, efficacy and safety.  Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence of safety, dosage, efficacy, not mine (the patient).

 

 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
697
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
689
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

689 Views
Message 628 of 1,450

billo, your comment:  

 

"Well, read your statements.  You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list."

 

Response:  In the context of this discussion . . you guys are making up stuff about the EPA, the FDA, the CDC, NSF, even the USDPH . . in the context of this discussion, to respond with something like "Japan," is reaching for an answer.  I think you know that.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
689
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
692
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

692 Views
Message 629 of 1,450

Bill, really?

 

"You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list.

 

Then you change your statement and say "US Federal Agency. . . ." 

 

Response:  You gave me a list?  No you didn't.  Japan is not a federal agency.  The Netherlands is not a federal agency.  Isreal is not a federal agency.  Sweden is not a federal agency.  Finland, Austria, or Belgum are not federal agencies.  

 

By the way, I didn't edit my reply to cover up what I had originally said, and then attack someone. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
692
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
663
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

663 Views
Message 630 of 1,450

billo, your comment:

 

"You wrote,  "Your quote:  "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,""

 

You responded, "Response:   Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA?  Are you saying this is the FDA's official position?  If so, show me the link.  If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive".

 

Sorry.  I don't remember giving you a quote from the head of the FDA in 1983.  Other quotes, but I don't remember that one.  My memory is not good, but I don't hide my own Easter eggs. . . yet."

 

Response:  That was a response to Dr. Sauerheber.  Please look at the top of a comment, to whom it is addressed, if you feel confused.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
663
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Top Authors