Reply
Highlighted
Trusted Contributor

Re: Still unanswered questions from 08-21, 08-26, 08-30, 09-03, & 10-20

867 Views
Message 721 of 1,450

Bill - Here are three related questions from my most recent request for specific answers.

 

You still seem to endorse your 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim that the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.”, and “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 “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“ and “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science.” and “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science.” 

 

Q2) I will ask you specifically, what makes you a better expert in fluoridation than the members of all the organizations that continue to support CWF?  It could be argued that you are a lemming, follower, part of a herd of FOs that allow their irrational fear of fluorine to bias their selection, evaluation and presentation of the scientific evidence.


Q3) I have asked you before, and I ask yet again – Do you apply your above evaluation of the ADA, AAP and CDC to all members of all the organizations that recognize the benefits of CWF who either publically support CWF or have not publically accepted the anti-F position?

 

Q4) I have asked you before, and I ask yet again – What is your explanation for the fact that virtually every major science and health organization in the world either publically recognizes the benefits of CWF or have not made public statements that CWF is a harmful public health measure, and the hundreds of thousands of members of these organizations have not rebelled?  

 

And please provide some evidence, and not just your opinions.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Conversationalist

Re: Still unanswered questions from 08-21, 08-26, 08-30, 09-03, & 10-20

770 Views
Message 722 of 1,450

Randy, Dr. JJ, and All,  (provides partial answer to some of your questions)

 

PARRY SOUND – Parry Sounders have spoken; they do not want their drinking water fluoridated.   Hardy Limeback,  PhD, DDS wrote an opinion letter answering fluoridation claims.    Very concise and clear.

 

Quote:

"I read the Oct. 5 opinion letter by a group of local doctors trying to convince Parry Sounders to vote in favour of fluoridation in the upcoming plebiscite.

As one of the persons derogatorily labeled as a “so-called expert,” I’d like to offer some corrections and facts in response based on science, not politics or endorsements.

 

Claim1: “As health professionals we serve as first-hand witnesses to the impact that poor dental hygiene has on the overall health of the community.”

This is an odd statement, since physicians do not practice dentistry and are not familiar with dental science.

 

Fact: poor dietary choices (frequent sugar intake) cause cavities. “Poor dental hygiene” is a not a major factor in the prevalence and severity of dental decay.

 

Claim 2. Cavities cost Canadians over a billion dollars a year.

Sounds impressive, but that’s only $27/person/yr.

Fact: Other dental costs, including cosmetic dentistry to treat the dental fluorosis side effects of fluoridation, are 12 times higher.

 

Claim 3. The truth is, fluoride in drinking water has been scientifically studied for over 70 years without ever finding evidence that the low levels recommended in municipal drinking water have any negative health effects

Fact: While fluoridation has been in place for 70 years, studies have not been conducted to show safety. Our expert review panel (the National Academies of Sciences Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water) reviewed over hundreds of studies on fluoride toxicity. See https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards We found several problems with fluoride in drinking water because fluoride accumulates in the body, primarily the skeletal system.

Our own study (Chachra et al, 2010) published after our NAS Review of 2006 comparing the bones of fluoridated Torontonians with the bones of the non-fluoridated Montrealers showed that the people in Toronto had more fluoride in their bones and the physical properties of their bones had changed. Fluoride accumulation in bones weakens them.

But if you don’t look for problems you won’t find them.

There has never been a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial to see if fluoridation actually works. This kind of study is required for every drug that seeks approval from Health Canada or the US FDA.

 

Claim 4. In recent years, when communities have voted to remove fluoride from drinking water, cavity rates have risen.

Fact. This is incorrect. Nearly all studies, including in Canada, showed that where fluoridation was halted, dental decay continued to drop. The increased dental decay claimed was anecdotal and could not be backed up with good science. We published a critique of the findings in Calgary after it stopped fluoridating in 2011 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28994462)

 

Claim 5. It is true that swallowing too much fluoride toothpaste can cause your teeth to stain (known as fluorosis); an uncommon finding even in those who brush regularly and have fluoride in their town water.

Fact. Dental fluorosis occurs when too much fluoride is ingested from birth to age 6 years. It is the total fluoride that is ingested that is important. By far, fluoridated water is the largest contributor, especially when a baby is given infant formula made with fluoridated tap water. Unfortunately dental fluorosis, a permanent scarring of the teeth, is now a very common side effect of fluoridation. Some estimates are that 1 in 10 children have unsightly dental fluorosis in fluoridated areas.

 

Claim 6. The point is, there are no known negative health effects from the amounts of fluoride added to municipal drinking water, despite decades of study on the topic.

 

Fact: The good doctors are obviously not up on their science. There are 4 studies published in the last two years that linked prenatal exposure to fluoride to lowered IQ in the children later in life. One study showed that dental fluorosis was associated with lowered IQ. This is not ‘misinformation’ as the doctors suggest. These are peer-reviewed studies from highly respected international researchers.

 

Claim 7. Will updating our fluoridation system cost money? Yes, but not as much as it will to deal with all the cavities we will face if we don’t.

 

Upgrading Parry Sound’s fluoridation system to current standards will cost taxpayers at least $350,000. Add to that $150,000 over the next 15 years to maintain and run the system. The total cost is at least $0.5 million.

 

What are the dental cost savings Parry Sound families can expect after 15 years of fluoridation?

 

Fact: The most up-to-date peer-reviewed study (Slade et al, 2018) shows that 0.5 teeth might be saved per teenager exposed to fluoridated water since birth.

There are about 850 teens in Parry Sound. Saving 0.5 tooth/teen from decay will save families in Parry Sound about $85,000.

 

Spending $0.5 million to save $85,000 in dental costs is not wise way to spend taxpayers’ money.  I was told that the cost to fluoridate will be recovered from increases in Parry Sound water bills.

 

Claim 8. It’s worth noting that no Canadian town has ever removed fluoride from water because of actual health concerns related to these low levels of fluoride

This is another unsupported claim. When Canadian towns have the opportunity to weigh the risks vs the benefits and look at all the health concerns, they usually vote to discontinue the practice.

 

Fluoridation is medication, as ruled by Supreme Court of Canada. You cannot control the dose. Everyone is obliged to take it whether they need it or not. It will harm the most susceptible even if they do not provide consent to this ‘medical treatment’.

 

In most medical schools graduates are asked to uphold the oath “primum non nocere” which is “first do no harm”.

 

But then those advising you to vote for fluoridation, including your medical officer of health and the group of doctors who wrote the OpEd letter, are not liable for any harm that fluoridation will cause your family.

 

Because of the Fluoridation Act of Ontario, if the answer to the referendum is in the affirmative, a majority of 51% of the community can tell the other 49% they have to contribute to the cost of fluoridation, pay for fixing dental fluorosis their children will get, pay for a home filtration system that removes unwanted fluoride and try and avoid foods made with fluoridated drinking water including foods served in the restaurants and coffee shops of Parry Sound.

 

This time Parry Sounders have a say whether or not they want fluoridation. It’s not up to the council, whether for or against.

 

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD (Biochem), DDS
Professor Emeritus and former Head of Preventive Dentistry
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto
Past member of the US NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
McKellar Township"

 

Randy,

Note the Supreme court of Canada.

Note the lack of cost savings.

Note the harm to just the teeth.

Note the harm to the brain.

 

And he never seriously covered excess exposure.

So much more to be added.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Conversationalist

Re: Still unanswered questions from 08-21, 08-26, 08-30, 09-03, & 10-20

705 Views
Message 723 of 1,450

Randy,

 

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

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Trusted Contributor

Still unanswered questions from 08-21, 08-26, 08-30, 09-03, & 10-20

718 Views
Message 724 of 1,450

CarryAnne You claim to have answered my specific questions: (10-20-2018 05:45 PM) & (10-20-2018 01:56 PM) (09-03-2018 10:26 PM), (08-30-2018 04:12 PM), (08-26-2018 05:47 PM) (08-21-2018 09:36 PM). 

 

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??

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/chlorine-a-dangerous-addition-to-everyday-life/

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/anti-chlorine-activists-hope-politics-will-trump-science

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

715 Views
Message 725 of 1,450

"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. 

TobaccoAdPG.jpg

DentistsDoctors2.jpgDentistsDoctors1.jpgIQf.jpgDentalMentalDamage.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Regular Contributor
0
Kudos
8976
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

682 Views
Message 726 of 1,450

370 Johy Yiamouyiannis - Aids - HIV doesn't Cause it.JPG

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
8976
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

691 Views
Message 727 of 1,450

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.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Conversationalist

Stubborn Fluoridationists Harangue & Harass - Smart Canadians Ignore Them

712 Views
Message 728 of 1,450

“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. 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Regular Contributor

Re: Specious Comments and Unanswered Questions

714 Views
Message 729 of 1,450
Sure . . Yiamouyiannis is the guy who claimed that fluoride, not a virus causes AIDS. . .(Readings in American Health Care: Current Issues in Socio-historical Perspective (1995) p 135) In the book you refer to. Yiamouyiannis claimed that fluoride harms the immune system, cause colds, premature aging, birth defects and of course cancer.

Dr. Y is well representative of the "experts" who believe the water fluoridation is neither beneficial nor safe.


Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Specious Comments and Unanswered Questions

734 Views
Message 730 of 1,450

"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.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a health tip to share or a health question to ask? Check out the Health Tips forum today