Know someone over 50 who is making a difference? Nominate them for the AARP Purpose Prize. Nominations close March 31!

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
337
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

337 Views
Message 71 of 1,248

I do not have the skill to search back for my response to CarryAnne re the Bashash studies. However, they related to

The statistically poor nature of the reported relationship with maternal urinary F (R-squared of 3%);

The fact maternal nutrition was not considered - despite the fact that Malin et al (2018) showed a much better relationship for this (R-squared greater than 11%) for a subsample of the same child-mother pairs.

It is very possible that the inclusion of maternal nutrition in the multiple regression would show no significant relationship for maternal prenatal urinary F.

The fact that no significant relationship was found with child urinary F.

You can find more detailed critiques from me here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330897483_Evidence_linking_attention_deficit_hyperactivity_...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324216872_Predictive_accuracy_of_a_model_for_child_IQ_based...

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321457780_Fluoridation_and_attention_deficit_hyperactivity_...

 

You say:

"Over the last couple decades there have been about 50 more published studies on fluoride's neurotoxicity.    What is the trend?  "

You omit to mention the vast majority of these studies relate to areas of endemic fluorosis - there are many health problems in these population.

All the studies related to community water fluoridation (in New Zealand and Canada) or populations exposed to similar concentrations (Sweden) show there is no effect of fluoride on IQ. So the trend is clearly to show no effect for CWF.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
337
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
323
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

323 Views
Message 72 of 1,248

RossF715288 I will respond to the several items you raise separately.

 

1: I do not know who you are or who  ‘r3sponse’ is. Nor am I familiar with the incident you describe related to Victoria. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. As I don't know you,  ‘r3sponse’, or anything about your claim I can not comment further.

 

2: I will comment on the specifics of your claim about the NZ Oral Health survey when I have checked to pages you refer to (possibly tomorrow). At the moment I can say I am well aware that the document says it is not an in-depth fluoridation study. My usual point in referring to the study, though, is that attempts were made to ensure the collected samples were representative.

I can explain some aspects of this by referring to the data from the New Zealand school dental service for 12-year-olds (2017) you refer to. I have written about the latest data here, so am familiar with them:

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/preempting-the-annual-misrepresentation-of-nz-dental-...

Obviously, the data from the New Zealand school dental service is also not an in-depth study of fluoridation. it is simply a record of treatments for the treated children. No attempt to make the data representative or to overcome problems such as the use of fluoride varnish treatments of children's teeth in unfluoridated areas.

It always amazes me when anti-fluoride activists stoop to using this uncorrected data while rejecting the Oral Health Survey data where attempts were made to ensure the data was representative. Simply pointing to the large numbers in the dental service data is naive to the extreme - or opportunist.

While much more must be done to overcome those sort of problems inherent in such data I have simply corrected for ethnic effects (the preponderance of Pacific Island Children in fluoridated areas skews the total data).

So while the use of the total data, uncorrected for ethnic differences, as you have done  is simply not scientific, once separated along ethnic lines the data shows the following:

For 5-year-olds the 
overall data suggest a benefit of fluoridation to Maōri and “other” children – about 14% for “Other” and 25% for Māori children (using the data for mean dmft).


For year 8 children the DMFT data suggest a benefit of about 30.5% for Māori and 26% for “Other” children.

3: Regarding the ChildSmile programme, and similar programmes in other countries, I have also written about them and am aware aspects of these programmes, which include fluoride varnish treatments for young children, are also part of the health programmes used in New Zealand.

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/?s=ChildSmile

I am therefore interested in Gertrude Clark’s 2017 thesis you refer to - could you please provide me a link?

Experts agree programmes like this can be successful - but describe them as complementary to community water fluoridation (as it is in New Zealand), not as a substitute.

As always, one must look below the surface to understand such issues, not rely on claims made by biased ideologically driven activists.

4: Could you please back up your claim that we are "adding a neurotoxin to community water supplies." I am aware of the literature used by Connett's crowd in an attempt to shift the debate about negative effects away from dental fluorosis and into IQ but the evidence used in either irrelevant, coming from areas of endemic fluorosis, or extremely weak (the recent Bashash studies). The studies made in New Zealand, Sweden and Canada of fluoride concentrations used for CWF also showed no negative effect. In fact, the Swedish study confirmed a number of positive social effects beyond improvement of oral health (but possibly a result of that improvement).

I will leave it here for tonight but may return to specifics depending on your response.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
323
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
313
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

313 Views
Message 73 of 1,248

Ken,

I accept your apology and with so many dentists opposed to fluoridation, it is easy to get us mixed up.  (See www.IAOMT.org)

 

I have not responded to your comments on Bashash, and need you to post again.  However, we will probably agree on much.  The main area of disagreement will be on a global perspective.  

 

No research has the entire answer to any public health policy or question.  I think you would agree, that is not how science works.  We try to get a study down to one or two variables, which never answers all questions.

 

When I first started looking at the fluoridation question, there were perhaps 10 studies on neurotoxicity.  A concern, but not definitive.  Over the last couple decades there have been about 50 more published studies on fluoride's neurotoxicity.    What is the trend?   At first the dosages of fluoride were rather high reporting harm.  With time, the dosages finding harm have decreased and decreased and decreased and still harm is being reported.  

 

From a global view, the trend becomes more of a concern and yes, a few studies reporting no harm.  

 

All the studies have limitations, but the trend does not appear to be in the direction of fluoride being safe at low exposure levels for all people at all stages of life.  What are the chances with better accuracy and better studies that we will find the more than 50 studies reporting neurotoxicity are fatally flawed?  I don't think the chance is very big.

 

The evaluation of benefit for a drug is ethically challenging, but possible.  The evaluation of risk of a drug is ethically very very difficult.   Researches cannot give fluoride to people and measure when they are harmed.  No research ethics review board would permit such studies.  Those were done by Hitler and the USPHS, the last one I know of ended in the 1970's.

 

But we can't assume everything is safe because we can not ethically test for harm.  The absence of research does not prove safety.  Low quality studies are not proof of safety.  

 

The main criticism of the Bashish study one of the co-authors (a fluoride promoter) could give was, "we don't know if that applies to the US population because we don't know how much fluoride is in the urine of pregnant mothers in the USA."

 

Not knowing is not proof of safety.  And we have studies (not enough) on US humans to know a range of urine fluoride concentrations.  And the concentrations overlap with the Bashash study reporting harm.  And we now have 60% of adolescents with a biomarker of excess fluoride.

 

Ken, if we were discussing fluoride supplements or fluoride toothpaste, I would not waste my time on fluoride because those are free choices.  

 

Water fluoridation is not by individual consent.

 

Fluoridation goes to everyone without dosage control.

 

Fluoridation goes to everyone even though potential benefit is up to the age of 8.  

 

Clearly, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

You are correct, research on fluoride exposure is not high quality and has limitations.  I agree.  And that is precisely why we should not give more fluoride to everyone when we do not know the dosage they are already getting, whether it will have any benefit, and is without their consent.

 

Fluoridation is terrible public health policy.

 

Back to basics, how much fluoride should a person ingest and how much is harmful.   

 

Simple basic pharmacology.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
313
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
310
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

310 Views
Message 74 of 1,248

KenP challenged ‘r3sponse’ to prove that the Victoria water board and related health authority have taken the drastic measure of disqualifying any peer reviewed science during water fluoridation reviews that do anything but shower praise on dental outcomes of water fluoridation. I’ll let ‘r3sponse’ answer that but that is exactly what happens in New Zealand with its Ministry of Health.
When a National Fluoride Information Service was established under contract between the Ministry and a district health board at a cost of around NZD1.25 million the contract had the laudable aim of maintaining an objective and credible viewpoint when reviewing literature and framing communications on water fluoridation (Service Specification, clause 2.3) yet in that same clause there was a requirement that the contractor would “not act in any way that may contradict or be inconsistent with Ministry policy on water fluoridation or with the MoH publication ‘Good Oral Health for All, For Life” both of which unequivocally advocate fluoridation. There was no room for the widest range of peer reviewed fluoride science.
KenP also asserts that New Zealand data from ‘Our Oral Health: Key findings of the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey’ clearly support fluoridation - but they don’t. The survey itself states that it was not designed as an in-depth water fluoridation study (see ‘Our Oral Health’, XXV)
Also, for 5-year-olds, Figure 3 on page 28 of that survey shows only marginal differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas from 2003 to 2009.
Over the whole six-year time period the figure shows that the prevalence of dental decay rates declined in non-fluoridated areas while the prevalence of dental decay rates increased in fluoridated areas with an acceleration of those trends between 2007 and 2009. At the end of the time period the difference in the mean for (dmft) was ~0.3.
The oft quoted 40 per cent fluoridation induced reduction in caries prevalence coming from ‘Our oral health’ report is derived from an extremely small sample over 16 age groups – 519 from fluoridated areas and 468 from non-fluoridated.
However, it is interesting to note from an Official Information Act disclosure of that data that at ages 16 and 17, of the 52 fluoridated children surveyed the average decayed, missing or filled teeth dmft was 2.46 and of the 55 non-fluoridated children the average dmft was lower at 2.39.
Irrespective of growing and well-researched concern about fluoride as a neurotoxin there is ample evidence that fluoridating community water supplies is an uneconomic way of improving the oral health of a population.
In its recently released ‘Oral Health Improvement Plan’ the Scottish Government states that although water fluoridation could make a positive contribution to improvements in oral health, the practicalities of implementing it determines that alternative solutions are more achievable.
The latest oral health statistics from the New Zealand school dental service for 12-year-olds (2017) show a small difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated cohorts.
The 27,822 children fluoridated were 68.91 per cent caries free with a mean of 0.65 dmft and the 21,405 non-fluoridated children 63.08 per cent caries free with a mean of 0.83 dmft. That is a 5.8% difference in caries free and with dmft the difference is less than one fifth of a tooth.
Attempting to close that small gap by adding a neurotoxin to community water supplies where dosage control from drinking the water is virtually impossible is nuts.
A far less costly, more effective and proven approach is expenditure on individual treatment, persistent early childhood and primary (elementary) school oral health education and ongoing publicity on the bad health consequences of excessive sugar consumption.
All public health authorities should be taking serious note of this month’s paper in the American Journal of Public Health, ‘Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption 3 Years After the Berkeley, California, Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax’, which has determined that consumption of sugary drinks in Berkeley's diverse and low-income neighbourhoods dropped precipitously in 2015, just months after the city levied the nation's first soda tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.
The study, which is the first to document the long-term impacts of a soda tax on drinking habits in the United States, provides strong evidence that soda taxes are an effective tool for encouraging healthier drinking habits, with the potential to reduce sugar-linked diseases like diabetes, heart disease and tooth decay.
In KenP’s own country an Otago dental school masters thesis supports the positive outcomes of Scotland’s Childsmile programme.
Gertrude Clark’s 2017 thesis, ‘Supervised tooth brushing in Northland’, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Community Dentistry, concluded that the aim of the study, which was to improve the oral health of Northland children, had proved successful.
Her programme has been the first large-scale, fully evaluated supervised tooth brushing programme to be set up and run successfully in New Zealand. It showed improved caries outcomes at one year for children involved in a supervised tooth brushing programme and reinforced the need for policy to consider this approach to improve children’s oral health in communities that experience high caries and poor oral health. It was also the first study in the world to show that an overall improvement in oral health related quality of life can occur in children who take part in a supervised tooth brushing programme.
In commenting on the Cochrane Collaboration report, Trevor Sheldon, who chaired the advisory group for York Review 2000 says that if fluoridation were to be submitted anew for approval today nobody would even think about it due to the shoddy evidence of effectiveness and obvious downside of fluorosis.
He also said that when a public health intervention is applied to everybody, the burden of evidence to know that people are likely to benefit and not to be harmed is much higher, since people can’t choose.
It is clear, in my view, that current pro-fluoridation policies are an affront to medical ethics and a monstrous waste of money.
In a 22 February letter to Tulsa World, Jim Maxey DDS concluded “Truth decay causes water fluoridation”. What a gem!

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
310
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
357
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

357 Views
Message 75 of 1,248

“Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable.” - David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, in “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008)

 

I am happy to engage in a good faith scientific discussion, but that isn't possible with the troop of fluoride trolls who have overwhelmed this site with rhetorical deceits and attempts to bait opponents into endless bickering in order to create a fog of doubt in the minds of decision makers. For whatever reasons, their goals are to puff themselves up with perceptions of personal power and preserve profitable policies instead of protect public health. I've encountered them already in othe venues. Click here and here for my recent AARP responses. I also like SIRPAC's recent entry on this topic. 

 

Also, debating prenatal studies and diagnoses of dental fluorosis in children isn't particulary on topic for an AARP forum and agricultural scientist KenP's dismissal of Bashash et al. 2017 isn't really worth the effort. For the record, that was the first of three reports published by a multi-million dollar NIH sponsored research project conducted by reknowned experts at world class U.S. and Canadian research universities such as the very pro-fluoride University of Michigan and Harvard School of Public Health, as well as the University of Toronto, McGill University, Indiana University School of Dentistry, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine. All three reports documented significant and sobering neurological damage from low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride

 

If KenP, who I still maintain has no business on the AARP site where his purpose is to disrupt conversations with vitriol, rather look to universities in his homeland of New Zealand, I suggest the two Sept 2018 presentations by Irish scientists at Otago University are breathtaking. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
357
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
364
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

364 Views
Message 76 of 1,248

I apologise BillO538145. I always seem to mix you up with Hardy Limeback - who did recently block me.

So a heartfelt apology - especially as at one stage you did agree to participate in an uncensored good faith exchange with me on the scientific issues related to community water fluoridation. I referred to the possibility here:

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/do-we-need-a-new-fluoride-debate/

We actually got started - you sent me a 55-page document which we were discussing with an aim to shorten before posting when you backed out. See

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/new-fluoride-debate-falters/

At the time you were the director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and told me you had changed your mind after pressure from your FAN colleagues.

 

You claim "Instead of focusing on science, you attack individuals." I think readers can make up their own mind from the discussion here  where I have even been called a "demon," have been personally attacked by you Richard and CarryAnne." All because I have been presenting and discussing science.

Neither you nor CarryAnne responded to my objective consideration of the Bashash et al studies.

So, sorry for the mix-up. My incorrect attitude was determined by mistaken identity. So go ahead. I welcome your input to discussing the scientific analysis I gave on the Bashash et al (2018) study in response to CarryAnne's claim and citation.

Please reread my contribution and respond to it here.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
364
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
359
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

359 Views
Message 77 of 1,248

CarryAnne - you say:

"I have read all the studies I've referenced and have both the training and intelligence to understand them."

Great. Then you should be capable of discussing the science related to the Bashash et al (2018) study you cited and made claims about. Yet you refused to. Why is that? Surely you can understand that it is logical for me to assume that whichever of the claims you make and citations you use that I respond to the response will be the same.

In other words, you refuse to discuss the science. You wish only to make your own claims and will not enter into a discussion of them.

Might I suggest that your refusal to interact with a discussion partner and use of long lists of claim and citations which you refuse to discuss is actually a "Propaganda technique?"

As for "ad hominem attacks" - isn't that what you did with me when I entered the discussion here - attempting to suggest I was hiding my identity, had no right to participate in the discussion and had been involved in research on "pesticides" and "development of high fluoride fertilisers." The last claim was an outright porkie and you later apologised for it.

You clearly are not interested in an uncensored good-faith scientific exchange - yet you continue even now to make claims and link to citations. Claims and citations we know from experience you will refuse to discuss.

Under your own definition aren't you just employing a "propaganda technique" - on a forum which is meant for discussion, not propaganda?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
359
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
374
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

374 Views
Message 78 of 1,248

Ken,

 

How much fluoride is good (dosage, tooth concentration, urine concentration,  and/or blood concentration) and how much fluoride is harmful dosage, tooth concentration, urine concentration,  and/or blood concentration for all diseases and side effects?

 

In the context of a lack of consent for the patient, certainly public health officials and promoters should have those basic simple numbers at your finger tips. hierarchical evidence is a house of cards and the fluoridation house of cards is marketed on assumptions and estimates and guessing.  

 

The most fundamental scientific questions which for two years you refuse to discuss or provide any evidence.

 

Instead of focusing on science, you attack individuals.  

 

I never blocked you on social media.  I don't know how to block someone other than my cell phone for telemarketing scam.  True, I quit responding to you because you failed to discuss science but I have never blocked you.

 

You are assuming and guessing and simply wrong about Carry Anne and me.   Attacking someone is simply unprofessional and proves you do not have basic science evidence on fluoridation.  Focus on the message rather than the messenger.  Fluoridation is not a sparing or debate contest but rather health and disease (for some, life and death.)

 

You claim to present facts, but this last post as most of yours, does not have one reference or scientific fact or scientific concept.  All about attacking people because you don't have the science.

 

It appears you want a private conversation with Carry Anne in a public forum.  Of course other people can jump in, and when you attack people, I may jump in if I have time.  

 

I understand you are frustrated with Carry Anne because she provides so many references and you cannot go into detail on each one.  You would like to "divide and conquer" each study.  And yes, every study has limitation.  Use the same critical thinking on both sides of the controversy.  

 

And remember, the proof of benefit should have much higher quality research than the proof of harm.  We can have RCT studies on benefit but we cannot have RTC studies on harm. . . simply unethical.  

 

Now, get back to the basic questions, dosage for efficacy and harm.  

 

Dosage.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
374
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
396
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

396 Views
Message 79 of 1,248

”Fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology… If you drink it, you are running the risk of all kinds of toxic actions… Nations who are using fluoridation should feel ashamed.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, neuropharmacologist. 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and official scientific advisor to the Swedish Government (1923-2018)

 

For the record, I have read all the studies I've referenced and have both the training and intelligence to understand them. From my study, I agree with Dr. Carlsson quoted above. I also understand the propaganda techniques that make heavy use of ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies in order to promote an agenda, techniques which are favored by fluoridationists, bloggers and trolls. I have also given honest testimony to my own health experiences which are consistent with fluoride poisoning. I speak for myself. Over 20 other seniors made similar reports about their own health experiences on this AARP thread before it was overwhelmed by fluoride trolls in June 2018. 

 

My preference is to discuss data and ethics rather than argue opinions on specific scientific minutea or personalities. To that end, consider that 2018 reports from US NHANES data document that over half of American teens have experienced fluoride overdose during early childhood evidenced by dental fluorosis in permanent teeth (Wiener et al. 2018). Also consider that American reports publishd in peer-reviewed scientific sources validate that at least 37% of American babies exceed the upper tolerable level of fluoride exposure assumed safe (Harriehausen et al. 2018) plus all the other studies I've summarized in this forum thread that have been ignored by the fluoridationists or selectively & spuriously dismissed. 

 

Then consider the suggestions of scientists that doctors should educate parents not to use too much fluoridated water in prepared cereals, etc. for their young children because of risk of fluoride overdose (Zohoori et al. 2012) and pro-fluoride scientists contorted efforts that argue in favor of fluoridated tap water because cavities are a more immediate threat than lead poisoning to children (Sanders & Slade 2017). Really?!

 

I suggest it's those who promote fluoridation who are intellectually challenged when they can't see, as does Nobel Laureate Dr. Arvid Carlsson, that adding a drug to water that renders water unsafe for many consumers as well as increasing the lead exposure for all consumers is an immoral & shameful action.

 

  • See Sandy, Utah news for a current example of what can go wrong with fluoridation. 

 

  • See image below for a demonstration of how inappropriate it is to assume there is any dose control over a drug added to water supplies. 

 

DoseQuiz.jpegDose Quiz

 

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
396
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
404
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

404 Views
Message 80 of 1,248

Come on Bill, make up your mind. You block me on social media and think you now have the right to intervene in a discussion here with someone else. I am sure you and CarryAnne are colleagues - but why do you not let her speak for herself.

It has been me who has presented facts and have not employed a single arrow, character assassination or personal abuse, as you do. Nor do I block people or run away because I am losing an argument - If I am wrong I usually say so, apologise, and move on. I think that is the ethically correct response for a scientist

1: You admit CarryAnne harvests citations. And she does this in an extreme way - a long list of claims and citations she is completely unwilling to discuss.

2: I do not know if CarryAnne understands them or not - but her complete unwillingness to discuss her claims does suggest she has no confidence in her claims. This is a problem I find with many anti-fluoride activists who use barrages of citations. They can't discuss them because they have never read them. In many cases, they haven't even read the abstracts.

3: CarryAnne is the one who refused to have a reasonable scientific exchange on her claims. She refused my offer of a good faith, uncensored, exchange along the lines of the one I had with Paul Connett. And she refused to respond by discussing the one citation I did comment on - chosen as an example as one can have a reasonable discussion about one study but not a long list in forums like this. She just opted out saying this was not the place for such a discussion - which underlines that her citation harvesting and presenting a long list of claims had nothing to do with science or discussion, anyway.

4: I have not attacked this woman - I have simply asked for a discussion and pointed out she refused. To the extent she appears to have disappeared from this forum.

Pease, Bill, you need to stop interfering in other's discussions. It is up to CarryAnne whether she interacts with me, whether she takes up my offer of a good faith scientific exchange on even one of the claims she made. You haven't even bothered to enter into that exchange on her behalf - simply attacked me without any basis.

 

If I was CarryAnne I would consider your actions rude, intrusive and sexist. If she has the credibility to list a series of claims and citations then she should have the understanding to represent herself in a good faith scientific exchange. 

Has she asked you to speak for her or have you just rudely pushed in and taken it on yourself?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
404
Views