AARP and the photographers of Magnum Photos look at older people living in new ways around the world in A New Age.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
497
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

497 Views
Message 71 of 1,372

Indeed it is so true. For example, there are fluoridation promoters all over the internet that are anti-science. This diatribe just presented doesn't even mention that even fluoridationists publish that all cities that fluoridate people have increased incidence of dental fluorosis and that there are no exceptions. Dental fluorosis is an abnormality. It is pathologic, due to systemic fluoride interfering with removal of albumin during enamelization in childhood so that the fluorotic tooth has enamel hypoplasia. This is a laughable joke to some fluoridation promoters, and other fluoridation promoters actually assume that since "fluoride must be good" then enamel fluorosis must be good too and assume that fluorotic teeth have fewer cavities, not realizing the underlying dentin, a derivative of bone, has accumulated fluoride as well and that caries are far more difficult to treat becuase of it. It is all a pretty sick joke, and yet those opoposed to eating and drinking fluoride are the ones claimed to be "anti science.". Wow. .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
497
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
472
Views

Re: Anti-Science Circular Debating Technique

472 Views
Message 72 of 1,372

So true Randy.

 

Internet debates every day reinforce my understanding that humans are not a rational species, more a rationalising one.

On the other hand, most of us do tend to respect expert advice and can only take so much conspiracy theory rubbish, In New Zealand, these days most community consultations on community water fluoridation show support for the health policy because people get the message that it is effective, economical and safe.

People have become so fed up with the anti-fluoride activists they do not get an audience these days. Very telling was that when a few anti-fluoride members of the NZ parliament organised a meeting at Parliament Buildings for Paul Connett last year no-one turned up.

On the other hand, while these anti-fluoride campaigners may be tiresome and do misrepresent the science their activity does keep good science on its toes. For example, dredging up poor quality research from areas of endemic fluorosis to argue that fluoride lowers IQ has led to genuine science checking this out in areas where fluoride intake is much lower (as in fluoridated areas). This research has shown no IQ effect.

Similarly, in New Zealand, the intense activity of anti-fluoride campaigners aimed at local body councils led to councils requesting a proper scientific review from authoritative bodies like the Royal Society. That resulted in the NZ Fluoridation Review - see Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence. It also resulted in councils requesting that the government take away responsibility for fluoridation decisions from local bodies and invest it in regional Health Boards.

Personally, I think local communities should have the final say and do not advocate introducing fluoridation where it is not suitable or the community is overwhelmingly opposed. To me democracy is important.

I leave the advocacy of health policies to the health experts. However, as a scientist, I object very strongly to the misrepresentation and distortion of since which is so rampart amongst anti-fluoridationists - as it is amongst climate change deniers and religious apologists (creationism, "intelligent design"). So I will get involved in debates where I see this happening (as it is here).

Finally, I accept that the die-hard anti-science, anti-fluoridation, climate change denying and creationist propagandists will not be convinced by my contributions. But I do not do it for them - my hope is that there are readers lurking in the background who may appreciate clarification of the scientific issues.


Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
472
Views
Info Seeker
2
Kudos
443
Views

Re: Anti-Science Circular Debating Technique

443 Views
Message 73 of 1,372

Randy...you sound exactly like Randy Johnson ...a fluoride lobbyist who is from the American Fluoridation Society. Your president Johnny Johnson appeared at our City Council meeting and lied to our councillors  claiming concentrations in water would still be safe even 16x the levels considered optimal. We have it on tape.

why would anyone believe you or your group?

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
443
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
445
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

445 Views
Message 74 of 1,372

I most certainly do not agree with fluoridating people simply because  the water supply is considered hard. Although assimilation  of F would be impaired by the somewhat protective calcium, and these people,would be fortunate to be able to better withstand artificial fluoridation, there is zero benefit for tne action and lifelong it still accumulates F in bone.

In natural areas where 1 ppm F is accompanied with plentiful calcium. dental fluorosis is still rampant and teeth interiors become crumbly (dentist Dr. Heard, Hereford Texas who initially promoted fluoride adjustments in water supplies but later apologized for the notion). The procedure of adding more of the F contaminant into water is mistaken, period.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
445
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
438
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

438 Views
Message 75 of 1,372

LD50s not relevant? Tell that to the survivors of the Hooper Bay, AK fluoridation overfeed. The lawsuit is still not resolved , the loss of life not recompensed, and the government relations with native American tribes is lost.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
438
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
438
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

438 Views
Message 76 of 1,372

I have read hundreds of cientific studies on fluorides and listened to the opinions of many “experrts”. It is more than clear that there is very little valid science in support of fluoridation. Even though some older papers start with such statements “in support”, they conclude otherwise. Thus, any “expert”, who supports water fluoridation based on mere venally interested opinions, is no expert at all. 

 

In addition, it is truly irrelevant what any of these fluoridation promoters have to say, because (regardless of anyone’s opinions), what gives anyone a right to medicate the masses through the public water supply? Are these so called (unnamed and unknown) “experts” our personal doctors who monitor the dosage daily? Where is their expertise in every individual case that have been dosed with these artificial compounds of fluorine?

What kind of a fascist country do we live in that our individual consent does not matter? Why is the population being used as fluoride waste filters, with the pretense that there is some unproven benefit to one part of the body? 

 

I have heard the fluoridation waste industry’s motto that: “ Dilution is a solution to pollution!” HA!

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
438
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
377
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

377 Views
Message 77 of 1,372

Ken,

 

You make no sense because you have never said how much,  "fluoride added as a “top up?”

 

You have never said how much fluoride is desired to reduce dental caries?

 

Top up to what?  

 

Why add more fluoride when you don't know how much fluoride is desired?

 

Ever since I've communicated with you, perhaps a couple years, you have been silent on the most fundamental question.  How much fluoride prevents dental caries?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
377
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
386
Views

Anti-Science Circular Debating Technique

386 Views
Message 78 of 1,372

Some good news.  An effort aimed at possibly stopping fluoridation of drinking water in Gloucester MA was recently defeated (8/13/2019) despite vigorous, vocal promotion by fluoridation opponents (FOs).  Only two of eight City Council members believed the anti-F propaganda –– the others six carefully considered the evidence on both sides, recognized the severe limitations and misrepresentation of the anti-F “evidence”, and chose to accept the conclusions of the Gloucester Board of Health and virtually all other science and health organizations in the world.

 

In a democracy it is critical for citizens, government representative responsible for making important public health decisions or citizens responsible for electing those representatives (and sometimes voting on public health measures), to either actually understand the complex science underlying those decisions or trust the interpretation of evidence by reputable experts.  There are serious dangers to trusting the opinions of vocal critics of those scientific conclusions which are accepted by the overwhelming majority of relevant experts.  These anti-science critics utilize a variety of disingenuous tactics to mislead and scare and scam members of the public into blindly trusting their opinions over those of the actual experts.

 

In a recent Dilbert comic, Wally describes the Circular Debating Technique that FOs like “CarryAnne”, Richard Sauerheber, Bill Osmunson and other anti-science activists have mastered.  For evidence, go back over 1,290 posts and start reading…

Dilbert..png

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-08-04


The public debates go on, the claims get repeated and the task of countering misleading and dishonest claims just doesn’t go away. They need to be countered – especially as they are often being promoted, almost unchallenged, to decision-making bodies.” (Ken Perrott)
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/ -  reviews of studies used by anti-F activists

 

Fact: Most people respect and trust most scientific conclusions that are accepted by the majority of relevant experts and the policies and technological advances that are based on those conclusions.  However, strongly held personal beliefs can cause some people to distrust some specific scientific conclusions that seem to conflict with those beliefs.  Those individuals are not necessarily anti-science activists – they choose to believe the interpretation of “evidence” presented by anti-science activists.  The Scientific American article describes this as “isolated incidents of motivated bias”.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/who-are-you-calling-anti-science/

 

Fact: Anti-science activists are those scientists and health care professionals who have exceptionally strong, passionately held, inflexible beliefs that conflict with an established scientific consensus.  However, they have no legitimate, relevant, reproducible scientific evidence sufficient to challenge the scientific consensus.  With no valid evidence and a fixed belief, they abandon working within the scientific communities to legitimately change the consensus and (with the help of some passionate followers) take their opinions directly to the public (in forums like this) in an attempt change public opinion and hijack the democratic process.

 

Fact: The scientific consensus of nearly all relevant science and health experts world-wide for over 70 years continues to be that community water fluoridation (CWF) is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing the risk of dental decay and related health issues in communities. 

 

Fact: Legitimate challenges to established scientific conclusions (theories, consensus) by legitimate researchers presenting legitimate evidence to the relevant scientific experts are critical to scientific progress.  If the evidence presented is relevant, well conducted, as unbiased as possible, and reproducible, even an established scientific consensus will change.  More than 70 years of scientific evidence continues to support CWF.
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationReferences.htm

 

Fact: Circular debating FOs have no legitimate scientific evidence to change the scientific consensus.  That is why the World Health Organization and more than 100 of the most recognized science and health organizations in the world (and their hundreds of thousands of members) continue to recognize the benefits and safety of CWF to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems.
https://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

 

Fact: FOs have no rational explanation the fact that there are no such nationally or internationally recognized science or health organizations that promote the anti-F opinions.  Only about 6 alternate “health” organizations, some activist groups like Children’s Health Defense and conspiracy fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS] and Mike Adams [Natural News] support the beliefs of fluoridation opponents (FOs).
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-consensus.html

 

Fact: If well-meaning citizens who participate in the democratic process (as voters or elected government officials) have been deceived and manipulated to believe the opinions of anti-science activists over the actual scientific conclusions, the resulting governmental actions can be harmful – resulting in an increased risk of largely preventable diseases and health problems.

 

Fact: FOs and other anti-science activists employ fear-mongering and other disingenuous tactics to try and convince well-meaning citizens (most don’t have the training or experience to personally evaluate decades of complex scientific issues) to trust their opinions over the conclusions of most relevant experts.  The tactics include dismissing the scientific consensus as irrelevant, employing the “Gish Gallop” strategy to present mountains of poor quality and irrelevant studies, manipulating, selectively quoting and exaggerating the findings of legitimate studies to fabricate false conclusions and blurring the boundaries between ethics and science to set up false “moral” arguments.
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-AntiScienceTactics.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_GallopCite a giant wall of text, or a three hour long YouTube video, and then claim it as irrefutable proof. When they ask for the relevant excerpt, whine about how it's not your job to do the research for them. When they go through the video and start explaining why the video is wrong, accuse them of cherry picking […] because they aren't addressing the "important" arguments. When they ask you what the important arguments are, insist that it's not your job to do the research for them. And… repeat.

 

Fact: One of the more duplicitous tactics employed by FOs and other anti-science activists is to try and cast doubt on and discredit mainstream scientists and health care professionals who support CWF and the organizations that represent them.  For example in this discussion:

CarryAnne described these professionals as “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” willing to “protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”.
(08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM), (07-03-2018 07:35 AM)

Bill Osmunson claims these professionals “don't think for themselves”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, have “seriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, are “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” and “None reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.”
(08-19-2018 02:18 AM), (08-19-2018 07:15 PM), (07-09-2018 09:09 PM)
I asked both FOs several times if that’s their only explanation for why all major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF – and received no answers.
(09-15-2018 10:34 AM), ‎(10-26-2018 02:17 AM), ‎(10-23-2018 11:24 AM – Q1)

 

For those reading these comments who care about your health, the health of your family and fellow citizens and who don’t have the training or experience to personally evaluate hundreds of complex scientific studies, please consider trusting the majority of science and health experts over the opinions of a relatively few, but extremely vocal and persistent, activists who completely contradict the majority conclusions on important scientific and health issues and completely misrepresent the evidence to try and support their opinions.

 

Most citizens are not anti-science.  They are well-meaning non-scientists who have been scammed by the anti-science activists who abandoned the scientific process of proving their claims to the relevant experts and legitimately challenging the consensus.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy/

Some additional relevant resources:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/War_on_Science
https://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf
https://scimoms.com/risk-perspective-series-intro/
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/
https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/debunking-anti-claims/myths/
https://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/key_facts.html
https://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf
https://www.acsh.org/news/2005/10/31/time-and-the-anti-fluoride-cause
https://ricochet.com/612147/remembering-the-fluoridated-water-wars/

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
386
Views
Info Seeker
2
Kudos
371
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

371 Views
Message 79 of 1,372

Yes, AARP and CARP should take action.

Artificial fluoridation began 75 years ago. In this time dental fluorosis rates have skyrocketed. The industrial by-product used to fluoridate water has been classified as a persistent, bioaccumulative, neurodevelopmental toxin. And rates of neurodevelopmental issues like Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and autism have also skyrocketed. 

 

Time to stop the nonsense and stop the additional exposures of this toxic substance.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
371
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
350
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

350 Views
Message 80 of 1,372

“One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” -  Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)

 

This is not the place for scientific bickering. Moreover, strawman misrepresentation of the opposing views is not helpful.  The topic is whether or not fluoridation policy is harmful to some consumers who include vulnerable populations such as senior citizens and those with chronic illness like  kidney disease or diabetes

 

A valid part of that discussion, as mentioned by Bill O, is how do you control dose when the substance is in the water? This is a particularly important point for those vulnerable populations who have medical reason to avoid fluoride, such as those with kidney disease, thyroid disease, immune system disease, inflammatory diseases, and diabetes.  

 

I also know people with a family history of breast cancer whose doctors have advised they avoid fluoridated water and foods as a precautionary measure since fluoride is an endocrine disruptor and there is evidence of it promoting cancer. See scientific references included in this 2016 letter to the American Thyroid Association.   

 

AARP - You told me in January 2015 that you use activity on your forum to gauge interest for items to take under consideration by your policy team.

This thread certainly has been active for the past 4 years. 

When are you going to advocate on behalf of your constituents?

 

DoseQuiz.jpeg

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
350
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark