Looking for a part-time job? AARP's online career fair Jan. 24 can help! Register for free.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
646
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

646 Views
Message 81 of 996

Bill O, 

 

This comment is addressed to you.  It begins with your name.  You may chime in on this:

 

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
646
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
658
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

658 Views
Message 82 of 996

The sarcasm is mistaken. The two articles describing experiments disproving time dilation were published in physics essays and in optics. The idea has been disproven theoretically, mathematically and,experimentally. This ,was brought up to remind readers that even regarded  experts make mistakes. 

But continuing with a mistake, such as fluoridation, in the,face of facts proving so, is harmful bias.

Einstein was a scientist who today would correct the idea.  Unfortunately CDC fluoridationists teject facts and refuse to correct their problem. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
658
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
414
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

414 Views
Message 83 of 996

The careful controlled stidies by Spittle and those by Burgstahler and others. My own work on racehorse breakdowns . And the NRC report describing that 1 ppm F water causes elevated TSH in iodine deficient consumers and elevates both PTH and calcitonin at the same time pathologically, the only known substance tlthat does this bizarre IIIaction, and consumers who have bone pain at F levels in bone of only 1700 mg/kg.

What other effects would you like to discuss?.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
414
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
414
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

414 Views
Message 84 of 996

Iiada picture.jpgIida

David,  

 

You said,

"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."

 

Iida's data does show an increase in dental fluorosis with increased water fluoride concentration.  However, when the data is graphed (see above), the claim of benefit you make is hard to detect.

 

Your claim of benefit lacks serious consideration, based on this study.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
414
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
424
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

424 Views
Message 85 of 996

David,

 

For some time I've tried to understand what you are saying, but I'm at a loss.  I can't figure out what Time Dilation has to do with excess fluoride exposure.   Makes no sense.

 

You ask a good question about peer-reviewed studies and "optimally fluoridated water."  

 

Several problems.  

 

1.   What concentration of fluoride in water is marketed "optimal"?   A moving target, wouldn't you agree?  0.7-1.4 ppm, 0.7 ppm, ???? 

 

2.  Fluoride added to water is just one source of fluoride.  No research would only considering one source of fluoride.  If they did, the peer-reviewers would throw it out.  

 

So both your research question makes no sense.   If your question refered to total fluoride exposure, then we could start to discuss. 

 

3.  Who's responsibility is it to provide the research on any product?   The patient/consumer?  The government? Or the manufacturer marketing the product?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
424
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
408
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

408 Views
Message 86 of 996

And what peer-reviewed studies about the dangers of optimally fluoridated water do you have to offer?  It seems you have no problem criticizing other peer-reviewed scholars for what they haven't done when you, yourself have nothing to offer.  

Oh yeah, I forgot, you do have a scholarly work in which you argue that Einstein got it all wrong about Time Dilation.  My bad.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
408
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
385
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

385 Views
Message 87 of 996

I don't have a problem with the studiy. It is what it is. My conclusion is justified.

The point I made about IQ is that fluoridationists are so busy trying to prove a useless substance effective that they have little time to consider its chronic toxicity.

Ive seen many effectiveness studies by kiumar but little from him of chronic toxicity studies to justify the fluoridation of people he, so widely defends. 

Bone fluoridation is not harmless.

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
385
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
380
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

380 Views
Message 88 of 996

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed ten comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
380
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
354
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

354 Views
Message 89 of 996

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
354
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
344
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

344 Views
Message 90 of 996

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
0
Kudos
344
Views