Learn how to use Uber, Lyft and other ride-sharing services!  Register now for a free AARP webinar Nov. 18.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
6
Kudos
2580
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,580 Views
Message 31 of 50

Please. There is no sentence that says fluoride infusions are prohibited. There is no separate sentence that prohibits adding food, or all known poisons, all known contaminants, etc. How could you list them all? To exclude them all including the contaminant fluoride, the general all-encompassing statement that prohibits them all was passed by Congress. 

Adding corrosion  inhibitors is an allowance for the purpose of reducing toxic metals in treated water systems. F has nothing  to do with that. F is not added to reduce contaminants. It is a contaminant itself. Arsenic at one time was used as a drug treatment and F is now used by some as a treatment, but both are contaminant toxic substances. Arsenic has been dealt with finally, but fluoride is still at large in spite of the SDWA that prohibits it from being required in water (because it does not belong in normal pristine clean fresh drinking water). Water is a required dietary ingredient. Fluoride is not. As stated before, the total absence of F has no pathologic consequence because F is not a nutrient.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
2580
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
6
Kudos
2541
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,541 Views
Message 32 of 50

I am on vacation in Alaska and only have limited sporadic access to this conversation. The accusation that I am avoiding answering questions is incorrect.

The SDWA was written with the intent to halt the spread of fluoridation (Graham and Morin, Fluoride litigation, Pace law review FOOTNOTE) Key provisions in the act are 1) no national requirement may be made for any substance added into water other than to sanitize water. And 2) the States can be no less restrictive.

F is not added to purify water. It is added to increase  the F level in blood to affect  teeth. It is added to treat humans and it is now a national program authorized or at least recommended by the Federal CDC (who cannot require it) .

The SDWA was based on the original Water Pollution Control Act whose mission (section 101A) is to maintain the natural chemistry of U. S. drinking water. Removing natural arsenic when high is ailowed of course and other toxic substances. But adding any nonessential chemical (unrelated to sanitizing water) into water is a crime. 

The original congressional approved statutes in the SDWA did not make any allowance for F and in fact were written to halt the spread of fluoridation. F is an EPA recognized contaminant, not an essential nutrient, has no physiological role in man, and instead accumulates during lifelong ingestion in bones as a contaminant that alters the structure of bone in a pathological manner. 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
2541
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
2521
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,521 Views
Message 33 of 50

Dr. Limebeck,

 

Thank you for bringing up the 2006 National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water in which you participated as a member. 

 

I believe toxicologist, Dr. John Doull Chaired that Committee.  Please correct me if that is wrong.  

 

According to Dr. Doull:  “I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level.”

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2521
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
2577
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,577 Views
Message 34 of 50

Dr. Limeback,

 

Since you specifically named me in your last comment I feel I have a right and a responsibility to respond to it. 

 

This is your comment to which I am referring:

 

“I wrote in my original comment that I would not engage with the members of the American Fluoridation Society on this forum as they have proved themselves to be unethical and abusive in their online interactions. Apparently, the AFS has been busy coaching interested parties in how to use social media to promote fluoridation, which includes ‘reframing' the conversation in order to get it away from the evidence of harm. Also, apparently DavidF928895 has a long history of doing just that.“

 

My first response is that I don’t believe that I have been abusive to you in any way.  If I have, please show me where and I would be more than happy to apologize.  Nor do I believe I have been unethical.  I have asked both you & Dr. Sauerheber questions about comments you have made.  If you feel that it is unethical for someone to ask you to defend, and prove, things you have said and done, then my response is, ‘what are you trying to hide?’

 

The AARP has every right to see your statements scrutinized and questioned so they can make a knowledgeable decision about something that you are trying to convince them of.  Especially since most of the scientific community disagrees with you and your fringe position.

 

Dr. Sauerheber has made, what I believe to be, a false statement about the Safe Drinking Water Act.  He said, “"The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits any requirerment to add any substance into public water supplies except for substances needed to sanitize it. If you can't follow the truth . . . then follow the law."

 

This is a false statement, as the SDWA does require the addition of corrosion control additives in populations > 50,000.  Moreover, I felt the wording of Dr. Sauerheber’s comment was confusing enough to imply that fluoride additives themselves were prohibited by the SDWA (“then follow the law”).  Since there is no law prohibiting fluoridation, I asked him to defend, and prove his comment by pointing out, where in the SDWA fluoride additives are prohibited.

 

Dr. Sauerheber has chosen not to respond or defend his comment.  That was his choice.  This is not the first time I have asked him to provide evidence of something he has said.  When his statements are scrutinized and questioned, as I have done, there seems to be no evidence for them.

 

Now, Dr. Limeback, in your comment above, you said, “Apparently, the AFS has been busy coaching interested parties in how to use social media to promote fluoridation, which includes ‘reframing' the conversation in order to get it away from the evidence of harm.”

 

To be clear, you are saying that this thread exists for the sole purpose of showing “evidence of harm,” from water fluoridation.  Yet, in your very first comment you said, “I offer my advice as an expert, freely and without prejudice . .”  I’m sorry, Dr. Limeback, but you can’t have it both ways.  If the only purpose of this thread, which you started, is to show some harm that allegedly exists because people drink optimally fluoridated water, then your point of view is prejudiced, your comments are biased and one sided, and the AARP has every right to know where you are coming from. 

 

By the way, if you really wanted to show evidence of harm, you would provide at least one documented example of any human being whose quality of life was diminished in any way because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.  And I’m not talking about undocumented anecdotal stories of gastro-intestinal problems, or hives, which is really all we have seen from the anti water-fluoridationists here.  I’m talking about showing us one well-documented case which is agreed upon by the scientific community. 

 

It would also be nice to see the lawsuit that would have naturally followed from a municipality harming one of its citizens by intentionally putting something harmful into his or her drinking water.  Because if anything would merit a lawsuit, it would be that; considering the fact that the U.S. is so lawsuit crazy that even the world’s most powerful fast food chain was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot, I can’t imagine that no successful lawsuits have occurred based on all the harm you are alleging. 

 

You also implied that I have been coached in some way by AFS.  Unless you have some proof of that you may want to reconsider.  Frankly, you are making false allegations about me, while you play the injured victim.  That, alone, speaks to your character.

 

I pointed out that a photograph that you took of teeth which are iron stained, by non-fluoridated water, has been used as anti-fluoride propaganda.  I see this as deceptive.  I offer you the chance to defend it. 

 

I pointed out that when you said, “And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors,” you seem to have had fore-knowledge of at least one study, a study upon which you were able to comment and criticize.  I see this as deceptive, to say the least.  I offer you the chance to explain yourself. 

 

Now, if you are willing to respond to discrepancies from your own comments that I have questioned, that would be fine.  If you choose not to, again, that is your choice.  But since, as you have stated, the sole purpose of this thread is to provide some evidence of harm of a proven health benefit, (a fringe position in the scientific community), in order to convince the AARP to take your fringe position, then the AARP has every right to see your comments questioned and scrutinized so that knowledgeable, well informed decisions can be made.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
2577
Views
Conversationalist
6
Kudos
2550
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,550 Views
Message 35 of 50

In my original comment, I articulated my top ten reasons against water fluoridation policy which included the undeniable fact that fluoride causes illness in many consumers, especially those in vulnerable populations like senior citizens. My professional expert opinion is based on my professional experience as a dentist, scientist, and dental professor as well as my review of fluoride science which I extensively studied as part of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.  Our 2006 committee was charged with recommending the EPA on their MCLG for fluoride in drinking water. We advised the EPA that the EPA MCL/MCLG of 4 ppm is not protective of human health. We also advised them that severe dental fluorosis which is afflicting more and more children every year is an adverse health effect. 

 

We advised the EPA that there was no scientific evidence of any safe level of fluoride in drinking water on which to establish a reference dose. We advised the EPA that it was reasonable to anticipate adverse health effects which included gastrointestinal, kidney, thyroid, and arthritic in vulnerable sub-populations at lower concentrations. Science since our 2006 report confirms that those effects are evident even at levels of fluoridation that cities and towns consider as optimum. 

 

I wrote in my original comment that I would not engage with the members of the American Fluoridation Society on this forum as they have proved themselves to be unethical and abusive in their online interactions. Apparently, the AFS has been busy coaching interested parties in how to use social media to promote fluoridation, which includes ‘reframing' the conversation in order to get it away from the evidence of harm. Also, apparently DavidF928895 has a long history of doing just that. 

 

I am happy to discuss reasons why AARP should support a ban on fluoridation. But I am not going to waste my time with trolls who are obviously being coached on specific wording in dental studies. Fluoridation opposition is not only about discussing what little modern benefits there are by examining the very weak dental studies - fluoridation opposition is about medical consent, individual rights and overall health. 

Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
2550
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
2529
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,529 Views
Message 36 of 50

”Fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete.…. 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)

 

Fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate. Fluoride is added to the water with the intention of preventing dental decay. Yet, reviews of old fluoridation studies proved them both flawed and biased while modern studies show that any benefit from fluoridation is tiny - maybe some people have one less cavity over their lifetime. Toothpaste is much more effective.

 

Worse, dental fluorosis which is the staining of teeth due to fluoride poisoning during early childhood now affects over half of American teens per 2011-12 U.S. NHANES surveillance data. Worse still, one in five teens (23%) has brown stains on at least two brittle teeth which will require costly veneers & crowns in young adulthood. Dental fluorosis at the outset of fluoridation policy was predicted to only affect 10% of the population and only manifest as mild. Dental fluorosis has grown in lock-step with fluoridation policy from 22% in the 1980s, to 41% circa 2000, to 61% today (Wiener et al. 2018; Racz et al. 2017; Beltrán-Aguilar et al. 2010; Agustina et al. 2018; Khandare et al. 2018; Waidyasekera et al 2010;  Whitford 1990

 

But this isn't about teeth. Modern science proves that fluoride consumption causes or worsens arthritis, kidney disease, thyroid disease, inflammatory bowel disease, neurological disease, etc. This science is supported by testimony of affected individuals, including many senior citizens who have had fluoride build up in the bodies, brains, and bones over decades of consumption, as well as many professionals such as Dr. Hardy Limeback who began this thread. 

 

To add insult to injury, the vast majority of fluoridation chemicals added to water supplies goes directly into the environment where they persist for a million years and adversely affect some aquatic species (plants, fish, birds). Moreover, fluoridation chemicals are contaminated with aluminum, lead, barium, cadmium, etc. and fluoride enhances absorption of toxic metals into human tissue (Mullenix 2014; Camargo 2003; Sawan et al. 2010). 

 

This forum is not the place for arguing wording of dental studies or laws. This forum is a place for sharing experiences and advocating for justice!

 

AARP should advocate for its constituency and craft a policy statement opposed to fluoridation, which is mass medication using municipal water. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
2529
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
2546
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,546 Views
Message 37 of 50

I think I owe you an apology, Dr. Limebeck. 

 

Upon reading your comment a second time, and sleeping on it, I believe I missed the salient point you were making.  I had asked you about the second photograph in this article which is attributed to you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

 

The condition of the teeth is diagnosed as being Mild Dental Fluorosis.  Now, to be sure, Mild DF can be associated with Community Water Fluoridation.  So, anyone looking at this photo would get the message that this is what happens to teeth because of water fluoridation. 

 

I questioned the photo because Mild DF is characterized by white spotting, usually unnoticeable, dried and put under special lighting for the condition to even be photographed.  But these teeth have dark spots, to me they look brown, which is characteristic of Moderate or Severe DF.  

 

You are saying, and I seem to have missed this, that the spots on these teeth are a result of Iron in the water.  To me they look brown, you say they are orange, but you were the photographer, so you would know better than me. 

 

Nevertheless, this photo is being used as propaganda in an effort to end water fluoridation, a proven health benefit.  The most distinguishing characteristics of these teeth are the dark spots on them.  The message this photo implies is that this is what happens when someone is exposed to optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The prominent dark spots on these teeth, as you have said, are from Iron, not fluoride.  Moreover, you have said that this patient grew up in a non-fluoridated area. 

 

Doesn’t it bother you a little bit that this photo is used as an example of Mild DF, when the most obvious markings on them have nothing to do with fluoride at all?  Doesn’t that seem a little bit deceptive to show Iron stained teeth in an article about fluoride over-exposure? 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2546
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
2546
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,546 Views
Message 38 of 50

There is one other small thing I would like to bring up, Dr. Limebeck.

 

In your very first comment in this thread, you said, "I offer my advice as an expert, freely and without prejudice but I cannot give dental advice online. I have no financial interest whatsoever in this fluoridation 'fight'. I simply want the truth to come out and for people to not to be unduly influenced by self-proclaimed spokespersons for fluoridation. "

 

Fair enough. However, it's the "without prejudice" that I question.  In your response to JG, who supports water fluoridation (07-24-2018 09:37 PM ) you said, "Besides, you wanted double-blinded research and yet offer an anecdotal example of your own family.”

 

That’s true, his story was anecdotal, with no documentation.  But if you really wanted to respond to readers fairly, without prejudice, wouldn’t you also have said the same thing to KF who opposes water fluoridation.(07-05-2018 06:20 PM)?  If you will recall, she offered a few symptoms which she attributed to fluoridated water, said she felt better after filtering her water . . all with no documentation, making them anecdotal as well?

 

To be fair, without prejudice, shouldn’t you have pointed out to her that her stories were anecdotal as well?  Both stories were equal in merit, yet you only found a flaw in the pro-fluoridation story.  It seems to me that, thus far, you only point out the fallacy of a story if it supports water fluoridation.  And that isn’t really without prejudice, is it.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2546
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
2494
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,494 Views
Message 39 of 50

Thank you for your responses, Dr. Limeback.  I realize you must be busy and it is very kind of you to take time to respond.

 

Taking one issue at a time, I would like to recap a few things that have been said, so they don’t get lost, and so we can view the comments in context to other statements that have been made.

 

You said, “And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors.”

 07-24-2018 09:37 PM

 

I pointed your attention to two studies, one by Professor Gary Slade of Adelaide University.  The other demonstrating the benefits of fluoride toothpaste on adults & seniors. 

 

To that, you responded, “This study . .  was a cross-sectional ecological study and not a randomized clinical trial. It stopped at about 40 years of exposure and found only one tooth difference between fluoride and non-fluoride exposed.”

 

From the actual Review:  “The results show that adults with more than a 75% lifetime (Note: 40 years, per your comment, would be 75% if people only lived to 53 years) exposure to water fluoridation have significantly reduced tooth decay (up to 30% less) when compared with those with less than 25% lifetime exposure.” https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news59781.html

 

It’s not the difference in your interpretation of the Study itself from the authors of the Review that I find confusing.  What confuses me is that you seem to be familiar with this study.  How could you comment on the merits of a study unless you were familiar with it?

 

To be clear, when you said, “And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors,” you were fully aware of at least one study which did show benefit to adults & seniors.  Am I correct?  If I am wrong, please explain how you could not be aware of a study and truthfully say that there were no studies of this kind; yet comment on the merits of that study.

 

I’m not trying to be abusive or insulting here.  I just find this very perplexing.  Please take a moment to explain the apparent paradox here which must end in one of two solutions.  1.) Either you were not truthful in your first comment, you were aware of that study while saying no such study existed; or 2.) you were truthful, you weren’t aware of the study, and yet you commented on the merits of this study about which you had no knowledge. 

 

However, we do seem to agree on the merits of the second study which stated that fluoride toothpaste can be of benefit to seniors whose vulnerable roots are exposed, making them more resistant to decay.

 

Ok, enough of that.  To the second issue.  I had asked you to make a diagnosis of teeth which you photographed, identified in an article as having mild dental fluorosis.

 

In your reply, you first criticized the Deans index, saying that it is ¾ of a century old, and has been improved upon.  Then, in describing characteristics of the teeth in that photo, you said, “While that typically put them in the moderate category in the old Dean's index, I was unsatisfied with the ordinal scale of his index, and those that followed.”

 

And this is important.  Because water fluoridation can be associated with Mild Dental Fluorosis.  You’ve allowed your photo to appear in an article on a website dedicated to the abolition of water fluoridation.

 

A few things first.  The Deans index, which you say would place this photo in Moderate fluorosis, is very much used, widely accepted, and certainly has merit.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10734619

You seem to be dissatisfied with Dean’s index because the cut-off lines for scoring are somewhat blurred (“The cut-off between scores (e.g. mild to moderate) was never clear enough.”), yet you seem satisfied that the teeth in this photo would be placed in the Moderate category in Dean’s index.  You seem clear enough about that.  It appears to me that one chooses a scale depending on one’s agenda.  I would like to understand the TFI scale so that I may scrutinize your categorization. 

 

But all this is secondary to another point.  The patient in this photo has never had fluoridated water.  (“That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area.”)   You allowed your photograph to be used by the Fluoride Action Network in their efforts to end water fluoridation, that is FAN’s sole purpose, and the teeth in this photo had never even touched fluoridated water.

 

Doesn’t that seem a little bit dishonest to you?

 

After we’ve resolved these issues, we can move on to the point you have brought up numerous times, the lack of a double blind randomized study and how you would execute such a study with community water fluoridation, . . but not until we have tackled the issues at hand.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
2494
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
2
Kudos
2532
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,532 Views
Message 40 of 50

To answer your other questions:

 

This study https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news59781.html was a cross-sectional ecological study and not a randomized clinical trial. It stopped at about 40 years of exposure and found only one tooth difference between fluoride and non-fluoride exposed. There could be many reasons for this.

Confounding factors and AWF.jpgSlade et al (2013) only looked at toothbrushing, income and education as confounders There have not been any studies to convincingly show that fluoridation helps adults and seniors reduce dental decay. That review by Griffin that you cite (https://www.nature.com/articles/6400506.pdf) covers toothpaste etc. There is some evidence that fluoridated toothpaste helps to reduce dental decay in seniors, especially with exposure root surfaces. 

 

Thank you for those additional questions. 

Dr. Hardy Limeback

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
2532
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season