Learn how to spot and avoid common scams with AARP's Fraud Resource Center. Try it today!

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1608
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,608 Views
Message 1 of 50

In January, the Alzheimer's Association quietly demanded its name be removed from the list used by ADA & CDC to promote fluoridation, apparently in the face of a half dozen studies finding fluoride exposure even in relatively low doses causes brain damage and interferes with the effectiveness of drugs used to treat dementia. See Feb 7 letter to editor mentioning this and other January news. 

 

But let's make this simple. Calculating the individual dosage for any person is impossible because fluoride is in everything. One  thing we have some control over is we can demand our cities & towns stop adding it to our water. Take the quiz below and watch this short video from one group of dentists & scientists opposed to the poisoning of people & planet with an enzyme poison. 

 

DoseQuiz.jpeg

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1608
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1746
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,746 Views
Message 2 of 50

Hi Hardy,

Still pushing for double blind studies for water fluoridation?

 

My Recommendation:

Secure funding and conduct this research yourself. Once and for all you’ll be satisfied that you have proof. As a scientist that served on the 2006 NRC Research Panel, that should be easy for you to secure. 

 

Simple. Easy to prove your point. 

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr. DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry 

Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1746
Views
Info Seeker
2
Kudos
1787
Views

Re: Weight of Evidence: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,787 Views
Message 3 of 50

I never thought I’d live to see the day that the United States would become so steeped in propaganda. God bless the truth-speakers like Robert F. Kennedy Jr whose legal successes include getting General Electric to clean up the pollution it caused in the Hudson River and winning a lawsuit against Monsanto who colluded with the U.S. EPA to hide scientific evidence of the cancer causing properties of its leading weed killer, Round-up. 

 
The Children’s Health Defense Team led by RFK issued a statement on January 9, 2019 calling for an immediate end to fluoridation. The statement calls out  "U.S. officialdom (who) persists in making hollow claims that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial, choosing to ignore even its own research!” and refers to fluoridation as “one of the most significant chemical assaults on our children’s developing bodies and brains.” Drinking this stuff for a lifetime doesn’t do senior citizens' brains any good, either.  statement: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/u-s-water-fluoridation-a-forced-experiment-that-needs-to-end...
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1787
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
2860
Views

Weight of Evidence: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,860 Views
Message 4 of 50

The weight of modern scientific evidence, evoloving medical opinion and bioethics supports an immediate cessation of fluoridation policy. 

 

To seniors new to this AARP topic who don't have the inclination to read through the arguments of the fluoridationists, I suggest checking out Dr. Hardy Limeback's orginal July 2 comment and last Aug 10 comment

 

For brevity, alllow me to suggest this comment

For a summary comment, see my comment

 

And for a series from a registered nurse, click here and here and here

 

Quotes2018.jpgA few 2017-18 excerpts from science

 
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
2860
Views
Highlighted
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
2864
Views

Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

2,864 Views
Message 5 of 50

Richard Sauerheber –  How does your comment (09-07-2018 12:44 PM), “it is agailn necessary to explain the FDA position on dietary fluoride” and “The FDA has never approved any fluoride compound for ingestion” relate to community water fluoridation?  As noted earlier, the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a Food For Human Consumption, not a medication.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=165.110

 

In your 09-06-2018 04:31 PM comment about the FAN petition you stated, “I was accused of believing in a strange society because that society denounced fluoridation, simply because I denounce fluoridatuon. Quite bizarre.”  If the “strange society” you referenced was indeed FAN, then I give you credit for one accurate observation.  I checked, however, and I could not find any post that accused you of any FAN affiliation – would you cite who posted it and when so your claim can be verified?

 

OK, you, “never stated that the scientific consensus opposes fluoridation” but you did claim (09-07-2018 12:22 PM) that, “No one has any way of knowing this”.  Actually, the way those who are not an anti-science activists (ASAs) know that the scientific consensus does not oppose fluoridation is precisely because the major science and health organizations in the world continue to recognize the benefits and safety of fluoridation, and their hundreds of thousands of members have either publically agreed with the consensus or they have not mutinied and demanded that the consensus be changed.   

 

If the majority of members who represent the organizations that millions of people in the world depend on for protecting their health are completely unable to accurately examine or understand the evidence from over 70 years of research of fluoridation, or don’t care enough to personally evaluate it, or believe fluoridation causes significant harm and remain silent, how can they be trusted with any other health-care-related decision?  Do you have any other explanations?

 

The evidence that you and other FOs embrace a fringe, outlier position is the fact that the scientific consensus does not support claims that fluoridation is ineffective and harmful.  Another piece of evidence that you and other FOs embrace a fringe, outlier position is that none of the major science or health organizations responsible for protecting and improving the health of people around the world support the anti-F opinions.  Last count I saw was a list of 6 alternative health organizations and 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations posted by FOs in these comments.

 

Your statement, “Opposition to fluoridation is vast even if it were not a majority consensus--but we have no idea what fraction of the population opposes fluoridation.”  Is completely irrelevant.  The number of non-scientists, non-health care professionals worldwide who accept the propaganda of ASAs is only a measure of how effective the fear-mongering campaigns are.  That only has relevance when a well-meaning majority of non-experts are successfully duped by ASAs and vote to end effective public health measures.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2864
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
2909
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,909 Views
Message 6 of 50

it is agailn necessary to explain the FDA position on dietary fluoride. The FDA ruled that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods in 1975. In 1966 the FDA banned the sale of all fluoride comounds ilntended to be sold for ingesiton by pregnant women in the Unied Staes. The FDA ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapprove drug (1963). The FDA ruled that fluoridated water at1 ppm cannot be used in kidney dialysis equipment because of increased morbidity when such water is used chronically.

The FDA has never approved any fluoride compound for ingestion.The FDA regulates sodium fluoride and makes it available only by prescription and only in those areas where water fluoride is less than 0.6 ppm and probibits giving fluoride to children under 6. The FDA allows fluoride in bottled water up to 1 ppm because it is difficult to remove from water and because water is an essntial dietary ingredient that nevertheless must be consumed to survive and because so much water now is fluoridated. Again, fluoride is not a food, it is not an essential mineral, it has not been proven in controlled clinical trials to reduce caries, and its incorporation into bone was ruled by the FDA as not strengthening bone as proponents had claimed without  proof.  

The FDA does not endorse, request, or support fluoridation of people by treating water. This would  violate all rulings the FDA has ever made on fluoride.

The FDA prohibits foods and beverages from being labled for fluoride content. This was instituted by Dr. Groth then at the FDA who argued that doing so would give consumers the impression that fluoride belongs in water when it does not. It is a contaminant in water. 

Fluoridated toothpaste is prohibited by theF DA from being swallowed and prohibited from being used by children under 6, where such labels on toothpaste containers are required by law.. 

References for these statements are in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 2013 article online at:  https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

An expanded updated version of this article is now in press at AVID Science, Berlin.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2909
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
2915
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,915 Views
Message 7 of 50

Sorry but I never stated that the scientific consensus opposes fluoridation. No one has any way of knowing this. I said opposition to fluoridation of people is vast, and that it is false to claim there are 7 million health professionals who do not oppose it, simply based on the idea that if they didn't sign a FAN petition then they must not be opposed to it. What is so hard to understand?

 

Many are accused of being "fringe" because they voted for Hillary Clinton who is believed not to be "mainstram" or "consensus" because her opponent was inaugurated. But that is false. Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes than her opponent. Calling such voters "fringe" has no meaning. Likewise, a policy in place such as fluoridation, if it were a minority opposing view is not "fringe" either. In the U.S. we have a democracy that supports and considers and assists those of the opposite party, or the minority party (in number of people). The minority party are citizens of the U.S. just like the majority party. 

 

Opposition to fluoridation is vast even if it were not a majority consensus--but we have no idea what fraction of the population opposes fluoridation. it is possibly a majority consensus opposed to fluoridaiton but we don't know. One state did have a full vote, Nebraska, and the vast majority of th epopulaitno rvoted agaisnt fluoridation. How would all others States do? No one can know. There has never been a Nationwide vote on the subject to even estimate such a tihng. I don't claim a consensus of opposition, and niether can anyone else claim a consensus in support of fluoridaitn people. This is so, even though oave 60% of water districts now fluoridate their own people.

 

And by the way, fluoride is a halogen ion, and like the other toxic poisonous halide bromide, has no function in the human being and is a contaminant of the bloodstream. On the other hand, chloride is an essential ion that regulates water balance in man and animals, and iodide is an essential dietary ingredient because without it the thyroid would not be able to function. Adding a useless, nonessential fluoride ion into water to treat people is unethical and harmful, and adding it for reasons other than sanitizing the water is illegal, regardless of how many people do so, and regardless of whether it actually were a "consensus" view (though we have no accurate way of ascertaining that). 

 

Get it?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
2915
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
2929
Views

Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

2,929 Views
Message 8 of 50

Rick North – This is a reply I submitted to your entire opinion piece in the Lund Report - not the excerpt posted here.

 

According to your “logic” –– Putting a poison – any poison – in drinking water is absurd.   To illustrate your “reasoning” a similar practice can be described as:  Putting chlorine – a known chemical weapon that creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts (DBPs) – in water is unconscionable. And, unlike fluoride ions, which strengthen tooth enamel (reducing the risk of decay), there are no beneficial health effects to ingesting DBPs at any level.

 

The arbitrary labeling of community water fluoridation (CWF) as a drug is one of the many distractions and deceptions employed by fluoridation opponents (FOs).  Since CWF, like community water chlorination, is effective, and the benefits far outweigh any risks, most rational individuals would not care whether the substances added were called poisons or medicines or additives or water treatment chemicals.

 

The FDA actually regulates fluoridated bottled water as a “Food For Human Consumption”, not a drug.  Apparently it does not matter to FOs that the levels of residual disinfectants, DBPs, fluoride ions and other potentially harmful chemicals are regulated to be within safe levels. 

 

Also, consider the fact that, according to the FDA, “If a supplement contains iodine [which is also a halogen like fluorine and poisonous at high exposure levels], the Supplement Facts label must list iodine as a nutrient ingredient” – not a medicine. How can one halogen that is added to protect health be labeled a nutrient and another a medicine - oh, and chlorine (yet another halogen) added to treat water and protect health is a poison?

 

Your accusation that alleges "every one of these protocols is violated" is based entirely on an irrational, deceptive attempt to fabricate definitions that will fuel your anti-science campaign.

 

FOs invent irrelevant distractions (like your “FSA“ and “dose” diversions - in the Lund opinions) to obscure the fact they have no legitimate evidence to support their opinions.  The scientific facts on “FSA” are; fluoride ions are identical regardless of source, FSA contaminant levels are carefully regulated (and typically not measurable in treated water) and all water treatment chemicals are toxic and hazardous when concentrated.  The facts about “dose” are; no doctor is responsible for monitoring the dose of DBPs or instructing you on their potential harmful side effects based on your personal medical history.  The dose of fluoride ions, like the dose of DBPs and other chemicals in public drinking water, is controlled by the amount of water it is possible to drink – ingesting harmful “doses” of fluoride ions or DBPs (or other regulated chemicals) would require drinking toxic amounts of H2O.

 

These and other extraneous distractions are designed to focus the attention of their target audience – conscientious members of the public – away from the fact that there has been no “wealth of research demonstrating fluoride’s [alleged] harmful effects” in over 70 years that has been sufficient to change the scientific consensus that CWF is a beneficial and safe public health measure (like all water treatment processes) to reduce the risk of tooth decay (and related health issues) in communities. 

 

Rational, caring individuals are concerned with an impartial evaluation of overall benefits vs. risks of public health measures by relevant experts, not on arbitrary definitions and conclusions fabricated by anti-science activists (anti-fluoridation, anti-chlorination, anti-vaccination, anti-evolutionist, anti-climate change, etc.) with specific agendas that are completely contrary to the relevant accepted scientific consensus and damaging to the health of citizens and our planet.

 

Can you provided a logical explanation of why, if FOs actually have any legitimate scientific evidence to support their claims of obvious and serious harm, the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure has not changed in over 70 years?

 

By scientific consensus, I mean that the majority of relevant experts in a given scientific field agree on the interpretation of the available body of evidence.  This consensus is the reason the public health benefits of CWF are publicly recognized by the U.S. CDC, the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world.
~> Search on “ada fluoridation facts compendium” and “I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say?

 

The fact that the hundreds of thousands of members representing those science and health organizations have not rebelled over the last 70+ years as those organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF (as new evidence continues to accumulate) is a clear example of a scientific consensus.  When legitimate, compelling evidence that supports different interpretations of the evidence is presented, the consensus changes – that is how science and health care have continued to evolve over the last few hundred years.

 

In contrast, I have recently seen a list of about 13 alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations posted by FOs that oppose CWF.  That is a clear demonstration of the fact that there are always minority, outlier opinions whose proponents have been unsuccessful at providing credible scientific evidence to change the majority consensus.

 

What is your perspective on the scientific consensus and the fact that virtually no reputable science or health organizations support the anti-F opinions?

 

Do you agree with how two FOs recently described organizations that support CWF?  I am still trying to obtain answers from them on whether their libelous accusations are directed only at members of the listed organizations or at all representatives of all organizations in the world who continue to support (or do not denounce) CWF.  What do you think?

 

Dr. Osmunson: "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."

 

CarryAnne: Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corruptandvested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millionsandAgnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased groupandI have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.” Fact: The ATA was bullied into modifying its position on CWF by the threat of a lawsuit as evidenced by a 2016 letter to the ATA prepared by CarryAnne which states, “In closing, given the fluoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontario [and] other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be filed, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientific integrity and professional ethics.”

 

The 2015 Cochrane Fluoride Review concluded that studies (which met their inclusion criteria) that were performed before the widespread introduction of fluoridated toothpaste, dental fluoride treatments, etc., “…found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children. The introduction of water fluoridation resulted in children having 35% fewer decayed, missing and filled baby teeth and 26% fewer decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth. We also found that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and a 14% increase in children with no decay in their permanent teeth.”  The review also listed no health concerns from drinking optimally fluoridated water.

 

The 2006 NRC Fluoride Review committee (which included at least three dedicated FOs) “was asked to evaluate independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of 2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect children and others from adverse health effectsThe review listed absolutely no harmful health-related finding or recommendation for water containing fluoride ions at the SMCL of 2.0 mg/l – three times the optimal level for CWF.  Provide the exact citation in the 2006 NRC review that concluded CWF had “the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and body” and required an adjustment of the SMCL.

 

How do you explain the conclusions of these additional references?  Since 2000, there have been a number of scientific reviews that have concluded that CWF reduces dental decay, and none of these reviews reported any health risks from drinking optimally fluoridated water, only an increased risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis.  They include:

the 2018 Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents review;

the 2018 Water Fluoridation Health Monitoring Report for England;

the 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report;

the 2017 Swedish report, Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water;

the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health;

the 2016 Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council Fluoridation Report;

the 2015 Manual of Dental Practices, Council of European Dentists;

the 2015 U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries;

the 2015 Cochrane Water Fluoridation Review (as referenced above);

the 2014 Royal Society of New Zealand, Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence;

the 2013 Congressional Research Service, Fluoride in Drinking Water Review;

the 2006 NRC Fluoride Review (as referenced above);

the 2000 York Water Fluoridation Review;

the 2000 Community Preventive Services Task Force, Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation;

and the 2018 National Toxicity Program fluoride study found no evidence of harm.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
2929
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
2938
Views

The scientific consensus of experts continues to support CWF as safe and effective.

2,938 Views
Message 9 of 50

Richard Sauerheber - So you are claiming that a majority of scientists and health professionals support the anti-F propaganda? So far I have seen a list of about 13 organizations that support the anti-F opinions - 6 six alternative health organizations and 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural groups.

 

On the other hand, the current scientific consensus, based on the an evaluation of the entire body of fluoridation evidence, is the reason over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their many hundreds of thousands of members) continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation, and none, as far as I am aware, recognize anti-F opinions.

~> Search on “ada fluoridation facts compendium” and “I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say?”

 

How do you explain those facts?

 

Explain why, exactly, the so-called “evidence” presented by FOs has been completely unable to change the scientific consensus?

 

Explain why, FOs must use fear-mongering tactics to try and scare the public into accepting their opinions instead of using their alleged wealth of legitimate and conclusive evidence of harm  to convince the relevant science and health expert that their conclusions are valid?  That is how science evolves. 

 

There is no consensus that can be protected against new, conflicting evidence for long by biases, convictions, stubbornness, commitment to a belief or special interests –– except, of course, in the case of water fluoridation where, for over 70 years, hundreds of thousands of experts and professionals (represented by the science and health organizations referenced earlier) have been too ignorant to correctly evaluate the evidence, completely duped by the reptilian elite, bought off by “big money schemes”, beaten into submission, or they just love to watch people suffer as hundreds of millions of people drink it daily.

 

Can you think of any other explanations for why a fringe handful of paranoid anti-science activists who claim to have valid evidence sufficient to change the fluoridation consensus have failed to do so?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
2938
Views
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
2952
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

2,952 Views
Message 10 of 50
I might add that after I had written this earlier this morning, I was up with a brain fart idea...went in and edited and corrected some typos... I filter my drinking water 3 times to hopefully reduce some more of the contaminates in my water filters... I have two older Pur brand counter top water filters that I would use... Incidentally, my house was built back in the mid 30's and I still need to replace some of the old galvanized pipes...I had went to the stores that sell the inline water filters, the kind they have twist off lids to replace the carbon filters and the cylindrical tube type filters to create my own 3 stage filter..on the incoming cold water before it reaches the hot water tank and p.s... I replace my counter top units every 100 days IF, they slow down or quit filtering... *Thus hopefully saving some costly repairs later....but, to reduce my chances of getting *skin rashes...and those dreaded other *skin disorders... Ever notice that when you go to the doctor or pharmacy to ask questions about how you got those skin disorders...they prescribe a med or creams to treat the disease... Wow.... and I found out that by using distilled vinegar to clean my coffee pot this cuts down on bacteria growing in those units.. FYI.... Hope all of my posts helps other seniors like myself to have and enjoy our golden years. Have A Great Friday Everyone...and Weekend too..
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
2952
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera