You could save on auto insurance when you complete the AARP Smart Driver course! Use code VET to save 25 percent now.
 
 
Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
359
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

359 Views
Message 631 of 861

Joe -

 

While I agree your response to me was a more subtle put down, I suggest you read what Chuck, David, Steven & Johnny have been writing about Dr. Bill Osmunson, Dr. Sauerheber, SIRPAC and me since 6/27. Their choice of language is trully abusive. 

 

But yes - I feel and expressed some righteous indignation that the AFS  imported an Irishman to weigh in on this American website whose membership is supposed to be American, not international. I've already had plenty of dealings with abusive trolls from the southern hemisphere on my small town newspaper, but I only found out they weren't local by digging into their online identities - so I now dig into everyone who seems not to belong. Other AARP members might not have been tipped off by the referenc to SCHER and the BDS post-nomial, but I knew it meant you might not be an American. 

 

Joe, read my posts about my experience which has nothing to do with cancer - a distraction from the purpose of this thread which chugged along unmolested for three years with about 60 posts until 6/27. Chuck and David jumped on the passing reference to cancer to derail the conversation, which it has with your help, while he and company denigrate me and belittle my testimony of harm. 

 

For the record: Einstein wasn't hailed as a brilliant hero from the get go. He up ended lots of 'consensus' - which is a political construct without scientific basis. See what a former fluoridationist had to say about so called fluoridation consensus;   

 “I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.”  - Dr. John Colquhoun BDS, PhD, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand and leading proponent turned opponent (1998)

 

Speaking about consensus, here are just a few professional American organizations who are on record opposing fluoridation in teh 21st century. I'm sure there are a few in Ireland, too: 

 

  1. IAOMT 2017 Position Paper with 500+ citations AGAINST any fluoride use:  https://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Fluoride-Position-Paper.pdf  

  2. AAEM 2015 cosigner of letter with Erin Brockovich et alhttps://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/LetterIOM_2015.04.27.pdf 

  3. CHEJ 2015 Position of Lois Gibbs, Nobel Prize nominee and environmentalist: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/gibbs-2015.pdf 

  4. Sierra Club 2008 on damage to environment: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water

  5. EWG in 2011 to HHS on evidence of harm: https://www.ewg.org/news/testimony-official-correspondence/proposed-federal-fluoride-cap-too-high   

  6. LULAC 2011 Resolution on Medical Consent & Environmental Justice: http://lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2011/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation_Regarding_Forced_Medica...

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
359
Views
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
372
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

372 Views
Message 632 of 861

Richard - I don’t work in the area of fluoridation any longer but I did spend the best part of 20 years in this area, particularly in regards to dental public health. I did take the time to read every text I could access which opposed fluoridation because I felt that this public health policy did require justification and needed to be questioned constantly. While I came to disagree with them, I have always recognized that anti-fluoride advocates were utterly sincere in their opposition. What was obvious is that there are an enormous number of relevant studies out there - I think the York Review identified over 3000 as far back as 2000. In such a situation we have to rely on a synthesis of all the evidence by competent experts rather than selecting bits and pieces of individual studies. This has been carried out now on many occasions in many countries. Thus, I accept this consensus.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
372
Views
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
375
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

375 Views
Message 633 of 861

CarryAnn - that’s a bit abusive isn’t it? You do realize that this discussion is online and can be viewed from anywhere? If you simply resort to insulting people who have a different view to yours it tends to devalue your own arguments.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
375
Views
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
358
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

358 Views
Message 634 of 861

CarryAnn - that’s a bit abusive isn’t it? You do realize that this discussion is online and can be viewed from anywhere? If you simply resort to insulting people who have a different view to yours it tends to lessen your own arguments, don’t you think?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
358
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
356
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

356 Views
Message 635 of 861

It is necessary to read and understand accurate well-collected scientific data, not articles written by those with biases.  How many in the government have taken the time to read the Teotia and Teotia 30 year study showing that caries incidence is highest in populations that have high fluoride and low calcium in their diets?

Or the Ziegelbecker study demonstrating that the original correlation by Trendley Dean with natural fluoride water was mistakenly taken from a limited data set, where considering all data there is no caries efffect of flouride in water over a broad concentration range to 6 ppm.

Or the Yiamouyiannis study of U.S. fluoridated cities showing zero effect on dental caries in massive population sets as a function of age. 

Or the Sutton textbooks demonstrating how the false conclusions were made in the original Grand Rapids and Newburgh fluoridation trials?

How many have read the Fluoride Deception that traces the actual reasons why fluoridation trials were begun in the first place without FDA approval and with FDA opposition?

Dean confessed in court under oath that the evidence correlating water fluoride with caries incidence had no basis in fact.

Why does the government continue it?  I don't know. You seem to suggest that you know they would stop if they knew the truth.  When a government program starts, who can stop it? I can't.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
356
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
338
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

338 Views
Message 636 of 861

Joe - Tell me, why did an Irish dental fluoridationist join and begin commenting on the website of the American Academy of Retired Persons, which is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age?  

 

Cancer was a red herring that Chuck Haynie threw in to disrupt the conversation. If you, Chuck and others want to argue cancer - get a room. I hear Sligo-Leitrim is only a train ride away from Dublin, yes? 

 

Myself, I prefer to limit my activities to my side of the Atlantic and let environmental scientist Declan Waugh and biologist Doug Cross deal with the trolls in the UK. 

Screen Shot 2018-07-12 at 3.49.30 PM.png

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
338
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
336
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

336 Views
Message 637 of 861

You again make an incorrect extrapolation.  

I've informed the FDA several times that allowing fluoride in bottled water contradicts their own ruling to ban the sale of fluorides intended to be ingested by pregnant women. Their response is that they don't authorize adding the fluoride ilnto bottled water and in most cases it is naturally there and not intentionally added. Furthermore, fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water. 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
336
Views
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
308
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

308 Views
Message 638 of 861

Hello CarryAnn - I don't think Einstein was arguing that scientific consensus should be ignored, he was arguing against unthinking acceptance of unsupported opinions from those in authority.

 

In the case of water fluoridation, the scientific consensus from very many major reviews by experts is that water fluoridation is beneficial and does not cause harm. 

 

It seems to me that we should need very good reasons not to accept the consensus of the scientific community, particularly in public health.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
308
Views
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
296
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

296 Views
Message 639 of 861

Richard - It is clear that the international scientific consensus is that fluoride is not a carcinogen. It is also clear that the strong consensus is that fluoridated water is beneficial to oral health. 

 

It is also clear that the benefits of fluoridation extend into older age, with greater numbers of retained teeth and lower levels of root caries. Epidemiological studies of dental health consistently report improved dental health for residents of fluoridated areas, regardless of toothbrushing.

 

If either of these points was untrue, public health authorities would not be promoting water fluoridation.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
296
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
290
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

290 Views
Message 640 of 861

Where did you get your medical degree, David? And remind me, when did I see you for a medical consultation? Or is your degree in bioethics? 

 

  • My allergist told me to avoid municipal water because of my rashes and other symptoms, based on skin and blood tests, as well as clinical examination. He had a packet of information that he handed to many of his patients on this topic. He mentioned there are 'many different chemicals' used to treat water that can set some one off. This in 1983. 
  • My MD told me to 'watch what I ate' for my gastrointestinal complaints and to learn to live with the arthritis. This in the 1990s. 

 

When it's in water, it's in everything. It took me decades to find out exactly what the problem was. Once I knew and could take more comprehensive steps to avoid fluoride, after decades of misery - my 'allergies,' IBS and arthritis are gone. Also gone are my more recent kidney and liver problems - all of which are documented as being indicative of  fluoride posioning.

 

Fluoride is not added to water to treat water - it is added to treat people. Although they allow a limited amount in bottled water, fluoride is characterized by the FDA as an 'unapproved drug.'  The FDA assumes no authority for 'water additives' and the EPA leaves fluoridations decision to states and municipalities where the issue becomes politicized - because the SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people. Fluoride is the only substance ever added to treat people. 

 

Neither my city nor you, David, have the right to use municipal water to dose me with a drug that worsens my health! 

“In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)

 

1978 Checklist

http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/flier_waldbott_symptoms_ftgd.pdf

2015 Report w/checklist

http://fluorideandfluorosis.com/Reprints/pdf/IJPP%2017(2)%202015.pdf

SkeletalFluorosis.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
290
Views