Take the AARP Smart Driver course and you could save on auto insurance! Sign up today.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
716
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

716 Views
Message 1061 of 1,304

 

Carrie Anne has said,

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” - Dr. Wm. Marcus (1998)

         "Follow the money." - Deep Throat (1972)  (Timestamp 07-04-2018 09:07 AM – this thread)  

 

And, “Dr. Wm. Marcus who wrote a memo about management interference for manipulation of cancer data in order to disappear the evidence of carcinogenicity in a fluoride study.”

 

Carrie Anne has also said, “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.”  (Timestamp 07-12-2018 03:53 PM)

 

Response:  I take it now that you Don’t wish to discuss cancer and water fluoridation, which you originally brought up in the first place, before complaining that the issue was a distraction.  Is that correct?

 

 

Carrie Anne has also said:

 “ . . lawsuits are expensive and given the way fluoridation is set up (there are no deep pockets to sue), . .”  (Timestamp 07-04-2018 09:07 AM – this thread)  

 

 

And, “ . . it is big business to add fluoride to water between 0.7 and 1 ppm . .”  (Timestamp:  ‎07-13-2018 06:36 AM)

 

Response:  If it is big business to add fluoride to water . . there must be some deep pockets to sue.  Which is it?

 

Carrie:  “Speaking about consensus, here are just a few professional American organizations who are on record opposing fluoridation in teh 21st century.”

 

Response:  The Fluoride Action Network has a list of professionals, about 4500, who have signed the opposition to fluoridation statement.   

 

In the U.S. there are over 860,000 physicians, 2.8 million nurses, nearly 170,000 dentists and about 3.2 million PhD’s, or about  7 million.  If the list is accurate, then 0.064% or 1 in every 1555 oppose fluoridation. 

 

In other words, 0.036 % of all Health Care and other professionals are NOT opposed to water fluoridation.  I understand that about 25% of the US list of Professionals Opposed to fluoridation are from outside the US, so the actual percentages opposing fluoridation might be even lower if that is the case. 

 

0.036% can in NO WAY be considered a consensus!

 

Carrie, with all due respect, you and Dr. Sauerheber lack a certain credibility.  You have said blatantly false things about the Safe Drinking Water Act and what is in it.  Dr. Sauerheber has said the FDA bans  pregnant women from drinking fluoridated water.  He said, “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,” Which has been proven false, and on, and on, and on.

 

I bring these points up because now we have to take you at your word that you were harmed (rashes, gastro-intestinal problems, etc.) from drinking optimally fluoridated water.  There is no documentation.  You have cited Hans Moolenburgh . . he has a Youtube video in which he literally says, “We know it was the fluoride causing these problems because we took their baby bottles away from them and they stopped crying.”  It’s laughable.

 

You've cited something from Waldbott, from 1971, ("Chizzola" Maculae) to prove that people do get sick from drinking fluoridated water . . while in another comment you have complained to me that I am not looking at the "current science" (post 2015).  You are inconsistant and you have come to lack credibility.

 

Now you say, “5% may have a genetic intolerance that manifests immediately like my family and me, but at least an additional 10% become intolerant due to chronic low dose exposure.”

 

Ok, let’s look at that.  According to the CDC, in 2014 there were 211,393,167 people who were drinking fluoridated water.  https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2014stats.htm  5% of that would be over 10.5 million people.  According to you, over 10 million people are intentionally being poisoned by their local governments and suffering great harm because of it.   If anything would merit a lawsuit, it would be that. 

 

Where is this Class Action Lawsuit with 10 million plaintiffs?  You are right.  This is my standard response . . because it is so obvious!  We are blessed to live in a country that is so lawsuit crazy that the world’s most powerful fast food chain was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot!!

 

You have said there is too much money behind water fluoridation and it is not possible to sue for that reason.  Odd!  I can think of a Billionaire who holds the record for being on the receiving end of more lawsuits than any other sitting U.S. president in history. 

 

You have said that it is too expensive to sue.  Many attorneys will not charge a fee until there is a payout.  I don’t get it.  There are no successful lawsuits by anybody who claims to have all these ailments that you allege.  You seem to be afraid to prove it in court . . where such a win could actually change U.S. policy.   A lot of people sue the EPA and win.  The EPA does have jurisdiction over CWF.  I would start there.

 

If nothing more, drinking optimally fluoridated water does appear to have a correlation with hypochondria, and I think you’ve proven that. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
716
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
778
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

778 Views
Message 1062 of 1,304

“As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms. The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed..... this can hasten health calamities.”  - Dr. Hans Moolenburgh, MD (1993)

 

Case studies abound, but stubborn doctors refuse to admit their existance. I remember when weighing only 90 something pounds, chronically ill and really frightented, I first asked my GP if the small clusters of coin sized bruises on my arm were hives. He leaned back in his chair across the desk from me to put more distance betwen us and said, "they're bruises." I said, you can't see that well from there and started to get up to go around to his side of his massive desk "Stay seated!" he demanded, "I can see from here" - I said, "my daughter has them, too," holding out her tiny arm. "Some people bruise easily"  - I pulled open my shirt to reveal one on my chest "I think I'd remember if I got bumped here?" Shrug - then I asked, "Could it be something in the water?" That got him out of his chair - waving his arms and yelling at me "Who put you up to this!" and complaining about people coming into his office to tell him there was something the matter with the water - he yelled me and my two small children out of his office - last time I saw him.

 

He was the chair of the BOH who ordered fluoride into the water begun two years earlier. I knew nothing about that, then. It was a subsequent doctor who diagnosed my 'bruises' as a 'lesion' an odd allergic hive.... which is well documented in case studies as a unique type of hive some women and children get in the early stages of fluoride poisoning - Chizzola maculaeBut I didn't find that out till over 30 years later. But he knew, why else would a doctor refuse to examine odd clusters of 'bruises' that a patient complained about? He didn't want to admit he had made a mistake that poisoned the women, children and senior citizens who were apparently streaming into his offices. 

 

See 1993 affidavit of and 2014 interview with Dr. Hans Moolenburg, a medical doctor who actually paid attention to the people who started streaming into his office from one of the two communities he served - the one recently fluoridated. He and his fellow doctors conducted a study that resulted in the cessation of the fluoridation experiment in the Netherlands.  

 

Case Studies: 

1993 Literature Review: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/spittle-1993/ 

1998 Collection: http://www.fluoridation.com/waldbot.htm

1967: http://www.nofluoride.com/allergy.cfm 

1969 "Neighborhood Fluorosis":  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/15563656908990948 

1957 topical: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/16804/ 

International collection:  http://fluoridefree.org.nz/information/research/fluoride_allergy/ 

US self-reports: http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/mom-fluoride-stories

 

Contaminants & Concentrations

In India, 1.0 ppm is considered the threshold of an 'excessive' fluoride concentration in drinking water. The U.S. EPA sets 4 ppm as the actionable safety threshold. The rule of thumb is that there should be a factor of 10 between the lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) and safe for vulenerable populations. It is well documented that 0.5 ppm causes adverse effects. Consequently, a 'safe' level of this poison should be below 0.05 ppm or 0.1 ppm or 0.4 ppm per accepted practices - but no government or health authority in fluoridating countries pays attention to those rules because it is big business to add fluoride to water between 0.7 and 1 ppm - which is doubled the dose documented to cause adverse impacts. 

 

1990: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853

2015http://fluorideandfluorosis.com/Reprints/pdf/IJPP%2017(2)%202015.pdf

 

BTW: From my reading of the scientific and medical literature, 5% may have a genetic intolerance that manifests immediately like my family and me, but at least an additional 10% become intolerant due to chronic low dose exposure. That may take a couple of months, a couple of years, or a couple of decades - but in the US where 75% of the population consumes fluoridated water and essentially 100% of the food is fluoridated, that means  approximately 50 million Americans suffer from fluoride poisoning, about 1 million in my state and  4,500 in my city - whether they know it or not.  

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
778
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
774
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

774 Views
Message 1063 of 1,304

 

Carrie Anne, you say, “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.”

 

You may be confusing Chuck Haynie with me.  The first time I brought up "cancer" it was in response to one of your comments. This is my exact quote:

 

 

“Carrie Anne has presented a quote by Dr. Wm Marcus: 

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” “

 

Since you want to talk about “Cancer,” where would you like to get a room? 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
774
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
748
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

748 Views
Message 1064 of 1,304

Dr. Sauerheber, you say, “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.”

 

That is odd, because on this label of bottled water http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2 I see that there are 23 mcg of fluoride per 30 gram serving.  That comes to 0.77 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, which is very close to the optimal level for maximum benefit and no harm. 

 

I’m going to start keeping track of your false statements, Dr. Sauerheber J .

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
748
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
715
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

715 Views
Message 1065 of 1,304

Carrie Anne,

 

Where did you get your Water Treatment Operator’s License? 

 

You say, “. . . SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people.”  Clearly you are talking about the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, since states do not have authority over the Federal Government. 

 

Could you please cite the specific statute which says this?  Of course you can’t.  Your comment is false. 

 

You also say, “fluoride is characterized by the FDA as an 'unapproved drug.'”  As I pointed out to Dr. Sauerheber, while the FDA does not have regulatory authority over Community Water Fluoridation (the EPA does), the FDA does have regulatory authority over Bottled Water.  This includes fluoridated bottled water.

 

This is a label from the FDA regulated product “Dannon’s Fluoride to Go” bottled water:  http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2   .  Under “Nutrition Information” you will see that Fluoride is listed as a Mineral.  It is not identified as a “Drug.”   Could you please show me any place on this FDA regulated product where the word “drug” exists?  Of course you can’t.  The FDA doesn’t classify, identify, consider, or label optimally fluoridated water as a drug. 

 

Could you please show me anything, on any FDA website, which identifies optimally fluoridated water as a drug?

 

So, when you say, “Neither my city nor you, David, have the right to use municipal water to dose me with a drug that worsens my health!”  you can’t be referring to optimally fluoridated water, since neither the FDA, the CDC, the EPA, . . No Federal Agency considers fluoridated water to be a “drug.”  People who try to generate paranoia about safe drinking water call fluoridated water a drug.  And they’re the only ones who do so.

 

Moreover, if you claim that you have gotten “fluoride poisoning” by drinking water with 1 ppm of fluoride in it, you would be the first person in history to suffer from such an ailment.  . . . Oh wait, there was a guy, about 50 years ago, from the 1950s to the 1970s (his name escapes me at the moment) who did have some anecdotal stories about people who allegedly suffered from drinking fluoridated water, but it never really panned out.  Someone would develop a rash, they moved out of the city, and the rash disappeared.  Imagine that.  Besides, you like to look at post-2015 science don’t you.

 

There was one other guy, Hans Moolengurgh, whose idea of science was to take a baby bottle away from a screaming baby to see what would happen.  lol

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
715
Views
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
670
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

670 Views
Message 1066 of 1,304

Richard - since you mention them, check out the National Cancer Registry’s own statement on this at https://www.ncri.ie/tags/water-fluoridation which states how it’s data has been misused by antifluoridation campaigners and that there is no link between their cancer findings and fluoridation. The Institute of Public Health showed similar or lower levels of chronic diseases in the Republic, see lots of detail at http://chronicconditions.publichealthwell.ie/ . Waugh’s material did not take into account different definitions and different data collection systems in both jurisdictions. For example, the primary cause of deal the for a diabetic with pneumonia might be recoded as diabetes in the South and pneumonia in the North. Simple misunderstandings like these are constantly made by people with no qualifications in epidemiology and no knowledge of the systems of data collection. Other examples of these types of mistakes are comparing prostate cancer rates which have to be much higher in the Republic due to PSA screening, which detects preclinical lesions, which is not carried out in the North, or comparing Down Syndrome birth rates where abortion was outlawed in the South but freely available in the UK, where the large majority of such pregnancies are terminated. Such are the pitfalls of comparative health statistics, they are really much better left to the professionals. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
670
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
666
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

666 Views
Message 1067 of 1,304

But the truth is that It is the Institute of Public Health which published the report 'Inequalities in Health' that actually highlighted the very diffetences in burden of diseases and mortality between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.

 

It is the National Cancer Registry of Ireland and Northern Ireland that highlighted the significantly higher incidences of cancer in the Republic, which is fluoridated.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
666
Views
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
663
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

663 Views
Message 1068 of 1,304

Richard - Regarding Irish health stats, you need to check the official data published by the OECD, EU and the cross-border Institute of Public Health. These indicate better general health in the Republic. Not to mention better oral health.

 

Richard, CarryAnn and other contributors, I am leaving this discussion unless any issues arise re Irish or European research. Nice to chat with you all.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
663
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
678
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

678 Views
Message 1069 of 1,304

And I'm not willing to toss out the significance of data sets analyzed by Declan Waugh comparing disease incidence in Southern Ireland vs Northern Ireland.

Or the data on hypothyroidism incidence by Peckham.

Or data on ADHD incidence by Malin and Till.

Or data correlating the blood fluoride concentration with degree of IQ lowering.

And it is an absolute certrainty that fluoride accumulates in bone to thousands of ppm, higher than what is in toothpaste, in a nonphysiologic manner where it does not belong, over a chronic period of consumption of about 20 years, all forming bone of poor quality.  

And I stand by my own studies of the effects of fluoridated water on racehorse fatalities in Southern California (Racehorse breakdowns and artificially fluoridated water in Los Angeles, Fluoride 46:170-177, 2013 at:

 https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/racehorse-breakdowns-and-artificial...

 

.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
678
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
672
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

672 Views
Message 1070 of 1,304

It's a free country and you can believe what you want. And so can I. I trust the published information I know. Enamel exposed even to 20,000 ppm fluoride does not incorporate fluoride into it. At this level, calcium fluoride globules form on teeth that are readily dissolved with a meal afterward. 

At 0.016 ppm fluoride there is no such precipitation and it is now argued to somehow work by incorporating into dental plaque "to help" toothpaste fluoride (a recent CDC position).

But dentists here request that plaque be removed from teeth regularly. So all the vast literature praising the wonders of fluoride on caries needs to be considered more carefully. There is no actual proof that fluoride has some intrinsic ability to fight caries--other than coating teeth with high levels above the solubility product for calcium phosphate, where  it might act much like a coat of paint would.  But of course 0.016 ppm is far below this level.

The scientific data that is perfectly controlled is with caged mammals where diets were rigorously regulated. Animals given fluoridated water do not have any reduction whatsoever in spontaneous dental caries compared to nonfluoridated water (done in two U.S. labs and one lab in the U.K as reviewed by Yiamouyiannis). These data you can bank on. 

Those who want to fluoridate people though will dismiss this all by arguing that animals are not humans. But I can include it in my analysis because teeth enamel in mammals is similar to that in man.

Many studies claiming benefit report differences that are not outside experimental measruement error, and so many others were not with humans that volunteered to eat exaclty the same foods between fluoride water and no fluoride water groups. It is simply a mess with massive numbers of studies claiming benefit that are not well done. The textbooks by the dentist statistician Sutton are a necessary read for people wanting to see if fluoride added into drinking water can actually affect caries-- It doesn't.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
672
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet