Can blue light from your phone cause vision problems? Find out and learn more about your vision in the AARP Eye Center.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
833
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

833 Views
Message 1081 of 1,333

Both statements are true. Dr. Groth was the original FDA official in charge of deciding whether to allow fluoride labeling on water or not. And those are his words. He did not want to give the impression to the public that fluoride is a normal ingedient requried to be in water at any level.. The FDA recognizes intentionally aded fluoride as an unapproved drug and natural fluoride in water (often in bottled water) is unavoidable and thus not banned from being sold as long as it is 1 ppm or less. When Groth did not allow FDA to require fluoride labeling, it was for these reasons.

The fact that some bottlers do label it is not the FDA's fault or concern The FDA cannot order a label for fluoride on water because of Dr. Groth's work there. Nor does the FDA ban the sale of water that those bottlers choose to label for fluoride content.  If bottlers made a claim that the fluoride would reduce dental decay by ingestion, then the FDA would indeed ban the sale of such water. The  FDA is a stickler for false labeling.

What do you want from me?  I can't change the FDA.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
833
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
844
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

844 Views
Message 1082 of 1,333

Dr. Sauerheber, the following comments, from you, are classic you.  Can anyone take you seriously?

 

 “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,”  07-13-2018 04:58 AM

 

After I proved to you that you were lying, you changed your story to this”

 

“The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.”   ‎07-13-2018 11:16 AM

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
844
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
853
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

853 Views
Message 1083 of 1,333

Dr. Sauerheber.  Your comments wreak of desperation.   I am pretty sure you can read, and I believe you are able to comprehend what you read.  Go back and review the comments between Carry Anne and myself.  You seem to enjoy blurring issues, so it appears I should be very specific.

 

There has never been one successful lawsuit, anywhere on Earth, because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water even for as much as a lifetime.  Period.  This has nothing to do with the Safe Drinking Water Act.  It has nothing to do with a philosophical argument about “mass medication,” (and I’m certain there has ever been a successful lawsuit based on that either). 

 

I mean really, have you been reading these comments?  Carrie has been complaining about all her alleged ailments. . none of which have been proven in court.  And now you bring up the Hooper Bay incident?  Seriously?  I believe it was in the 1950s, is that correct?  There was a fluoride overfeed.  Well, Dr. Sauerheber, here’s a newsflash.  This is the 21st Century and redundancies are now mandated to prevent such an incident.  Your “Hooper Bay” reference is irrelevant.  Moreover, more people have been killed by chlorine, by a factor of thousands, which is also added to water to safeguard people. 

 

So, since you seem to want to wander off into irrelevant territories, allow me to be as specific as possible.  Please show me one successful lawsuit for health reasons, anywhere on the planet, because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even by drinking it as much as a lifetime.  It has never been proven in court because it doesn't happen.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
853
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
866
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

866 Views
Message 1084 of 1,333

All the very many successful lawsuits against cities were won based on varied reasons. One key one though is the Safe Drinking Water Act. Anyone who thinks that fluoridating the bones of citizens, by chemically treating water supplies, is legal should consult attorneys who have litigated these cases and proved what the SDWA actually says, and what it was originally written to achieve (namely to halt thge spread of fluoridation across the country). Those who insist on fluoridating people have corrupted the Act and legal analysts are usually required to prove this to a judge, and it takes an expert to achieve it and it isn't always successful because so many "experts" in dentistry are out there to oppose anything against their freedom to fluoridate others (for what they presume is for the peoples' "own good" because the people simply are not experts and thus "don't understand").

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
866
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
876
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

876 Views
Message 1085 of 1,333

David,

 

As you must be well aware, the EPA is currently being sued, due to water fluoridation policy, by multiple environmental organizations. See https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Food__Water_Watch_Inc_et_al_v_Environmental_Pro...

 

This type of lawsuit is completely beyond the reach of ordinary citizens, as you must understand. Very few attorneys would take on such a lawsuit, because there will not be any money damages from the EPA, but this is a lawsuit just to enjoin fluoridation in the United States. Thus, it is an injunctive action.

 

Private attorneys would not take on such a suit, because it takes magnificent resources and they would not get paid. Thus, your claim that private parties have access to such lawsuits, when there are no deep pockets to sue, is blatantly false!

 

In sum, people are being forcefully medicated, either unknowingly or by propaganda, that such forced medication somehow benefits them, in the United States, which is supposed to be the land of the “free”. The fluoridation policy makes such “freedom” highly questionable.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
876
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
765
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

765 Views
Message 1086 of 1,333

You honestly expect me to find all the successful lawsuits? Jeff Green was the head of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and headed many lawsuits. God rest his soul. Victories occured in Poughkeepsie, in Gilroy, Sant Cruz, and Selmer, Tenn, and other locations. But these are long, arduous struggles conducted by legal experts against municipalities and were not even attempted if city councils were unanimously controlled and sold on the policy to fluoridate people. The larger the city, the harder the task the lawsuit becomes.  The L.A. suit is still ongoing now for 11 years and is expensive.

Even the suit in Hooper Bay Alaska where a fluoridation overfeed killed a 42 year old Coast Guardsman is still not resolved. The city argues it is the State Board of Health's fault for making them fluoridate. The State argues it is the city's fault because the system was improperly operated.

I personally don't believe in suing people. My folks taught me to discuss a problem and get it resolved with facts to get reparations instead. Anyone who doesn't heed facts and morals is not worth suing anyway.  So don't expect me to sue anyone to get anything done. I admire Jeff though for doing all he could because fluoridation will not stop without such action since so many peple have been led to believe swallowing fluoride is useful and harmless, when in fact it is ineffective and chronically harmful.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
765
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
786
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

786 Views
Message 1087 of 1,333

Dr. Sauerheber, you say, "There have been many lawsuits filed against fluoridation."

 

Response:  I stand corrected.  I should have said, 'Where are all the Successful lawsuits?'

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
786
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
776
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

776 Views
Message 1088 of 1,333

Oh, please. Your argument falls flat on its face. There have been many lawsuits filed against fluoridation. The one in Los Angeles is still ongoing and requires a team of legal experts to even have a chance of getting very far. A few cases are won such as in Poughkeepsie New York but victories are rare especially  in large cities. Common cilizens have no ability to successfully sue ciites such as Los Angeles. Are you kidding?

The man in the White House of course has been sued a lot, but as a single person, not a suit against the Government, which is required to halt fluoridation in any city.  And even there what did all the suits against this man achieve? He is still in office.

Are you serious right now?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
776
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
780
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

780 Views
Message 1089 of 1,333

The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.  The original directive waa authored knowing that fluoride is a contaminant in water, not a required ingredient.   

The FDA described fluoride added into water as an "uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug." I have a personal copy of the FDA letter stating so. You don't have to believe me, but regardless this is true.

 

Luride (sodium fluoride) is a drug listed in the PDR, and is regulated by prescription, and has never been approved for ingestion by the FDA, but likewise is not banned. It is an allowed drug, not an approved drug. There are many such substances that the FDA is aware are being used. The FDA rules on minerals are now also the same as traditionally for drugs. So if one dislikes ruling fluoride as a drug, fine, call it a mineral, the result is the same. The FDA ruled that prescription fluoride should not to be used in areas where water fluoride exceeds 0.6 ppm (PDR, 2017). Adding fluoride ion into water to treat humans also fits the Congressional definition of a drug.

I'm sorry  if you have a hard time understanding this, but I don't think the fault is onb my end. And whoever said you are keeping track of statements of mine, that's great. This is written for the general public.

 

The SDWA exact words are "no National requirement for the addition of any substance into water other than to sanitize the water" may be made. So the CDC gets around this law by claiming the CDC only requests fluoridation, they don't actually require it. The original statutes approved by Congress also state that U.S. States can be "no less restrictive." So State attempts to mandate fluoride are in violation of Federal water law. But who follows laws when one is convinced that eating and drinking fluoride is necessary for a population and is a great health achievement, if only others would come to their senses?  Laws become something to argue against. The SDWA indeed was later modified to delineate exceptions for fluoride, which allowed keeping this desired action as though it is indeed now lawful. Treating people without their permission through altering natural water supplies is unlawful. The action even violates the original Water Pollution Control Act section 101 that was instituted by President John Kennedy, where the mission of the law was to maintain the natural chemistry of drinking waters in the U.S.  If a natural supply contains high levels of a dangerous contaminant, then the substance can be removed (Clean Water Act). But intentionally adding any substance into drinking water violates this law. It was adjusted later with the SDWA to allow for adding chemicals such as chlorine to sanitize water of microbes. The adiditon of other substances however is prohibited. It is unlawful even to add vitamin C into public water supplies, let alone a diluted hazardous waste simply becuse it contains fluoride.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
780
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
731
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

731 Views
Message 1090 of 1,333

 

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
731
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark