Refresh your driving skills and you could save on your auto insurance! Sign up for the AARP Smart Driver course.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1076
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,076 Views
Message 991 of 1,356

This is all baseless scare-mongering, plain and simple.  But what motivation would the anti-water fluoridation folks have to push a scare-mongering agenda?  Let’s look at some facts.

 

It is a fact that the Fluoride Action Network, the energy behind this scare-mongering, is part of Mercola’s Health Liberty conglomerate.  (And please, correct me if any of these things are wrong.)

 

It is a fact that Mercola makes millions of dollars every year selling expensive Alternative Health products as well as expensive fluoride free toothpaste . . really expensive in home water filter systems . . fluoride de tox, fluoride free oral health care, expensive shower filter heads . . you know, stuff that people would want to buy if they were afraid of fluoride.

 

It is a fact that Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales behavior.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#FDA_warning_letters

 

It is a fact that Mercola funnels money to the Fluoride Action Network through the nonprofit American Environmental Health Studies Project. https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

 

And it is a fact that the more paranoia the Fluoride Action Network generates about fluoride and strictly regulated safe tap water, the more stuff Mercola sells.

 

Is any of that incorrect?  If not, then please connect the dots.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1076
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1137
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,137 Views
Message 992 of 1,356

"...the political profluoridation stance has evolved in to a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues." - Dr. Edward Groth, III, Senior Scientist at Consumer Union, WHO/FAO Expert on Science and Ethics in Food Safety (1991) 

 

"Politics makes strange bedfellows." - Unknown 

 

Threats, whether overt or veiled, like ad hominem attacks have no place in scientific debate. I have experienced both from fluoridationists, including on this AARP forum thread. That is not to say that I agree with every word spoken by every other person opposed to fluoridation. On the other side, the logical fallacies which include strawmen misrepresentation of historical and scientific facts as well as ad hominem attacks favored by fluoridationists are neither science nor justification for fluoridation. 

 

However, these rhetorical distractions have nothing to do with either factual modern fluoride science or the immorality of using municipal water supplies to deliver uncontrollable doses of a drug which is medically contraindicated for many senior citizens

 

OPEN ACCESS MODERN SCIENTIFIC REVIEW: 

Peckham S, Awofeso N. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 2014, Article ID 293019.
 https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/ 

 

Mark Diesendorf. The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature. 07/1986; 322(6075):125-9 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19639179 

 

POLITICAL INTIMIDATION

"Fluoridation: breaking the silence barrier" by Mark Diesendorf. Published in Confronting the Experts (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), pp. 45-75. 

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/96ce/3_Diesendorf.pdf  

 

2014 Interview with Dr. Diesendorf on fluoridationist politics which suppresses science unfavorable to fluoridation policy. This talk specific to doses for infants, another vulnerable population: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxftzkwogVk  

 

REPRINTS:  5 journal articles on the suppression of fluoride science & opponent voices   
http://www.fluoridefreefairbanks.org/Suppression%20of%20Science.html

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1137
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1143
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,143 Views
Message 993 of 1,356

Dr. Bill,

 

In my previous comment, I provided a few of the many examples of anti-water fluoridation folks who had threatened & bullied people and organizations.  My feeling is that the mindset behind this extreme behavior is brought about by a tendency toward conspiracy theories and some paranoia which has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the energizing Fluoride Action Network.  I, myself, have been called a “stalker” in these threads simply because I have the audacity to question some of the things which have been written here.

 

Among that list of bullies was one Cathy Justus, of Pagosa Springs, Colorado, who claimed that her horse and 4 dogs were killed by drinking optimally fluoridated water.  She buffaloed the City with the threat of lawsuits and they were indeed intimidated by her.  Your response to that example jumped out at me.  Here it is prefaced by my original comment: 

 

DavidF “Mrs. Cathy Justus, is a Pagosa Springs, Colorado resident who claimed that her expensive horses & four dogs died as a result of drinking optimally fluoridated water.  (Never mind the fact that the water in Louisville, Kentucky is fluoridated, and the owners of very, very expensive racehorses there allow those horses to drink that water with no harm to them.) . . .

“Again, never mind that this “angle” has been brought before the Supreme Court 13 times, and 13 times the Supreme Court refused to review the arguments for lack of merit.  But she bullied, buffaloed and intimidated the City of Pagosa Springs, and they caved.”  (08-17-2018 09:44 PM)

 

Response from BillO:  “You bring up another good example of Cathy Justus.  You need to see the video, read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut and paste.  One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.  You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?”  (08-17-2018 11:11 PM)

 

I would like to respond to each point in that comment.  “You need to see the video,”

Response:  I’ve seen the video.  That is why I question the fact that for some reason Mrs. Justus’ dogs died from drinking optimally fluoridated water . . yet in almost every major city in the U.S. (except Portland) dog owners are raising healthy happy pets who drink fluoridated water every day.  That seemed odd to me.

 

“. . read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut & paste.”

Response:  Which vet report?  Mrs. Justus went through a multitude of vets before she finally found somebody who told her it was fluoride in the water.  Do you mean that vet report, or the other, more conventional reports that she skipped over?

 

(And this was the best part) BillO:  “One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.”

Response:  Elevation??  Thank you!  You just invalidated the work of your fellow anti-fluoridationist, Dr. Richard Sauerheber, who claimed that optimally fluoridated water was responsible for problems with racehorses in Los Angeles which has an elevation of 285 feet.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286955679_Racehorse_breakdowns_and_artificially_fluoridated...   

 

Dr. Sauerheber must be wrong since Louisville has an elevation of 466 feet, higher than Los Angeles, and horses are not harmed in Louisville.  So they can’t possibly be harmed in Los Angeles, since according to you, “fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.”  Maybe you should “read the research” of your fellow anti-fluoridationists . . that way you won’t trip all over yourselves and contradict one another like you just did here.

 

One more thing about your response to those examples of anti-fluoride bullying.  You said, “Your comments are about people, not science.” 

Response:  That’s not exactly right.  While my comments are about the people behind your agenda.  My comments are also about the mindset of people who misrepresent and manipulate the science. 

 

For example, in another AARP thread on this same topic, Dr. Limebeck admitted that he photographed a picture of iron-stained teeth of a patient who had never drank optimally fluoridated water in his life.  The picture was featured in an article by Michael Connett on the Fluoride Action Network, and diagnosed as “Mild Dental Fluorosis.” 

 

Now, to be sure, Mild DF can be associated with optimally fluoridated water.  But as Kumar demonstrated, these teeth are healthier as they are more resistant to decay.  They are characterized by barely noticeable white spots which are usually dried and put under special lighting for the condition to even be photographed.  Mild dental fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.  Dental decay diminishes quality of life.

 

So, the implication of Dr. Limebeck’s photo of iron-stained teeth which had never touched optimally fluoridated water is, ‘this is what happens when you drink this stuff.’  For Dr. Limebeck to use this photo as an example of Mild DF is deceptive any way you look at it.  So, Dr. Bill, my comments were about the science, and the misrepresentation of it.

 

Oh, before I forget, you also asked, “You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?”

 

Well, I really shouldn’t, since you said, “. .  you need to search for yourself.   I can't do your homework for you.” (‎08-14-2018 12:30 AM)  But I won’t play your game.  Since my comments are verifiable, here you go:

 

J Public Health Dent. 1986 Fall;46(4):188-98.

Antifluoridationists persist: the constitutional basis for fluoridation.

Block, LE

 

Alkire v. Cashman, cert. denied, 414 US 858 (Ohio 1973)

 

Birnel v. Town of Fircrest, 335 P.2d 819 (Wash. 1959), appeal dismissed, 361 U.S. 10 (1959), reh'g. denied, 361 U.S. 904 (1959);

 

Chapman v. City of Shreveport, 74 So. 2d 142 (La. 1954), appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 892 (1954),

 

City of Canton v. Whitman, 337 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 1975), appeal dismissed, 425 U.S. 956 (1976);

 

De Aryan v. Butler, 260 P.2d 98 (D. Cal. 1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1012 (1954);

 

Dowell v. City of Tulsa, 273 P.2d 859 (Okla. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 912 (1955);

 

Kraus v. City of Cleveland, 116 N.E.2d 779 (Ohio Com. P1. 1953), aff'd, 127 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio 1955), appeal dismissed, 351 U.S. 935 (1956);

 

Mary Bellassai et al v. James McAvoy et al (Ohio, 1982), cert. denied, 459 US 971 (1982)

 

Minnesota State Bd. of Health v. City of Brainerd, 241 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976), appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803 (1976);

 

Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531 (Sup. Ct. 1965), aff'd, 24 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y.A.D. 1965), aff'd, 218 N.E.2d 339 (N.Y. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1026 (1967);

 

Readey v. St. Louis County Water Co., 352 S.W.2d 622 (Mo. 1961), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 371 U.S. 8 (1962), reh'g denied, 371 U.S. 906 (1962);

 

Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of Houston, 661 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 801 (1984);

 

Schuringa v. City of Chicago, 198 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 964 (1965)

 

Now, Dr. Bill, this is the Last Time I am going to do your homework for you.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1143
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1149
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,149 Views
Message 994 of 1,356

Dr. Johnson,

 

You hit on several important topics and sound like an echo of David. . . or is it the other way?

 

You have failed to address over exposure.  Just because a little might be good, does not mean more is just as good or even safe.  Many are ingesting too much fluoride. 

 

You are correct about the aging process and more root caries, although my geriatric patients seldom have root caries, it is a problem, especially for those with poor diets.  

 

Here is the serious flaw in your theory.  Fluoride has some topical benefit like toothpaste, not systemic. Fluoridated water has too short of a contact time and too dilute to have topical benefit. There are no prospective randomized controlled trials, good science, supporting your theory for dilute short contact topical or "ingested" fluoride.  If 0.7 ppm fluoride concentration had topical benefit, makes no sense to give people 1,500 parts per million topical.  And if my memory is correct, drop down to below 500 ppm fluoride in toothpaste and the benefit drops off.  A significant topical benefit from fluoridated water makes no scientific sense and is not backed by research.   

 

Fluoride ingestion with intent to prevent caries is not FDA approved because the science is still incomplete. . . and the studies could be done and probably have.  But they don't show benefit. 

 

97% of Western Europe is fluoridation free and your comment echoing David that there is not a single credible organization opposed to fluoridation is simply wrong, and you know it. . . . unless the definition of "incredible" requires that they support fluoridation.  Then you have a catch 22, circular logic.

 

And you go back to endorsements.  Endorsements are not science.  But lets look at some of those "credible" organizations you raise.

 

1.  Please provide a link to each of those organizations and the references to the primary research supporting their position.  Then we can discuss their science.

 

2.  The American Dental  Association testified in court that they owe no duty to protect the public.  Seriously Johnny, the ADA exists to protect its members, dentists, not the public.  For example, the ADA support mercury fillings which are illegal due to toxicity for me to throw in the trash or dump in the sewer or send in the mail.   What about the human mouth makes them safe?  Nothing.  Tradition is more important than public safety.  Even the mercury filling manufacturers have greater warnings than the ADA.   We cannot trust the ADA to protect patients, they protect dentists. 

 

3.   The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.  CDC does not determine the dosage, efficacy or safety of any substance used to prevent disease.

 

4.  WHO is clear that a determination must first be made whether there is inadequate fluoride in a community before more is recommended.  As of 2011-2012 we had 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis and 20% with moderate/severe. . . far too much fluoride.  Certainly more should not be administered when so many show a biomarker of excess exposure.

 

Now to the AARP.

 

If you had science on your side, you would welcome a scientific debate, discussion, forum, review and white paper.  Seniors get too much fluoride with medications, their kidneys are often compromised, their bones brittle.   Why add more to their diet?   If you want topical, I will not argue.  But swallowing the fluoride harms seniors and does not help their teeth.

 

No conspiracy, Johnny.  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.

 

My mentor reminded me, "50% of what we know in health care is wrong, but we do not know which 50%.  Always be a humble student of science, we are wrong and need to find out where."

 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1149
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1173
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,173 Views
Message 995 of 1,356

"Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true, but it is the foundation of both propaganda and marketing." - Unknown

 

”It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

 

At least four of the six groups JJ mentions who endorse fluoridation, CDC, ADA, AAP and WHO, are not only endorsing their own 1950s policy, they have budgets and paychecks connected to fluoridation promotion. I'll never forget one WHO paper I read where the references of that glowing recommendation were other opinion statements. If I remember correctly, 16 of those references were by the main author (a WHO dentist) and 8 by his co-author. Didn't Shakespeare write something along these lines in a few of his plays?  

 

For those of you who'd like to read the 60 comments from about 20 seniors supporting an AARP resolution against fluoridation policy, I suggest you read in chronological order rather than trying to plow through the hundreds of windy comments generated by the half dozen fluoridation promoters who descended on this thread on June 27, 2018. Just click the 'previous' button to advance thorugh the pages of comments begun by the initial February 2015 entry. 

 

You might also want to check out recent opposition statements from this century written by a few of the dozen or so reputable organizations opposed to fluoridation: 

 

 

  1. International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT): https://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Fluoride-Position-Paper.pdf

  2. American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM): https://www.aaemonline.org/chemicalsensitivity.php

  3. Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ): http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/gibbs-2015.pdf

  4. Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water

  5. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC): http://lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2011/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation_Regarding_Forced_Medica...

 

BTW: The Mayo Clinic like most hospitals has published words to the effect of 'Early researchers had it backwards. Fluoride works topically on teeth after they've erupted.' This in response to modern science and a 1999 CDC admission. In other words, brush with the stufff if you want. It is an enzyme poison so will inhibit cavity causing bacteria, but spit don't swallow

 

"...laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." - CDC MMWR. October 22, 1999

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1173
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1182
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,182 Views
Message 996 of 1,356

Bill,

 

Leading health and medical organizations around the world endorse community water fluoridation as effective and safe for everyone.

 

A few examples of endorsements come from:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics

2. American Dental Association

3. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

4. Mayo Clinic

5. American Academy of Family Physicians

6. World Health Organization

 

Not a single credibly recognized organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation.  Not one.

 

It is a pipe dream to think that the AARP would take a stand opposing credibly recognized scientific and health organizations.  As a dentist yourself, you know that this will never happen.  

 

AARP is a credibly recognized advocate for our country's aging like myself.  Why would they recommend stopping community water fluoridation for the very population that benefits greatly from it's cavity fighting natural mineral, fluoride?  

 

As we age we tend to get receeding gums.  The softer surfaces of our roots become exposed.  As a dentist, you know that these surfaces get cavities far greater and easier than the harder enamel of the crowns of our teeth.  And as a dentist you know that these are the most difficult fillings for us to place and to retain in place because of their being mostly on the multi-rooted molars.  Many times this results in tooth loss for our aging population.

 

To suggest that AARP recommend harming our population because a handful of boisterous opponents wish it so is to show disrespect for our families, including yours.

 

Thank you AARP for allowing this thread which shows what lengths people with a conspiratorial position will go to to create a false fear in our aging population.  

 

Johnny

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1182
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1165
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,165 Views
Message 997 of 1,356

David,

I missed an important point in my last post which you raised.  

 

Indeed, this thread demands that AARP take action on fluoride because AARP is a perfect arbitor or facilitator of this controversial issue.   There are many top notch scientists who are members of AARP.  Certainly, some of these scientists would volunteer to evaluate the various issues on fluoridation.  AARP could hold a forum, discussions, evaluation of research, promote a white paper, and carefully have scientists review fluoride exposure, dosage, safety, efficacy and jurisdiction, bringing all sides to the table. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1165
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1146
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,146 Views
Message 998 of 1,356

David,

 

You did an interesting cut and paste.  But you did not carefully examine each item.  Now go back and carefully read the primary research and both sides.  Remember, in a "court" hearing, both sides present their case for the jury to make a judgment decision.  The same holds true for evidence based health care.  Both or all sides need to be carefully evaluated.

 

For about 25 years after dental school, I promoted water fluoridation because I did not spend the time to evaluate both sides.  I even had fluoride added to my bottled water at the office and I spoke up on behalf of fluoridation with cities.  Finally I started to look at the primary research for myself instead of blind belief in the CDC/ADA.  

 

I worked with Port Angeles on their vote to stop fluoridation.  Unfortunately, one or two anonymous people opposed to fluoridation were being harmed and quite hostile.  Although I disagree and we all spread the word to stop that kind of action, one or two spoiled our professional well ballanced presentations.   On the other hand, those promoting fluoridation have done far worse. . . stripping dentists of their licenses to practice dentistry for not following tradition.  But hostile acts are about people, not a way to evaluate facts and scientific evidence. 

 

I don't know about Robert Reeves.  Maybe he was fighting for a client.  Clearly the National Kidney Foundation looked at the science and did not feel they could support fluoridation in a court of law.   Fluoride is hard on fragile kidneys.   Sometimes courts are necessary and I have been told by more than one fluoridationist to take it to court.  We are taking the EPA to court.

 

You bring up another good example of Cathy Justus.  You need to see the video, read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut and paste.  One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.  You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?

 

You gave some other illustrations of unacceptable behavior and I agree with you.  But I have not carefully looked at the facts of each case.  None of those illustrations have anything to do with science.  

 

Does a person doing a bad act prove that fluoridation is safe and effect?  Does a person slamming a door on someone's hand prove that 60% are not getting too much fluoride?  No.   

 

Your comments are about people, not science.    

 

One study I read, and I don't have time to look it up, was explaining a new drug treatment for cancer and a trial for treatment, which looked promising.  In passing, the authors explained they had given the test animals fluoride to cause cancer so they could test the drug on cancer diseased animals.  

 

For someone to suggest fluoride does not cause cancer is seriously flawed because they have not read the studies for themselves.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1146
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1006
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,006 Views
Message 999 of 1,356

We have been commenting under a thread entitled:  “Fluoride – Demand AARP take action.” 

 

“Demand,” that sounds kind of pushy doesn’t it.  But is it?  I don’t think so.  Actually, this “demand” that is being made is quite mild by comparison when placed within the long history anti fluoridation behavior.  Here are a few examples of what I mean:  

 

In the City of Port Angeles, Washington, when a fluoridation vote came up in 2017, local businesses were threatened with being blacklisted if community water fluoridation (CWF) was reinstated.  This is from the news article:

 

“In the letter to Johnson, it (an anonymous flyer) begins with a typed out “Dear” and then has “OWNER H20” in handwriting.

“How much business can you afford to lose?” it asks.

“Are you ready to have your restaurant/hotel/store listed on a handout warning the public that your business serves, makes or treats food items with tainted water?””

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/port-angeles-businesses-get-letter-threatening-blacklisting-o...

 

And again, in a letter dated September 18, 2007, Attorney Robert E. Reeves threatened the National Kidney Foundation with a lawsuit if they did not remove their organization’s name from a list of organizations endorsing and supporting CWF.  The following is an excerpt from that letter: 

 

“NKF and responsible individuals which might include past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are named as defendants in anticipated legal action now in development.” . . . .

“Even if it is ultimately determined that neither NKF or any past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are liable criminally or for any tort such as negligent misrepresentation this could still be a major financial public relations disaster for NKF which is best handled now rather than later.” 

 

In response, the National Kidney Foundation chose to avoid the financial burden of defending itself against a frivolous lawsuit, a threatened “public relations disaster,” and removed its name from the ADA’s list of organizations which support water fluoridation.  However, the National Kidney Foundation in no way Opposes water fluoridation either.

 

And another example of this behavior, Mrs. Cathy Justus, is a Pagosa Springs, Colorado resident who claimed that her expensive horses & four dogs died as a result of drinking optimally fluoridated water.  (Never mind the fact that the water in Louisville, Kentucky is fluoridated, and the owners of very, very expensive racehorses there allow those horses to drink that water with no harm to them.)

 

In Mrs. Justus’ unbelievably long comment under a post by New Zealand scientist, Dr. Ken Perrott, who looked at the science involved in the Justus story, you will find this in her 15th paragraph:

 

Mrs. Justus wrote, “Our sole goal was to cease fluoridation and we told our municipality that if they did that we would not pursue a lawsuit.”

 

Moreover, according to her, “The public was ready to take them to taks (sic.) on this angle of personal choice and medical mal-practice if they didn’t cease fluoridation. Fluoridation was ceased just week later in 2005.”   https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/fluoridation-and-horses-another-myth/#comment-70349

 

Again, never mind that this “angle” has been brought before the Supreme Court 13 times, and 13 times the Supreme Court refused to review the arguments for lack of merit.  But she bullied, buffaloed and intimidated the City of Pagosa Springs, and they caved.

 

The mayor of an Australian city was injured when an anti-fluoridationist slammed a car door on her head.  https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/mayor-shaken-by-alleged-assault-after-fluoride-spa/2680776/

 

And again, the Chief Medical Officer in Lismore, Australia was threatened with Sarin gas by an anti-fluoridation group. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-12/fluoride-threat/4953898

 

And this:  Blogger Peter Tierney wrote an opinion piece about a South Australian anti-fluoridationist who sat as a Member of the Legislative Council, Ann Bressington.  Ms. Bressington used her high position to incite death threats against Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek by posting a Wanted Poster with bullet holes which read “Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.”  https://reasonablehank.com/2013/03/05/bressingtonville-just-like-the-movie-ghost/

 

First let me say that in this era of mass killings, this kind of behavior is not only unacceptable, it is irresponsible and it should be criminally punished. 

 

Let me also say that this particularDemand,” this thread under which I am commenting, that the AARP get on board the anti-fluoride train doesn’t even come close, by comparison, to some of the dangerous examples of unhinged thinking and actions of other anti-fluoridationists, which, I’m guessing have been brought about by extreme paranoia, a tendency toward conspiracy theories, and “Google Research.”   

 

On the other hand, this thread is just another, milder expression of the same mindset.  After all, I have been accused of “stalking” simply because I have had the audacity to question the comments of some of these “experts.”  In my opinion, this sort of paranoia is exacerbated by the blatant scare-mongering which has become a specialty of the Fluoride Action Network, or Fluoridealert.   

 

Apparently, readers of these threads are encouraged to accept everything that is being written by these “experts” without questioning a thing.  Does that really sound like an honest way to Demand the AARP to do anything? 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1006
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
902
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

902 Views
Message 1000 of 1,356

Dr. Bill,

 

Your analogy of “whack-a-mole,” which I raised, is a little off, although I appreciate your efforts to manipulate the concept so it somehow works for you.  The idea of whack-a-mole is that a mole pops his head out of a hole, someone tries to “whack” the mole before he ducks down and reappears from another hole. 

 

In the original analogy, the issues themselves are the holes.  So, you raise the issue of “Freedom of Choice” not to drink fluoridated water.  I whack your argument with the fact that you never had a freedom of choice because you live on Planet Earth, and on Earth all drinking water has some degree of fluoride in it.  You have been drinking fluoridated water for your entire life.  There is no “Freedom of Choice” on Earth in regards to drinking fluoridated water.  You are a child of the Earth. You will drink water with fluoride in it.

 

The mole gets whacked, but pops his head out from another hole.  You raise the issue of contaminants.  I point out that a person would have to drink 2 liters of water per day for 2451 lifetimes to have a one-in-a-million chance of having an ill health effect from any arsenic, or any other contaminant, as a result of fluoridation.  (You may see my math and comments here): https://www.facebook.com/fluoridewater/posts/915319835173028?__xts__[0]=68.ARD5Cjwr7uOe5lLRT8zSN6qug... ),

and Dr. Ken Perrrott of New Zealand points out that source water often has more background contaminants than the miniscule amount which would be added by fluoridation (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/chemophobic-scaremongering-much-ado-about-absolutely-... )  . . Moreover, he points out the amount added is so infinitesimally, astronomically small . . well, I direct you to my math for that one. 

 

The mole gets whacked again but pops his head up here:  Dr. Bill says, “You know one of my top concerns. . . like the WHO . . . excess exposure.”  I point out that the WHO is indeed concerned about excess exposure, in places like India, where drinking water can have 33 times the optimal level of fluoride, . . or China, where atmospheric fluoride is 100 times the amount in the United States; neither of which has anything to do with community water fluoridation.  Moreover, the World Health Organization supports community water fluoridation.

 

The mole gets whacked but raises his head out of the “harm to animals” hole.  I will discuss Cathy Justus, her claim of fluoridated water killing her horses, and will provide a link to Dr. Perrott’s discussion of the issue in my next comment.  (Well, here are Perrott’s comments on the issue.  More discussion of Cathy Justus in the following comment:  https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/fluoridation-and-horses-another-myth/

 

The mole now pops out of the IQ hole.  You all bring up the Harvard Study, a Review of non-peer reviewed Asian studies study (where environmental fluoride is extremely high), and other studies which had not been undertaken in areas where community water fluoridation is practiced, and therefore I point out these have nothing to do with community water fluoridation.

 

I point out that the Broadbent Study (2015) which concluded “findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic.”    Aggeborn & Ohman (2016) & the Barberio Study (2017) all suggesting that optimally fluoridated water does not have a negative effect on IQ.  But you don’t like those studies.

 

And on and on and on it goes.  It is an endless game of “whack-a-mole” and when it is over I ask the mole to provide one documented case of any human being who was ever harmed in any way from drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.  .  .  .  Silence .  .  .  the mole’s head pops out from the “Freedom of Choice” hole.

 

 And it begins again.  

 

This is baseless scare-mongering, plain and simple.  But what motivation would you have to push a scare-mongering agenda?  Let’s look at some facts.

 

It is a fact that the Fluoride Action Network, the energy behind this scare-mongering, is part of Mercola’s Health Liberty conglomerate.  (And please, correct me if any of these things are wrong.)

 

It is a fact that Mercola makes millions of dollars every year selling expensive Alternative Health products as well as expensive fluoride free toothpaste . . really expensive in home water filter systems . . fluoride de tox, fluoride free oral health care, you know, stuff that people would want to buy if they were afraid of fluoride.

 

It is a fact that Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales behavior.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#FDA_warning_letters

 

It is a fact that Mercola funnels money to the Fluoride Action Network through the nonprofit American Environmental Health Studies Project. https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

 

And it is a fact that the more paranoia the Fluoride Action Network generates about fluoride and strictly regulated safe tap water, the more stuff Mercola sells.

 

Is any of that incorrect?  If not, then please connect the dots.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
902
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