WATCH NOW: Iowa presidential candidate forum from Council Bluffs. Appearing: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
690
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

690 Views
Message 771 of 1,248

You say, "My deduction on salmon recognizes drought and other causes of salmon effects before fluoridation of course, but also that fluoride is one of the most potent causes because the fish only  lay eggs in water that chemically matches that where they themselves were spawned."

 

Response:  Great.  What's the dissolved oxygen level in that effluent, and what kind of BOD are they loading into that river?  Has anyone ever sampled for the new and emerging contaminant PFAS?  That would certainly have an effect on the chemical makeup of any waterway.

 

Richard, I had asked the question:  "Your hypothesis does nothing beyond supporting an agenda that helps Natural/Alternative Health people sell stuff, and Class Action Lawyers stir up potential clients for frivolous lawsuits.  Would you know anything about that?"

 

You responded by saying, "I don't believe in lawsuits and suing people. I was taught that by my parents."

 

Fair enough.  But it's no secret, and you've never made a secret of the fact, that you've done work for an attorney who runs a website called "Fluoride Class Action."  In fact, there's an entire page dedicated just to you https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/category/dr-sauerheber .   I mean, this is no secret.  This information is out there in the public domain.  

 

And this begs the question, how is it that someone whose very values are against the idea of lawsuits, has an entire section dedicated to him, for the entire world to see, on a website dedicated to a class action lawsuit against water fluoridation?  

 

By the way, has attorney James Deal actually won any lawsuits against anyone because of water fluoridation, or is he simply in the business of collecting money from potential clients?  

 

These are just questions.  I find it curious.  Fluoride Class Action isn't your website.  You just contribute to it.    

 

You also said, "I also don't own an oximeter or a boat. So you are probably talking to the wrong person."

 

Surely the University of California in San Diego has a boat and an D.O. probe.  The chemistry department, where you claim affiliation, surely has student interns just waiting for something to measure.  If I were in your position with a theory, but no empirical evidence to support it, I'd round up some students in a heartbeat, get some measurements and make some calculations.   

 

Is there any reason why you couldn't do that?

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
690
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
623
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

623 Views
Message 772 of 1,248

I don't believe in lawsuits and suing people. I was taught that by my parents. I also don't own an oximeter or a boat. So you are probably talking to the wrong person.

With the avocado leaf blight issue, saline is the chief known cause and there is no doubt the sodium from caustic soda used in fluoridation elevated the level above tolerable limits. There was no lawsuit against the city. It was proof that was undeniable and the conscience of city hall that led to an RO pipe dedicated without sodium and fluoride for the ranchers.

My deduction on salmon recognizes drought and other causes of salmon effects before fluoridation of course, but also that fluoride is one of the most potent causes because the fish only  lay eggs in water that chemically matches that where they themselves were spawned. So after the drought effects subsided and returns remain depressed anyway, fluoridation is the chief suspect.

The real question is why are city councils so easily convinced that fluoridation does no harm when it does harm bones, and yet also that it somehow hardens enamel, already the hardest substance in man when fuoride is absent from it? Propaganda is a dangerous thing. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
623
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
628
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

628 Views
Message 773 of 1,248

Again, regarding this quote:  "If anyone is bent on claiming that fluoride has no effect on salmon in the fluoridated main channel, then go there and find salmon laying eggs near the discharge pipe.  I am sorry to say you are not going to find them."

 

Response:  That may be true, but to say that it is because of the minute amount of fluoride, which you have never measured, is absurd.  Can you tell me what the BOD levels in Sacramento effluent are?  Can you tell me what oxygen levels are in the effluent?  Are you aware that trout & salmon require at least 7-10 ppm O2?  Can you tell me anything about what is in that discharged effluent?  

 

If I were an environmentalist, I would take a good look at those oxygen levels.  From there I would take a good look at that effluent to see what kind of BOD they are putting in that river.  But before any of that, I would need some solid evidence that the discharge itself has anything to do with smaller salmon numbers.  I see that those salmon returns were dropping to extremely low levels as far back as the early 1990s, well before fluoridation began.  

 

Your hypothesis does nothing beyond supporting an agenda that helps Natural/Alternative Health people sell stuff, and Class Action Lawyers stir up potential clients for frivolous lawsuits.  Would you know anything about that?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
628
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
609
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

609 Views
Message 774 of 1,248

Richard, you say, "If anyone is bent on claiming that fluoride has no effect on salmon in the fluoridated main channel, then go there and find salmon laying eggs near the discharge pipe.  I am sorry to say you are not going to find them."

 

You know, that is a good idea.  I think it would also be a good idea to measure actual fluroide levels in the Sacramento River, since that has never been done.  Why don't you have some of your UCSD student interns take those measurements and do the necessary calculations to support these outrageous claims that you have been making . . without a shread of evidence.  That way you will at least have an empirical leg to stand on.

 

I see on this paper that you have written, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract you list your affiliation with the UCSD.  Are you still doing that or did they make you stop when they found out about it?

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
609
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
598
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

598 Views
Message 775 of 1,248

Ever since fluoridation started in the Sacramneto main channel where the discharge pipe dumps the fluoridated wastewater, salmon runs notice average about only 10,000. This is a 90% collapse compared to the former 100,000 before fluoridaiton and the infamous drought ( believed to be the cause of the decimation in the 2007-9 area). But the drought is long over. Only fluoridation remains to this date, and the salmon returns remain dismally below normal still also.

These data were not available when I deduced that fluoridation discharges were apparently affecting salmon in 2010 when the entire fishing industry collapsed on the river.

Yes the tributaries appear to have gained a little, but the tributaries are not and never have been fluoridated. The main channel remains fluoridated and the salmon have not returned anywhere near normal even though the drought is long gone. The drought came and went but fluoridation discharges remain.

Salmon only laoy eggs in the water that has the identical chejmical composiont as that in which they themsleves were spawned. Tributaries ar enot fluodiedc bu the main channel is. If anyone is bent on claiming that fluoride has no effect on salmon in the fluoridated main channel, then go there and find salmon laying eggs near the discharge pipe.  I am sorry to say you are not going to find them.

What else can I say? The outside chance that fluoridation of the channel has nothing to do with the coincident collapse (after the drought ended) all these years is so remote as to be irrational. I don't buy it is merely a coincidence.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
598
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
609
Views

The Salmon in Sacramento story

609 Views
Message 776 of 1,248

Carry Anne,

 

You object to Gish Galloping, so I thought we could get back to Dr. Sauerheber's salmon story.  Since you tried to bury my comment (timestamp 08-30-2018 02:40 PM) which completely proved him wrong, about an hour after I posted it, I thought we could review it before it gets lost. 

 

Being the objective person that you are, wouldn't you agree that Dr. Sauerheber's story changed as more evidence was presented to him, and wouldn't you also agree that there was no merit to begin with to his claim that water fluoridation harmed the salmon population in Sacramento.  

 

Here it is for your review:

 

Wow!

 

Dr. Sauerheber, nothing in your statement ever evolved?  I have documented the evolution of your story.  Here is the documentation of the documentation - See my comment timestamp 08-30-2018 11:34 AM

 

Again, trying to focus on your salmon story, (because we wouldn't want anyone to accuse us of gish galloping), this is what you just said:

 

You say, “It is a documented fact that when fluoridation began, the salmon returning population was the lowest in all recorded history in the Sacramento River.”

 

And, “But the statement itself is a fact--the two occurred together, and when the collapse became so severe that the fishing industry on the Sacramento closed up shop, this was after fluoridation of South Scramento had begun many months before.”

 

Now, this is a link that you originally provided.  http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=1586%C2%A0  I didn’t provide the link, but I suspect you didn’t bother to look at it either. 

 

Take a look at figure one.  All three sources of salmon spawn returns, Tributaries, Mainstem, and Hatcheries hit their lowest point in 2009. 

 

You said water fluoridation began in 2010.  All three sources showed improvement after 2009.  In 2010, there was a greater abundance of fish into the mainstem than in 2009.  2011 also showed improvement from 2009 (before fluoridation began), although the Fall return in that year was not quite as good as 2010.  Mainstem returns in 2012 was better than 2009.  2013 was better than 2009.  2014 was better than 2009.  And the next year also.  

 

In other words, the low point for mainstem returns happened before water fluoridation began.  After fluoridation began in 2010 there was improvement. 

 

I don’t get how you can’t even grasp the simple fact that when water fluoridation began in 2010, and you said it began in 2010, it had absolutely no negative effect on salmon runs, (you even have a picture to look at).  And yet you think you have the insight to argue that Einstein was wrong about time dilation. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
609
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
634
Views

Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

634 Views
Message 777 of 1,248

CarryAnne – First, let me apologize for interpreting your 08-22-2018 06:59 AM statement, “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” as “greedy, willfully blind”.  I have corrected the error in Q5 below.

 

Explain how my asking you a series of questions designed to examine your publically posted statements and positions and my requests for clarifications can, in any way, be defined as “A straw man fallacy” where “statements and positions are misrepresented by opponents(08-30-2018 07:46 AM)?  I am requesting that you explain more clearly your statements and positions so I don’t misrepresent them.  Specifically:

 

Q1)  Do you accept the fact that the support of CWF by virtually all nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations constitutes the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – YES or NO – and the related sub-questions.

 

Q2) Do you accept as true Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim about the CDC, ADA and AAP, “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust”?  And do you believe that is applies it to the other 100+ organizations that do not publically denounce fluoridation and their hundreds of thousands of representatives?

 

Q3) Since you have gone out of your way to bring vaccination into the fluoridation conversation, do you also believe vaccination policies (to use your 08-24-2018 10:07 AM language) are also “an immoral medical mandate that forces contaminated product into bodies of convenient consumers regardless of impact on individuals in vulnerable populations who include senior citizens”?  Or do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any risks?

 

Q4A) You still have not addressed my 08-21-2018 01:00 PM correction to your blatant misrepresentation of the precautionary principle.

 

Q4B) You also did not provide an answer to my question, “If your claim ‘The evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive’ is even remotely valid, how can you possibly explain the fact, which has been brought up and ignored by FOs  numerous times, that all of the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation is safe and effective and that there are no such organizations that support the anti-F agenda.

 

Q5) Did you actually describe in your comments (08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as (corrected version) -- “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopathsNote: I corrected my original use of the term greedy.  If I am still misrepresenting your statements, please explain what you actually meant by those comments.

 

Update:  It is interesting to observe that in your “correction” comment 08-30-2018 11:03 AM, you don’t reference or highlight your 08-22-2018 06:59 comment “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA & EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt.

Instead you reference your 08-19-2018 01:05 PM post in which you only accuse some dentists who “intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [financial benefit]” and continue with “Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks.

 

Q6) Do you also extend your description of fluoridation supporters in Q5 to all the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of all the other science and health care organizations that continue to recognize the benefits of CWF and have not publically denounced CWF?  Or do you have another explanation for why those professional health care providers choose to remain silent – or publically support the practice?

 

Q7) Another of my questions (08-21-2018 09:36 PM) I don’t remember you answering: ”By your ‘logic’ those who demand that drinking water chlorination be halted because chlorine has been used as an immoral chemical weapon (and creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts which have not been proven by randomized controlled trials to be completely safe) have a legitimate argument.  Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy is immoral mass poisoning because toxic chemicals are used and there may be health risks from overexposure to disinfection byproducts?”

 

You are still dodging my questions and providing additional irrelevant comments opinions and conclusions.

 

You still have not provided a rational explanation of why, if fluoridation opponents actually have legitimate scientific evidence to support their claims of harm, the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure has not changed in over 70 years.  Or, if you believe the scientific consensus on fluoridation is irrelevant, you have not explained what your alternative would be.  It appears your alternative is to do whatever it takes to convince the public to blindly trust and accept fear-based, minority, outlier opinions.

 

Also, you have not provided a rational explanation of why you would trust or accept any claims made by any health professionals who supported or did not denounce CWF:

  1. If, as Dr. Osmunson’s apparently believes, those professionals who accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.
  2. And, as you apparently believe, they are “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"

Q8 - New) Are all these science and health professionals selectively lemmings, willfully blind, greedy (sorry, [affected by] financial benefit), corrupt, etc., only when it comes to their understanding of the science related to fluoridation?  
If so, how would Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation” be even remotely justifiable?

 

As noted elsewhere, the IAOMT Position Paper Against Fluoride Use with “over 500 citations”, your lists of studies and articles FOs have interpreted as supporting their cause, dozens of opinions from other FOs, and what you accept as “inconsistencies between policy & scientific data” are completely irrelevant to any scientific discussion of the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.  These tactics are nothing more than marketing strategies designed and implemented to try and scare the public (most of who are not trained and experienced in science or medicine) into believing the anti-F arguments and interpretations of the evidence have some legitimate credibility.  If their “evidence” was even remotely legitimate and credible, FOs would have been able to change the scientific consensus in discussions with relevant experts.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
634
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
630
Views

Numerical Deceits: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

630 Views
Message 778 of 1,248

Fluoridation advocates and their political partners ”share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.” - A. Gesser-Edelsburg & Y. Shir-Raz in Communicating risk that involve ‘uncertainty bias’… Journal of Risk Research. August 2016

 

Misrepresentation of data is now and has always been a cornerstone of fluoridationist disinformation campaigns. 

 

As Dr. Sauerheber indicates, the original 1940s fluoridationists cherry picked data sets when the entire data set did not prove their hypothesis. Brunelle & Carlos did the same thing circa 1990 with the NIDR study of 39k American school children. Both also used deceptive percentages that gave an appearance of substantial benefit when in absolute terms highly doubtful benefit amounted to a minority of children having perhaps one less cavity, but again only in a small dataset that was not representative of the whole.  But that's not the only way the fluoride-lobby manipulates numbers in order to manipulate opinions. 

 

Opponents frequently mention that 98% of Europe does not fluoridate their water or that about 97% of Europeans do not consume fluoridated food or water. A New York state presentation to dentists and public health officials this month promoting fluoridation coached their audience to emphasize that 13 million Europeans have fluoridated water and claimed that 10% have fluoridated salt then trailed off implying other fluoride delivery mechanisms were widespread. They are not. 

 

First, there is close to a billion people in Europe and 13 million is less than 2%Second, fluoridated salt is only available in some countries where it holds a minority share, mostly for industrial use like in prisons and military installations. That might be 10% of salt for those specific countries; I don't know and I don't care. What I do care about is disinformation campaigns that twist numbers and words and immoral medical mandates that harm vulnerable consumers

 

  • Missing from the New York DPH training is the harm caused vulnerable populations and the environment - and that is the topic of this thread despite the fluoride trolls hijacking the conversation and baiting some opponents into bickering over distractions.  

 

Here's another  fluoridationist numerical manipulation: Even if we accepted government pro-fluoridation figures, a more accurate way of representing that suspect data is 0.15% of the water might reduce 10% of the tooth decay in 25% of Amercian children. That's the best case scenario from pro-fluoride cherry picked datasets, but fluoridationists twist the numbers to give a false impressions and omit the documented harm to vulnerable populations who include senior citizens.

 

PeabodyPercentageDog.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
630
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
647
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

647 Views
Message 779 of 1,248

Doctor S., your quote:  

 

"The bar chart submitted contains three sections, and only the center one describes salmon returns fo rthe Sacramento River main channel where the discharge pipe is located and this has not returned to anywhere near full recovery since 2010. The other bars are for salmon returns in tributaries that are not fluoridated and in fact have many salmon hatcheries near them. Using the tributary data to discredit the claim that salmon are affected by the discharge pipe in the Sacramento River is pretty slick."

 

Response:  I am talking about the tributary data, the center section in each bar, in my last comment.  Trying to confuse the issue by accusing me of misrepresenting data, simply because there are three sections in each bar, is pretty slick.  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
647
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
665
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

665 Views
Message 780 of 1,248

Wow!

 

Dr. Sauerheber, nothing in your statement ever evolved?  I have documented the evolution of your story.  Here is the documentation of the documentation - See my comment timestamp 08-30-2018 11:34 AM

 

Again, trying to focus on your salmon story, (because we wouldn't want anyone to accuse us of gish galloping), this is what you just said:

 

You say, “It is a documented fact that when fluoridation began, the salmon returning population was the lowest in all recorded history in the Sacramento River.”

 

And, “But the statement itself is a fact--the two occurred together, and when the collapse became so severe that the fishing industry on the Sacramento closed up shop, this was after fluoridation of South Scramento had begun many months before.”

 

Now, this is a link that you originally provided.  http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=1586%C2%A0  I didn’t provide the link, but I suspect you didn’t bother to look at it either. 

 

Take a look at figure one.  All three sources of salmon spawn returns, Tributaries, Mainstem, and Hatcheries hit their lowest point in 2009. 

 

You said water fluoridation began in 2010.  All three sources showed improvement after 2009.  In 2010, there was a greater abundance of fish into the mainstem than in 2009.  2011 also showed improvement from 2009 (before fluoridation began), although the Fall return in that year was not quite as good as 2010.  Mainstem returns in 2012 was better than 2009.  2013 was better than 2009.  2014 was better than 2009.  And the next year also.  

 

In other words, the low point for mainstem returns happened before water fluoridation began.  After fluoridation began in 2010 there was improvement. 

 

I don’t get how you can’t even grasp the simple fact that when water fluoridation began in 2010, and you said it began in 2010, it had absolutely no negative effect on salmon runs, (you even have a picture to look at).  And yet you think you have the insight to argue that Einstein was wrong about time dilation. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
665
Views