The AARP Fraud Resource Center can help you spot and avoid common scams. Visit today!

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
570
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

570 Views
Message 471 of 1,248

"Carry Anne," you have misquoted me.  Your quote:  "It is easy enough for anyone to decline milk with or without vitamin D when there is a medical reason to avoid it, or simply because they dislike it, or if milk is contrary to their religion. Every classroom teacher knows she has a duty to protect her pupils from various exposures per parental instructions."  

 

 In my example I was not informed that my child was drinking milk with Vitamin D added.  And you have shown, by your response, that this would be some kind of a big deal.  If the kid is lactose intollerant, that's one thing.  But using your logic, the problem is the kid getting a healthy dose of Vitamin D.  

 

By your odd logic, it would be inappropriate to feed a kid a healthy diet rich in fiber, .  .  no beans, no fresh vegatibles, no apples, certainly no cranberry juice, because these things might lead to a healthy digestive system and really good bowel movements.  

 

According to the Mayo Clinic, "A high-fiber diet may also help reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes."  https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/high-fiber-foods/...

 

Feeding a child a healthy high fiber diet has medical consequences.

 

Using your logic, this would be a violation of human rights to force my child to reduce his risk of heart disease and diabetes by forcing him to eat healthy food.   

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
570
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
577
Views

Re: Several questions

577 Views
Message 472 of 1,248

RandyJ, this is interesting. 

 

Your quote:  " a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics.  The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water fluoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition . . "

 

That is interesting, isn't it.  These same people, "Carry Anne," for example, "Demanding" that the AARP do the same thing.  

 

We can only hope that laymen who have been trained at the University of Google not be allowed to hijack proven health initiatives.  It is a frightening thought.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
577
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
564
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

564 Views
Message 473 of 1,248

It is easy enough for anyone to decline milk with or without vitamin D when there is a medical reason to avoid it, or simply because they dislike it, or if milk is contrary to their religion. Every classroom teacher knows she has a duty to protect her pupils from various exposures per parental instructions. 

 

No one can survive without water. When fluoride is added to water it permeates everything making it impossible to avoid for those of us with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid or kidney diseases caused or worsened by fluoride, inclusive of eczema & psoriasis which are inflamed by bathing in fluoridated water. 

 

The other side of that coin is that it is easy and cheap to use fluoridated toothpaste, buy fluoridated drinking water for a buck or less a gallon, or give your kids prescription fluoride drops for about $3 a month if you want it. I'm not trying to prevent your choice to use fluoride, just my choice to avoid consuming it and bathing in it.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
564
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
549
Views

Several questions

549 Views
Message 474 of 1,248

CarryAnne, I have asked you several times before without receiving an answer. 

 

Based on your libelous accusations directed at several specific science and health organizations, do you believe all science and health organizations in the world that recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation (CWF) and their hundreds of thousands of members who have not rebelled are “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” willing to , “protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”?  Is that your only explanation for why the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF or do you have other explanations?

 

Also, do you accept Bill’s apparent belief (based on his specific accusations and failure to address them) that ALL the science and health experts in the world who accept the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is safe and effective (or who don’t publically accept the anti-F opinions),, don't think for themselves … No conspiracy….  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, haveseriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, arelemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientistsandNone reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation and exhibit the morality of those responsible for the Tuskegee Syphilis study.”?

 

These are your specific comments

(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

(08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [big bucks earned from treating dental fluorosis].  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

 (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates

(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.”  Provide specific evidence of your claim these professionals are “cowards”. 
You provided a link to a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics.  The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water fluoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition, “In closing, given the fluoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontarioand other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be filed, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientific integrity and professional ethics. We suggest the ATA speak for themselves…”

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
549
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
488
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

488 Views
Message 475 of 1,248

"Carry Anne"  your quote:  "Municipal votes and legislative action are not the places to decide medical treatment for my family. That decision belongs to the individual."

 

Response:  You are literally saying that the individual has the right to choose poorer oral health.  That would not be a rational decision by the individual.  Moreover, the individual does not have the right to impose his/her irrational beliefs upon his/her neighbors.  

 

You bring up UNESCO, Medical consent, Human Rights & Human Dignity, and of course your irrelevant citation of an SDWA statute that you have twisted out of context.

 

Medical Consent.  Looking through the lens of your slightly agitated worldview, this would be an example of your idea of a violation of Medical Consent:

 

I have a child who goes to public school.  That school fed my child milk with Vitamin D added.  That school never informed me that it would be feeding my child Vitamin D.  Using your logic, that school is guilty of violating my, and my child's right of informed medical consent.  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
488
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
470
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

470 Views
Message 476 of 1,248

Richard, when you say things like this, I doubt you have ever read the SDWA.  Your quote:

 

"All water additives that are legalas described in the SDWA are those that actually purify water (remove debris, prevent corrosion, and sanitize water, etc.). "

 

It may surprise you, but there are very few additives which are described in the SDWA.  Did you know there is actually an additive which is NSF approved and is intended to treat Sodium Hypochlorite?  It neither sanatizes the water, removes debris, or prevents corrosion.  Nor is it described in the SDWA.  It is an additive to drinking water whose sole purpose is to prevent bleach from hardening up.  

 

So there is a phosphorous addive which treats bleach.  Show me that in the SDWA.

 

Your quote:  "The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste . . "

 

That is a verifiable "untruth."  NSF says no such thing.  If so, please provide evidence of that.

 

Your quote from an earlier comment:  "And the suggestion is ridiculous that if one is opposed to fluoridation they should contact the "appropriate officials." There are no appropriate officials. The EPA  and the FDA both deny responsibility and liability for fluoridation and neither endorse it, but both do not oppose it."

 

We've been through this before.  EPA allows 4 parts per million of fluoride in drinking water.  That's a fact.  If someone were actually harmed by drinking water with 1 part per million of fluoride, that would be the fault of the EPA, because the EPA allows it.  And guess what.  People sue the EPA all the time.  

 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
470
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
459
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

459 Views
Message 477 of 1,248

 “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” - Thomas  Jefferson

 

Municipal votes and legislative action are not the places to decide medical treatment for my family. That decision belongs to the individual. But since fluoridationists have used politics and the doctrine of police power to strip me of my human right to sovereignty over my own body and right to make my own medical decisions, either the legislature or the courts need to take action. I recommend reading UNESCO on Medical Consent. Here are a few excerpts from UNESCO and others.

UNESCO Mandate: “set universal standards in the field of bioethics with due regard for human dignity and human rights and freedoms, in the spirit of cultural pluralism inherent in bioethics.” - October 2003, 32 C/Res. 24  

 

Medical Consent: ”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 

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

 

Human Dignity & Human Rights: ”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”  - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)

 

UNESCO on Discrimination: “No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.”  - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 11 (2005)

 

UNESCO on Environmental Duty: “Due regard is to be given to the interconnection between human beings and other forms of life, to the importance of appropriate access and utilization of biological and genetic resources, to respect for traditional knowledge and to the role of human beings in the protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity.” - UNESCO documents in Bioethics and  Protection of the Environment, the Biosphere and Biodiversity, Article 17 (2005)

 

SDWA: “Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” -  SDWA (P.L. 93-523)

 

US Government on Bioethics: “All participants in an experimental program should be informed in advance of all features of the treatment and measurement process that they will be experiencing that would subject them to any obvious risk or jeopardy and that would be likely to influence their decision to participate in the program or their conduct as participants in the program." - The 1979 Belmont Report on The National Research Act of 1974 

 

Medical Treatment: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
459
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
446
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

446 Views
Message 478 of 1,248
The lack of opposition with and without government is not really a puzzle, the truth is fluoridation has such wide spread professional support because it safely simply prevents cavities.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
446
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
429
Views

Re: Another un-answer to my questions

429 Views
Message 479 of 1,248
Dr. Osmunson, are we clear that you believe community water fluoridation is the ethical equivalent of the Tuskegee Syphilis study?
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
429
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
421
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

421 Views
Message 480 of 1,248

In many cases higher courts have made improper decisions while lower courts decided more carefully. Even the Supreme Court has made decisions that contradicted earlier Supreme Court decisions. As for fluoridation, ingested fluoride does alter the chemistry of the human body while not even being able ironically to penetrate into the teeth enamel matrix. There is no court ruling one way or appeal another way that changes this. Fluoridaiotn is a useless harmful cause.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
421
Views