From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
683
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

683 Views
Message 471 of 1,448

Dr. Richard,

 

You don't have to respond to anyone.  And we should probably not respond to people who openly disparage, demean, belittle, bully, and/or attack without provocation.    

 

Name calling and attacking the messanger rather than the message is very unprofessional and you have remained professional and respected in your responses. 

 

I'm also proud of Carry Ann.  An excellent grasp of science, ethics and a kind person with good logic. 

 

I'm also hopeful for Dr. Johnny and Dr. Chuck that they will once again look at the considerable evidence that many are ingesting too much fluoride. 

 

However, emotions filter facts and everyone needs to be careful that we always consider facts -- a global view of all facts -- carefull.     

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
683
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
668
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

668 Views
Message 472 of 1,448

Richard says, "First, the idea that I am not in a position to make a claim about fluoridated water discharges and the salmon collapse in the Sacramento River because I did not report possible stormwater dilution of wastewater data is laughable."

 

Response:  I never said you weren't in any position to be able to do anything.  I said you did not present evidence of your claims . . and you didn't.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
668
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
664
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

664 Views
Message 473 of 1,448

Ok, Richard, I had asked who Graham and Morin are, and you provided a link which answered that question.  (But before we look at that, you had said, "I should say go find it yourself, but to help readers, here it is:"

 

Response:  You are making an extraordinary claim here.  It is your responsibility to provide evidence of it.  It is not my responsibility to simply believe you or to look up evidence of your claims myself.  This is what documentation is all about.  Based on some previous comments you have made, you don't seem to understand this.  

 

John Remington Graham:  * B.A., LL.B., of the Minnesota Bar. Federal Public Defender, 1969-1973; Co-Founder, Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Lecturer, Hamline University School of Law, 1972-1980; Special Counsel for the City of Brainerd, 1974-1980; Crow Wing County Public Defender, 1981-1984; Crow Wing County Attorney, 1991-l995; Advisor on British constitutional law and history to the Amicus Curiae for Quebec in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1997-1998. Mr. Graham has served as counsel in major fluoridation litigation in Minnesota, Washington State, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas, 1974-1984

 

Pierre-Jean Morin:  Ph.D. in Experimental Medicine. Chief Profusionist, Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, 1957-1967; Coordinator for Research in the Heart Institute and Artificial Organs Group, and Lecturer in Medicine, Laval University, 1967-1979; Director of Medical Research, Laval University Hospital, 1973-1979; Senior Scientific Advisor to the Environment Minister and the Prime Minister of Quebec, 1976-l985; Director, Local Community Services Center, Lotbiniere West, 1979-1990. Dr. Morin was scientific advisor to counsel for the plaintiffs in major fluoridation litigation in Texas in l982.

 

So Graham and Morin are an attorney and a doctor.   

 

You had said, "The Safe Drinking Water Act intent, its purpose, was to halt the spread of water fluoridation (as described by Graham and Morin in their fluoridation litigation detailed monograph)."

 

You also directed my attention to footnote # 88.  

 

In the book you cite, the authors are discussing a case that had reached the Canadian Supreme Court, "Toronto v Forrest Hill."  The authors quote Justice Rand.  And then we see footnote #88:

 

"88. Id. at 118. The same distinction appears in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(11), which states, “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventative health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” This provision was intended by Congress to prohibit the use of the Safe Drinking Water Act as a means of imposing artificial fluoridation of public water supplies throughout the United States."

 

Is all of this correct thus far?  

 

Now let's look at what you said again:  "The Safe Drinking Water Act intent, its purpose, was to halt the spread of water fluoridation (as described by Graham and Morin in their fluoridation litigation detailed monograph)."

 

Really, Richard?  Do I really need to go through these two statements to prove they are not congruent?  Aside from the fact that your comments are based upon a book by a lawyer and a doctor, nowhere does anybody say - based on this one statute - that the intent and purpose of the SDWA was to stop CWF.

 

But let's look at the provision itself:  "“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventative health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”

 

The authors are correct.  This provision simply prevents a federal mandate.  "No national primary drinking water regulation," i.e., nothing from the Federal SDWA, "may require the addition of any substance," i.e., may demand, may force the addition of any substance, "for preventative health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”   This is self explanatory.  

 

Richard, the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act was not written with the purpose of halting water fluoridation.  The authors of the book you cited, a doctor and a lawyer, never said that.  The Safe Drinking Water Act doesn't say that.  It simply says that the SDWA can't impose anything like CWF on anyone, the SDWA can't require it.  And the SDWA wasn't written for that purpose.  

 

I hope I won't be seeing this from you again.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
664
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
637
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

637 Views
Message 474 of 1,448

First, the idea that I am not in a position to make a claim about fluoridated water discharges and the salmon collapse in the Sacramento River because I did not report possible stormwater dilution of wastewater data is laughable. The major contributor to the collapse was the severe drought at the time which concentrates fluoride levels in the River at the discharge tube. There had been no rain for months to dilute it.

Second, if one works for an organization which has members that interacted with others who make errors does not make that person an alternativce health pimp, so the mischaracterization of Dr.Osmunsen is ridiculous.

Finally, I did not send the links to solicit responses. I sent them to help educate the readers and to stop ludicrous responses/attacks by those who don't understand the topic, such as those who side with CDC dental officials, the ADA, the National Sanitation Foundation, the AFS, and many un-informed others.

(And if someone had millions to blow on fluoride litigation against un-informed others, I would recommend instead giving it to those who have been harmed by fluoride ingestion).

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
637
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
617
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

617 Views
Message 475 of 1,448

Richard, you say, "Why do I have to respond to anyone who calls me an "alternative heath pimp"?"

 

Response:  Actually that comment was directed toward billo.  He was the former director of the Fluoride Action Network which unashamedly has taken money from the unethical alternative health - multi million dollar alternative health company, Mercola.  Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales practices.  Mercola also happens to sell a lot of very expensive merchandise, which sells better when people are afraid of their drinking water and afraid of fluoride.

 

I hope that clears things up.  

 

I will look at your links and comment on them tomorrow.  Thank you for providing them.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
617
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
609
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

609 Views
Message 476 of 1,448

And I am now accused of not filing litigation against fluoridation in a denigrating manner since I supposedly have access to millions of dollars to pay for it say from Mercola. Wow. Ive never met or ever corresponded with mercola. How twisted can a fluoride promoter get? 

And besides, I dont believe in filing lawsuits. I learned that from my parents , that you discuss your differences until they are resolved. I dont object to thode who are in a position to file righteous lawsuits but I dont have such internal ability. So what? And you really think someone would pay me millions to sue the CDC? Please spare us.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
609
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
602
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

602 Views
Message 477 of 1,448

Dr. Osmensen is making the points that dental fluorosis is a major National problem because water fluoridation is so widesped, and that fluorotic teeth, with deficient enamel, is often accompanied by stains from other materials because the enamel does not protect the underlying dentin normally, all due to fluoride consumption. The idea that fluoridated wter is not the major cause of dental and bone fluorosis is absurd..

The fluoride sources for dental fluorosis were reviewed in a paper where it was concluded that the use of fluoridated water under age 6 should be more carefully considered. 

http://www.aapd.org/assets/1/25/Mascarenhas-22-04.pdf

Again, fluoridated water does not decrease dental caries (which most dentists who publish materials on fluorosis do not grasp). Fluoridated water does not work, either topically (Yiamouyiannis, etc. or systemically, U.S.CDC). Poisoning children with this garbage is a mistake.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
602
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
592
Views

Dentists, Dementia & Disinformation Campaigns

592 Views
Message 478 of 1,448

“It’s hazardous for us to use…. Workers have to protect themselves, including wearing face shields when handling the chemical… It’s worse than battery acid.” - Dover NH Utilities Superintendent Bill Boulanger (2017)

 

Fluoride is an enzyme poison and neurotoxicant. Fluoride causes neurological damage. Period. Fluoride adversely affects ability to learn, ability to think clearly and behavior.

 

Dentists & water workers have high occupational exposure to fluoride which contributes to workers' comp claims and higher rates of various disease among dentists, who in some respects echo the circumstances of 19th century 'hatters' who were known as 'mad' because of their exposure to mercury, a substance that is still common in American dentistry although restricted or banned in Europe and elsewhere, much like water fluoridation. 

 

Studies published in recent weeks on fluoride and dementia aren't the first of this type, but they certainly count among the best.

 

  • It may be too late for some folks with fluoride damaged brains, but shouldn't AARP which claims to advocate for all senior citizens make a statement similar to this month's condemnation of fluoridation by the Children's Health Team

 

ADULT BRAINS: First long term NaF animal study (10 weeks) using moderate levels of fluoride finds a number of histological changes including in parts of the brain associated with memory and learning, as well as chemical changes affecting brain function. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653518317508  

  • Pei Jiang, Gongying Li, Xueyuan Zhou, Changshui Wang, Yi Qiao, Dehua Liao, Dongmei Shi. Chronic fluoride exposure induces neuronal apoptosis and impairs neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity: Role of GSK-3b/b-catenin pathway. Chemosphere. Volume 214, January 2019, Pages 430-435.

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE: Describes impact of fluoride-induced stress and inflammation in the development of Alzheimer’s disease and demonstrates the mechanism for cell death in the progressive worsening of the disease over time.
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/12/3965 

  • Goschorska M, et al. Potential Role of Fluoride in the Etiopathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19 (12), 3965. 

DEMENTIA: Describes the chemical mechanism by which the effectiveness of the two most popular drugs used to treat Alzheimer’s & other neurodegenerative dementia disease is reduced or blocked by fluoride induced oxidative stress. 
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/1/10/htm
 

  • Marta Goschorska, Izabela Gutowska, Irena Baranowska-Bosiacka, et al. Influence of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors Used in Alzheimer’s Disease Treatment on the Activity of Antioxidant Enzymes and the Concentration of Glutathione in THP-1 Macrophages under Fluoride-Induced Oxidative Stress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019, 16(1), 10. 

 

MadHatter.jpgMad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
592
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
581
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

581 Views
Message 479 of 1,448

Bill, you argue that I never read your comments, yet you never read mine.

 

Your quote:  "

You have repeated ad nausium photos and Limeback.   

 

Are you a dentist?  In what state are you licensed?  My memory says you denied being a dentist.

 

Are you licensed to diagnose any dental disease? DO, MD, DDS, DMD or ?   I don't think so.

 

Do you know the name of the patient in the photograph?  I'm guessing no.

 

Do your really know, factually, scietifically, with measured evidence that the patient never touched fluoridated water?  Impossible."

 

Response:  I know that this patient had never touched optimally fluoridated water because Dr. Limeback said he grew up in a non-fluoridated area, but took fluoride pills.

 

Am I a licensed MD, DDS? 

 

No, but a licensed DDS, who photographed the teeth, said he believed the teeth were iron stained, and that the patient didn't drink optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Your condescending remarks speak to the fact that you have never bothered to read the points I was making, or took the time to consider the issue at hand.

 

It says more about your closed mind than it does about mine.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
581
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
576
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

576 Views
Message 480 of 1,448

Hogwash. One person's "anecdotal observation" is another person's abject eyewitness certainty.  Anecdotal is relative. Anecdotal is for example articles published by fluoridation promoters who claim dental benefit when the error bars overlap between treated and controls, or when diet and brushing habits are not controlled. That may be abject truth to someone, but it is nevertheless anecdotal to a scientist. I visited the child myself and it is not anecdotal. Dental fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. Sorry.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
576
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera