There’s always more to discover with an AARP membership! Check out your member benefits.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
452
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

452 Views
Message 181 of 1,162

I am not a lawyer so I consulted with a lawyer who stated what this passage means. I never said Congress intended to halt fluoridation. I said what the lawyer said, that Congress intended that it halt the spread of water fluoridation.  Apparently a published work by a joint team of a doctor and a lawyer are not good enough for, but I was cefrtain that would be hyour position before I even sent the link. Again, the link was not intended for you. It was for objective rational readers of these pages. Anyone can interpret the sentence about Congress any way they want. As for me, I would reject fluoridation on this sentence alone. Fluoridation does not sanitize water. Period. So the CDC has no rights to request its existence.  And it has no useful purpose and is a simple money drain, like a useless Trump wall that couldn't even stop a gopher, let alone a human or a tunnel-digging drug cartel.

And yes indeed I was accused of having access to millions and why don't I bring a lawsuit if I'm so sure it is illegal. Read my posts because this has already been addressed.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
452
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
460
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

460 Views
Message 182 of 1,162

David,

 

I have not read anything in your posts which gives me the feeling that you honestly want my professional opinion on anything.  Your only interest in my comments is to demean me, attack me, try to prove me wrong, misquote, disparge and rip me apart like you have done to others.  Why should I put myself in that position?  I'm not insane. 

 

Several streams of empirical evidence indicate that many, millions, are hurting because of this public health blunder.  I feel their pain and at times they pay me money because of the public health blunder of excess fluoride exposure.  

 

Like Trump, you have repeatedly said the same disparaging attack over and over again, "Dr. Limeback's deceptive photograph. . . ."    Have you contacted Dr. Limeback?  Have you asked him to explain his comments?  What has been his response?

 

David, no gentleman or scholar would use your terms on another professional.  

 

John Galbraith is reported to have said, "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

 

Once again, may I request a professional scientific discussion.  

 

What scientific evidence (facts) do you rely on which gives you confidence no one in the USA is ingesting too much fluoride and water fluoridation is not a contributing factor to too much fluoride exposure?  And if some are ingesting too much, what is your estimate?  

 

Are you absolutely certain, thousands, tens/hundreds of thousands and millions of Americans are not ingesting too much fluoride?  What is your factual measured evidence?

 

If you answer by referencing other people rather than scientific peer reviewed published literature, then our discussion is over.   I'm not interested in disparaging terms on anyone.  Just factual evidence, not emotions.

 

I am willing to modify, change, or alter my position on fluoride exposure if you or anyone can present measured evidence on efficacy and safety at a fluoride dosage range.  

 

Quotes of tradition, emotion, money, marketing or endorsements do not count.   Facts count.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
460
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
443
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

443 Views
Message 183 of 1,162

Dr. Bill, 

 

Have you had time to review Dr. Limeback's deceptive photograph of iron-stained teeth (his diagnosis) of a patient who, according to him, had never drank optimally fluoridated water which appeared in an article about fluorosis on a website dedicated to the abolition of CWF?  I am not denying that the teeth have fluorosis, but I would be interested on your professional and ethical views in this discussion. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
443
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
403
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

403 Views
Message 184 of 1,162

Billo says, "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."

 

William, if you feel that I am bullying you by asking you to defend your comments, or name calling . . please feel free to report it to the AARP admin.  Be warned, however, you will have to provide evidence of your claims.  

 

If the fact that "Dr. Richard" has trouble comprehending the meaning of a provision in the Federal SDWA, and the fact that I have challenged him on it and pointed out his error, means that I am bullying him, perhaps you all should develop a thicker skin if you are going to continue to make extraordinary claims.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
403
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
386
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

386 Views
Message 185 of 1,162

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
1
Kudos
386
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
365
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

365 Views
Message 186 of 1,162

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
365
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
352
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

352 Views
Message 187 of 1,162

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
352
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
337
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

337 Views
Message 188 of 1,162

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
1
Kudos
337
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
337
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

337 Views
Message 189 of 1,162

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
337
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
328
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

328 Views
Message 190 of 1,162

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
1
Kudos
328
Views