Science is honing in on better ways to treat chronic pain. Read about it in this AARP series.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
590
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

590 Views
Message 261 of 1,248

Reviews don't counter the primary data, as published for animal studies, and human studies by Ziegelbecker and by Teotia and Teotia and by Yiamouyiannis and in the large CA Dental research study. Reviews also do not include the analysis by Sutton that demonstrate all the original trials purporting to see effectiveness are uncontrolled.

Dr Paul Connett knows better than to claim that fluoridafion is either significantly effective or harmless.  In fact if you read his published book "The Case Against Fluoride; How Hazardous Waste Ended up in our Drinking Water and the Politics that Keep it There" you might learn facts that Paul knows and teaches.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
590
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
505
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

505 Views
Message 262 of 1,248
If you are correct about this is should be trivial in court to demand the "proper" action. Community water fluoridation has been reviewed and reviewed.

Here's a link to a graphic listing of just under 20 such reviews.

http://tinyurl.com/y8gpuuos

I know for a fact that Paul Connett personally testified before some of these expert panels. In fact, excellent scientists selected specifically for their expertise all came to similar conclusions: fluoridation prevents cavities and is safe.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
505
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
477
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

477 Views
Message 263 of 1,248

Richard and AARP,

 

You are absolutely spot on the mark.  

 

SDWA (and EPA in my communication with them) are clear and precise, adding anything to water for the treatment of people is prohibited. 

 

The amount of water people drink is not controlled and therefore dosage is not controlled. 

 

On the other hand, the FDA has not approved ingesting fluoride (through the regulatory process) because the evidence on efficacy is incomplete.

 

AARP should take the scientific and ethical high road and facilitate the review of science on fluoride ingestion.   Good scientists, reviewing data will usually come to similar conclusions.  Consensus is possible.

 

The big problem is the "shut down" of Government.  Not the current shut down, but the shut down of scientific evaluation by government agencies.  Open scientific investigation is simply not permitted if the evidence raises questions on tradition. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
477
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
492
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

492 Views
Message 264 of 1,248

How in the world could the drafters of the SDWA have known ahead of time that in the future there would be such unscrupulous people as to force fluoridate the country by making the ludicrous claims that 1) ingesting fluoride into the bloodstream somehow improves rock-hard teeth enamel but yet 2) at the same time is totally harmless to softer bone that accumulates fluoride readily. All wihtout provided links or proofs for such outlandish claims.

If the drafters had known this, would they then have simply outright prohibited the practice of fluoridating other peopless' drinking water (other than that which oneself drinks)? I don't know but we now know they should have.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
492
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
494
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

494 Views
Message 265 of 1,248

Fluoridation began in 1945 as a forced program. Neither Grand Rapids nor Newburgh NY asked for the program. The Safe Drinking Water Act was written long after that and did not ban fluoridation that already had begun. In fact, any person is still today free to fluoridate their own water and drink all the poisonous garbage they want. But the Act intended to prohibit the government from further spreading this abject assault on the personal freedom of innocent. And yet today several States mandate, that is require, fluoridation of water supplies in all their large cities, in complete and grotesque violation and disregard of the law. The SDWA has statutes that prohibit States from being any less restrictive than for the Federal government. But a fluoridationist can't care about Federal water law or else he must stop being a fluoridationist.

Again, San Diego  voted in two separate elections against fluoridation both times. And yet look what was forced onto the citizens.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
494
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
476
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

476 Views
Message 266 of 1,248

So are Graham and Morin now on a list of "quacks" or "alternative health pimps" or are committing "deception" or are "liars" for not "presenting links to support their claim"?

Again, I don't need to provide anything to a person who refers to others by the above titles. Mercola is probably doing what he believes is true. Fluoridationists also probably truly believe that fluoride is useful and harmless during liflelong consumption. They are not "pimps" for not providng links to that statement and they are probably very sincere. It's just that they are sincerely wrong.  You try to help them but it doesn't do much good.

Congress intended fo prohibit the SDWA from being used to impose water fluodation across an innocent and free country.  I interpret that sentence raitonally, so what?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
476
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
473
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

473 Views
Message 267 of 1,248

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
1
Kudos
473
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
481
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

481 Views
Message 268 of 1,248

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
1
Kudos
481
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
465
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

465 Views
Message 269 of 1,248

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
465
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
425
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

425 Views
Message 270 of 1,248

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
425
Views