Prevention is the best medicine when it comes to avoiding surprise medical bills! Learn more.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
525
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

525 Views
Message 271 of 1,356

I haven't looked too deeply into the fluoride-cancer issue, except for specifically analysing a few papers. But one thing that strikes me is that the reports anti-fluoride activists rely on usually have inadequate statistical analyses. For instance, ignoring the very low explanatory power of the relationships reported (low R-squared values) and ignoring other risk-modifying factors (which when included show that there is no real relationship with fluoride.

I discussed these problems with the Takahashi et al., (2001 paper here:

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/fluoridation-and-cancer/

And the general reliance of anti-fluoride activists on poor statistical analyses here:
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/anti-fluoridation-campaigners-often-use-statistical-s...


Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
525
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
575
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

575 Views
Message 272 of 1,356

Astroturfing: An organized activity that is intended to create a false impression of a widespread, spontaneously arising, grassroots movement ... 

Troll: A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain. 

 

Question 1: Why did a New Zealand blogger infamous for his posts supporting fluoridation & denigrating opponents both on his blog and on letters to the editor across the English speaking world suddenly join the AARP - American Asociation of Retired Persons which is "dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age" with a barrage of insults directed at the senior citizen Americans on the AARP forum?

  • Answer: He was recruited by a small but organized team of fluoridationists. 

Question 2: What would prevent an intelligent person from engaging in a debate on OpenParachute with Ken P? 

  • Answer 1: This is about evidence & ethics, not personalities. 
  • Answer 2: Letting someone who repeatedly describes his opponents in debates as 'dishonest,' 'deranged' and 'so intellectually stubborn as to make rational discussion impossible' and refers to scientific studies and reports that do not support his point of view as 'pathetic,' 'ideologically approved' and 'unscientific' control an online debate on his website under his control is the equivalent of a battered woman giving her husband another chance after getting out of the hospital from a beating. Fatally naive

Note: Language in quotes from KenP within the last 48 hours directed at AARP seniors. 

 

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 2.37.56 PM.pngKenP - 19 comments in 48 hours

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
575
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
583
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

583 Views
Message 273 of 1,356

Claims that fluoride is related to cancer are mistaken.

 

An exhaustive review of all the scientific data was done by the California Carcinogen Identification Committee.   Full briefs were filed by a number of fluoridation opponents.

 

The commmittee, composed of a scientists with broad technical expertise voted unanimously that fluoride is NOT ASSOCIATED WITH CANCER AT ANY concentration.

 

All of the documents considered may be viewed here:

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cic092311.html

 

Formal reviews by expert panels are the highest quality of scientific information.   There really is nothing more to discuss re fluoride and cancer.

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
583
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
572
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

572 Views
Message 274 of 1,356

CarryAnne - what a weird response. I comment here with a reasonable offer for you to expand on the numerous claims and citations you have made here. I offer a good faith scientific exchange along the lines of that I had with Paul Connett 5 years ago. I made that exchange available also on Researchgate and it had had numerous downloads and reads. I have been told that people have found it an ideal source becuase of the topics covered and the citations used by Paul and me. Don't forget, at least half of the content was Paul's

And you respond with what looks like a deranged Neo-McCarthyist attack.

Do you understand what astroturfing is? I am picking you don't because, at least on my side, there has never been an example of astroturfing.

And what is this about me "revealling" my identity as if I had something to hide. I registed here with my perosnal information and location - nothing is hidden. I refer to myself, my research, my scientific publications and to my blog articles on this issue. Nothing is hidden from my side. I have an extensive published research record and all that is easily available online and can be accessed at Researchgate:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Perrott/research

Perhaps I should make the charge that you are hiding you full name, using a non-deplume and providing no information on your background or expertise (or lack thereof).

Come on! Front up. What is your answer. Will, you particpate in an uncensored free exchange of the science in good faith? If not, why not? At the moment it looks very much as if you are running away from the offer and spreading disinformation to cover your retreat.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
572
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
596
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

596 Views
Message 275 of 1,356

Richard, still at it I see.  

 

Your quote:  "I did not say that cancer survival was irrelevant. It must be nice to change peoples' words to have the luxury of criticizing and demeaning them."

 

Response:  Before you play the victim here, slow down and take a look at what you said:  "the notion that fluoridation does not affect cancer survival is not proven by the presented data. That suggests improved detrction and treatment methods are helping to bring rates,down."

My response to that was:  "so if "cancer survival" is irrelevant because of improved treatment, as you are saying . . "

 

As you seem to have limited capacity, yes, you said  current data which shows cancer rates are declining (that would be cancer survival) is irrelevant to the fact that the practice of water fluoridation is increasing.  You said this is because of improved treatment methods . . . which begged the question, why did you bring it up in the first place.

 

It must be nice to live in a world in which you can absorb half a thought, take it out of context, and then pretend that you are some sort of victim.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
596
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
583
Views

Re: Cancer and fluoride

583 Views
Message 276 of 1,356

Bill, could you please provide a citation for this paper you refer to - the use of NaF to induce cancer?

I would like to check out the conditions used to assess its relevance to this discussion.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
583
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
592
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

592 Views
Message 277 of 1,356

One thing you said I agree with, that is you are totally confused about my quote. 

I did not say that cancer survival was irrelevant. It must be nice to change peoples' words to have the luxury of criticizing and demeaning them.

To help your confusion:  Yiamouyiannis carefully examined pre and post fluoridation data on cancer mortiality in cities in the U.S. In all cases, the decline in cancer mortality incidence that occurred in all cities was slowed by fluoridation. So, again, the idea that others have somehow proven that fluoridation does not impair the decline in cancer mortality is absurd. The cancer statistics you provided are for the whole country and do not separate fluoridated from non fluoridated people. So of course cancer overall incidence declines will be found due to improved detection and treatment. 

But fluoridation interferes with one's ablity to fight cancer because fluoride is a toxic foreign substance in man and the rate of decline of cancer mortality incidence is not as great in fluoridated cities. This has all been thoroughly vetted in several court trials by epidemiologist experts. You can choose to believe who you want because of your desires. i choose to stick with the actual data from observations that were well done to address the specific question. 

Please stop spreading your confusion to everyone else.

And I don't scaremonger. If fluoridated water is all you have to drink in the middle of the desert, then drink it.  But if you expect me to hide the truth about its long term ingestion you are barking up the wrong tree. i don't lie, to my family, friends, or anyone else.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
592
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
589
Views

Re: Cancer and fluoride

589 Views
Message 278 of 1,356

BillO, your comment:

 

" Instead of going to a historical news society column, I went to PubMed and did a search for the words "cancer" and "fluoride"  in the primary literature. "

 

Response:  No doubt.  I'm sure there are dozens of studies by authors who have something they want to prove or have some sort of axe to grind . . . Or you could just take a look at the American Cancer Society's list of known and probable carcinogens.   It's right here.   https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

 

Guess what, fluoride isn't listed.   But you're Dr. Bill.  I'm sure you are more knowledgable about cancer than the experts at the American Cancer Society.  

 

Your quote:  "Can you guess what chemical they used to CAUSE the cancer to test their drug?

 

You guessed it.  SODIUM FLUORIDE."

 

Response:  Guess what.  Sodium fluoride isn't listed as a known or probable cancer causer either.  You need to get the ACS on board with your way of thinking, because, you know, you're a lot smarter than they are.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
589
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
518
Views

Re: Cancer and fluoride

518 Views
Message 279 of 1,356

Wow! Thank you for this insight, Dr. Osmunson!
Sodium fluoride, and probably other fluorides as well, are the chosen means to cause artificial cancer in test animals. This shows knowledge and callous disregard for the fact that fluorides are carcinogenic agents of destruction. And of course, this is directly in violation of the Safe Water Act, which prohibits any addition of chemicals into the water supply, which may cause cancer. I would not trust American Cancer Society, or any other industry affiliated association, to tell the truth as their livelihood depends on certain type of messaging. Just with a quick search I found this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Sodium+fluoride+to+cause+cancer+in+test+animals

 

US population is subject to mass poisoning without their informed consent! What kind of a country is the United States anyway? What happened to basic freedoms to life, liberty, and justice, when this fluoridation policy is in effect? It appears US population has been conned to swallow the lies of petrochemical-fluoride-sugar industry to use the people as consumers and filters of the most noxious chemical agents without their knowledge and informed consent. Brainwashing does not count as an informed consent. Of course now the industry has launched an attack to hold on to this policy of destruction! 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
518
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
497
Views

Re: Cancer and fluoride

497 Views
Message 280 of 1,356

It is very diffricult to prove in living human beings that a slow acting poison causes or does not cause cancer. I avoid the conclusion that fluoride does so in humans even though much evidence suggests it could, from the in vitro data on its mitogenic properties. Studying fluoride in tissue culture with a particular, convenient  cell type also is not much help in deciding whether it does or does not cause cancer in any other tissue. Bone tissue cannot be cultured.  It is a dififcult question for any scientist to address in humans. But in animals that can be placed in cages that are perfectly controlled, it most certaintly causes cancer when given for a significant fraction of the animals known lifespan.

As far as effects on dental caries in kids, the same problems arise only more so. Proving fluoride reduces decay or does not is diifficult in humans who cannot be put in cages. The Cochrane review found very few studies that could even be considered semi-decent. and in those no one could control variables such as how much candy one ate between groups, or how well brushing habits were, or so many other variables that affect the oral cavity exposed to the surroundings betwen the control and experimental groups..Experiments with caged animals prove no effect of fluoridated water on spontaneous caries. Period.  

Further, when teeth were scored in the original human experiments in Grand Rapids and Newburg, the absence of teeth were scored as absence of dental caries. We now know that fluoride ingestion causes delayed teeth eruption due to probably its effect on the thyroid.  So no teeth, no caries, and voila fluoride "reduces dental decay". i could say the same thing if one were to remove my teeth with a hammer. The procedure reduced caries. So what? For this we expose millions of innocent victims to chronic systemic poisoning by fluoride?

Fluoride is a toxic substance at any concentration in the blood. It is not listed in nursing texts, the Merck Manual, or any Clinical Chemistry text as being a component of normal human blood--because it is a contaminant of blood.

At 3-4 ppm in the blood, as during an overfeed where one actually consumes lots of water, death ensues due to heart block as occurred in Hooper Bay from an accidental overfeed.

Aat 1 ppm in blood, as occurs in paitents using municipal fluioride water in kidney dialysis wards, mortality increases over periods of months due to cardiac failure.

At 0.1 pppm as occurs in the average consumer of 1 ppm fluoridated water (NRC, 2006)  chronic poisoning occurs. Skeletal fluoride incorporation begins with the very first sip and progresses throughout life, causing formation of bone of poor quailty.

These are the facts.

The fluoridation scam is just that, a misguided attempt to help kids but we now know is actually harming them and everyone else.

The Safe Drinking Water Act prohbits requiring any substance added into U.S. waters other than that required to sanitize the water. Fluoridationists, including the dental officials at the CDC especially, follow the law and leave the rest of society alone please. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
497
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark