Can blue light from your phone cause vision problems? Find out and learn more about your vision in the AARP Eye Center.

Reply
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
366
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

366 Views
Message 231 of 1,331

Bill, I looked for this on PubMed and found nothing.

I suspect it is a figment of your imagination. Which explains your unwillingness to provide the citation you claim to have found.

Once again you prove to be an unreliable discussion partner.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
366
Views
Highlighted
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
381
Views

Examine the Evidence

381 Views
Message 232 of 1,331

CarryAnne – You have a remarkable ability for embracing double-standards.   You question Ken Perrott’s credentials and his decision to wade into the anti-science quagmire you created. And yet, I have never seen you provide any of your own credentials.

 

Do you have any credentials besides a substantial aptitude to copy/paste?   All you have ever done in this comment section is copy/paste standard anti-F propaganda – including nonsensical images (like those of Ken in an apparently deleted previous post), quotes supporting your opinions from various anti-science sources, and excerpts from studies that have been “adjusted” to fit your agenda (example below).

 

Describe your scientific &/or health care training and experience so those reading your remarkably extensive comments will have a context to assess your opinions?

 

You didn’t just misinterpret Ken’s profile “to include pesticides” as you noted, You also misinterpreted and fabricated Ken’s expertise to claim his “job was to develop fluoride-intensive fertilizers and pesticides” (neither fluoride-intensive fertilizers nor pesticides was listed), but you also selectively extracted four of the seven skills in his profile to display. (02-19-2019 04:44 PM) I think I can see where you got confused though – In Ken’s profile the words Chemistry, Fluoridation and Fertilizers were close to each other, and it would be extremely easy to construct the phrase “fluoride-intensive fertilizers and pesticides

 

KenP.jpg

 

Has anyone involved in agriculture ever tried to develop “fluoride-intensive fertilizers”? It appears you are exhibiting quite a talent for fantasy. Would you explain why that would be a product anyone would develop? You provide another excellent example of how anti-science activists (ASAs) not only read what they wish to see, they fabricate their “reality” to reflect their inflexible opinions and beliefs.

 

If you have actually read the fluoridation studies “in full” as you claim, it is almost certain that you have read them all (and interpreted them all) through the same anti-science filter you used to evaluate and describe Ken’s job and background – and that example didn’t even require any understanding of science.

 

You claimed (02-19-2019 06:42 PM) “This is the place for American seniors to discuss their health issues & concerns in a 'safe environment in easy to understand language' and to engage with AARP as to the policy and advocacy these American seniors would like to see AARP pursue with our U.S. government.”

 

I am an American Senior, and there is no place, particularly in an AARP discussion forum, for anecdotal discussions about “health issues and concerns” with a specific agenda that is not particularly well disguised by your discussion title, “Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action”. If there was any legitimate evidence supporting concerns that the “health issues” you and your “American seniors” believe were caused by community water fluoridation, you should engage with the scientific and health communities to change the scientific consensus. That is how science progresses – by providing legitimate evidence to the scientific community – not discussing personal, self-diagnosed health issues like you described in you “story” (below).

 

I have read around 200 of your comments in this thread, and Ken is correct in his assessment that “Yes, I see you download citations and make claims about them - in bulk. But no discussion.”

 

Your “references” consist of nothing but citations and what you consider relevant quotes – which are frequently taken out of context – as demonstrated in the US Public Health Service example referenced below (A).

 

Also, I thought you might be interested in contacting another very active anti-science activist, Karen Spencer, who spends considerable time on the Internet fighting against the scientific consensus and constructing threatening letters to health organizations like the American Thyroid Association referenced below (B) “suggesting” they stop supporting fluoridation or face a lawsuit. I am sure she has absolutely no relationship to you, but your stories – publically provided by both of you – are very similar to each other, so you might want to consider reaching out since you might be interested in her lack of concern for public health and employment of disingenuous anti-science tactics.

 

CarryAnne ‎07-07-2018 04:49 PM
https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2024156#M767

My Story (summarized):

  • As a pregnant woman, I almost lost my child when my city began fluoridation.
  • As a young woman, I experienced rashes, arthritis and gastrointestinal conditions that were untreatable.
  • As a senior, I experienced chronic kidney pain and a liver crisis that scared me into abandoning my water filter in favor of no-low fluoride bottled water.
  • Bottom Line: Now in my 60s, my arthritis of decades duration, as well as my chronic allergic cough, dry gums, IBS, nerve pain, etc., have all disappeared - and they did so in less than two weeks of my switch to no-low fluoride water. No more kidney pain and no more liver episodes, either.

 

Karen Spencer, Gloucester MA
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf

As to my involvement as an activist, it is personal.

  • The city started fluoridating July 1, 1981 during my pregnancy. I became seriously ill during my second pregnancy in 1981 and almost lost my child.
  • My illness continued after I gave birth. It was marked by rashes, hives, fatigue, and gastrointestinal problems resulting in drastic weight loss.
  • In 2014, my “chronic Lyme” hobbled me and I was having kidney and liver problems.
  • Nine days after being assiduously strict in my avoidance of fluoride, even using spring water to brush my teeth, my arthritis of 23 years disappeared. My kidney and liver trouble also disappeared. Even my painfully dry gums cleared up.

Examples:

  1. You claimed, 02-19-2019 06:36 AM , that fluoridation supporters,“ share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.”- A. Gesser-Edelsburg & Y. Shir-Raz

    I would like to remind you of your partial, biased quote from the US Public Health Service 09-13-2018 03:44 PM & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM .

    This provides an excellent example to expose and highlight a disingenuous, fear-mongering tactic regularly employed by anti- ASAs and bias-science activists (BSAs) to peddle their propaganda. They also help explain why ASAs & BSAs can come up with what appear to be long lists of references that appear to support their anti-science opinions – yet those opinions are dismissed by the majority of relevant scientists.

    The tactic: Extracting out of context content from published papers, which may appear to support their position, when the actual study design or conclusions of the study don’t. ASAs & BSAs not only cherry pick the studies they believe support their opinions (whether the study has anything to do with optimally fluoridated water or not), they cherry pick and present specific sentences out-of-context or cite studies completely irrelevant to in ongoing efforts to frighten the public.

    In the example below, your quote included everything in the paragraph from the US Public Health Service review EXCEPT the last two sentences, which you conveniently scrubbed out – and which actually support the scientific consensus that fluoridation does not cause adverse health effects. Here is the actual quote in context.

    Some existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems. For most of these populations, there are very limited data to support or refute increased susceptibility to fluoride. Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations.” (Page 162-163) https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf

  2. Communication to American Thyroid Association re fluoridation science, 11 Feb 2016
    In closing, given the fluoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontario …, and 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.”
    https://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf
    https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Response-to-Letter-to-ATA-copy.pd...
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
381
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
370
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

370 Views
Message 233 of 1,331

BILLO writes:  "OK, you want a reference for sodium fluoride being used to induce cancer.  Don't have one at my fingertips."

 

WHAT A SHOCK!!  I didn't see that one coming.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
370
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
472
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

472 Views
Message 234 of 1,331

Ken,

 

I was not laughing at your request for science.  I was laughing at the bizzar lack of support for excess exposure.  I simply don't have time to read all the posts.

 

OK, you want a reference for sodium fluoride being used to induce cancer.  Don't have one at my fingertips.  Obviously, pharmaceutical companies induce cancer to test their drugs.  What chemicals do they use?  One is sodium fluoride.  Look it up on PubMed.

 

And did you respond to the excess exposure of fluoride?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
472
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
459
Views

Re: Recent Alarming Science - Demand AARP Take Action

459 Views
Message 235 of 1,331

aka "Carrie Anne" writes:

 

"Oh course, if KenP had looked at the history of this thread beginning in Feb 2015, he would see I posted considerable scientific studies with discussion and that approximately 20+ seniors amiably joined in over a period of 3 years. That ended in June 2018 when the fluoride trolls descended en masse."

 

Response:  Glad to see you are documenting movements of the trolls.  If you get caught passing the dossier off to Christopher Steele, remind KenP that it was originally paid for by Republicans.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
459
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
463
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

463 Views
Message 236 of 1,331

I apologize if I misintrepetted the content in the link you provided that said your experience is in "soil fertility, fertilizers and chemistry" to include pesticides, but it is hard to determine how I wouldn't assume you work with fertilizers since that's what you listed in your profile. 

 

I agree this AARP forum is not the place for a scientific debate. This is the place for American seniors to discuss their health issues & concerns in a 'safe environment in easy to understand language' and to engage with AARP as to the policy and advocacy these American seniors would like to see AARP pursue with our U.S. government.

Sharing some science with some discussion is helpful for that purpose, but the AARP forum is not a scientific conference and domination by a few is not in keeping with the 'community' intent of this platform. 

 

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 6.31.09 PM.png

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
463
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
456
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

456 Views
Message 237 of 1,331

KenP says, "Yes, David, I can confirm I have Google and Google Scholar alerts for fluoridation and fluoride and often pick up articles and discussion this way.

I must set up similar alerts for Russiagate and Regime Change."

 

Response:  You don't have to.  You have the uncanny ability to zero in on and eulogize all those sources with which I happen to disagree.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
456
Views
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
459
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

459 Views
Message 238 of 1,331

Bill, I ask for the citation of the paper where you claimed NaF was used to induce cancer in animals. My wish is to assess the relevance of the paper to the issue.

So what do I get in respionse:

"You are not serious are you?  Your comments made me laugh out loud with a full belly laugh."

Come on - that is not respectful. I just want to check the paper. Why hide it?

Of course, I miss most of your comments - you blocked me, don't forget.

I seriously question your motives of coming here to respond to my comments when you have refused rational discussion on social media by blocking me.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
459
Views
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
473
Views

Re: Recent Alarming Science - Demand AARP Take Action

473 Views
Message 239 of 1,331

Yes, I see you download citations and make claims about them - in bulk. But no discussion.

This is not the place for an extensive exchange on all your citations so I will just respond to one of them - the Bashash et al (2018). I am very familiar with this and have written a document which is relevant:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330897483_Evidence_linking_attention_deficit_hyperactivity_...

While these studies do suffer from the problems of using data not designed for the hypothesis they test and the urinary F spot measures are really inadequate, I have concentrated on the over advocacy of the regression analysis results.

Yes, they were able to find a few parameters (not all they tested) that were significantly related to maternal urinary F but, like the earlier IQ study, the regressions are poor. An R-squared value of only 3% really does not suggest there is a real problem - especially as when more important risk-modifying factors like nutrition are included, the relationship with urinary F would probably disappear. (I found that the Malin and Till 2015 study also suffered from not including relevant risk-modifying factors - when they are included, the relationship with fluodiation disappears completely - see my paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321457780_Fluoridation_and_attention_deficit_hyperactivity_... )

 

Bashash et al (2018) do acknowledge limitations in their study and specifically mention nutrition as one. They imply they will do more work to include this. As Malin et al  (2018) found significant relationships between maternal nutrition and child IQ parameters with a subset of these child-mother pairs it will be interesting to see the results of including maternal nutrition in Bashash et al's regressions. Malin et al (2018) explained more of the variance (R-squared value over 11%) so I look forward to future publication from the group.

By the way, your claim that my "job was to develop fluoride-intensive fertilizers and pesticides" the is an absolute lie. I never worked with pesticides - or the development of fertilisers. You should be ashamed of lying in this way and it certainly undermines any claim you have to credibility.

Please stop such personal attacks and concentrate instead on good faith scientific exchange.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
473
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
475
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

475 Views
Message 240 of 1,331

Ken,

You are not serious are you?  Your comments made me laugh out loud with a full belly laugh.  

 

The science posted has been mostly by those who want clean unmedicated water.

 

And I keep missing your response to my questions on over exposure.

 

With over 60% of adolescents having dental fluorosis (20% moderate/severe) NHANES 2011-2012 at what point will you admit (without humor) that many are ingesting too much fluoride?  Would you recommend 5% with severe dental fluorosis, 10% severe, or should everyone have severe dental fluorosis?

 

So the question is, what of the many sources of fluoride should be reduced?

 

Fertilizer, pesticides, medications, industry, toothpaste, fluoride added to public water?

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
475
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