Looking for work? The U.S. Census Bureau is hiring more than 500,000 people nationwide. Learn more.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
417
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

417 Views
Message 341 of 1,448

Ken,

 

You call me a liar because you are acting like a bully.  (You say, "Figment of my imagination").  

 

Just because you did not spend time searching and reading the articles on PubMed, does not give you the right to call me a liar.  How rude can you be.  Simply search under the words fluoride induced cancer and read the articles.  It will take you a few days, but you will learn a great deal.  Do not insult me with your lazy sloppy failure to read the literature.

 

You fail to consider dosage or answer any of my questions on excess exposure (that I can find previously in our discussions or here).  You avoid the foundation of fluoride pharmacology. . . dosage.  

 

Fluoridation is a house of cards, built on failure to consider dosage.

 

Yet you want me to be your research boy and get you research and spoon feed you. . . maybe IV, or should I put the research in your water so you have no choice but to ingest?    If I gave you the reference, I doubt you would even read it.

 

So how do you think the pharmaceutical companies cause cancer in animals? Several methods, including injecting the animals with the cancer cells.  And administering fluoride, other toxins, etc.

 

On another note, I found this research of interest:

 

Toxicology Ind Health

 

2009 Feb;25  Fluoride-induced thyroid dysfunction in rats: roles of dietary protein and calcium level.    Wang et al. Abstract
 

"To assess the roles of dietary protein (Pr) and calcium (Ca) level associated with excessive fluoride (F) intake and the impact of dietary Pr, Ca, and F on thyroid function. . . Thus, excessive F administration induces thyroid dysfunction in rats; dietary Pr and Ca level play key roles in F-induced thyroid dysfunction."

 

Diet is a factor, so is fluoride with tyroid dysfunction.  So what is the dosage which causes thyroid dysfunction, cancer, brain damage, etc.?????? With synergistic toxins, host sensitivity, etc?   

 

It is all about dosage and host.  

 

But then, I doubt you will read the article or articles and if you do, I doubt you will understand what you have just read.  

 

Don't call me a liar.  A professional is never a bully.

 

Now. . . think dosage when you read anything about fluoride.  

 

And concentration is not dosage.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
417
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
441
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

441 Views
Message 342 of 1,448

Ken,

 

You say, "Now, fluoride is being recognised as a contaminant on pasture soils in New Zealand...."

 

The USEPA classifies fluoride as a contaminant in water.

 

Fluoridationists desire everyone to drink additional fluoride in public water regardless of the amount of fluoride they are receiving from other sources or whether they show signs of a toxic overdose of fluoride.

 

US FDA cautions everyone not to swallow a pea size of toothpaste which contains a quarter milligram of fluoride, about the same as a glass of fluoridated water.

 

US FDA has warned manufacturers of fluoride supplements to stop manufacturing fluoride supplements.

 

If people want to ingest fluoride, they can get fluoride from other sources.

 

Makes no sense.

 

Especially when most are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
441
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
439
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

439 Views
Message 343 of 1,448

Please. God most certainly did Create the universe.

And claiming this is false and lumping it in with being opposed to the bone fluoridation program endorsed by the CDC is pretty bizarre.

No I wish I did not have to speak with you.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
439
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
443
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

443 Views
Message 344 of 1,448

So now that we see who this person is, notice that the references he provides on fluoride appear to be most all self published opinion papers without peer review and not published in an actual scientific journal. Putting actual publications that have been peer reviewed on researchgate is OK.to enhance visibillty as long as permission is granted from the publisher. However those that have not been published are commonly opinion pieces .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
443
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
442
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

442 Views
Message 345 of 1,448

I am probably on record somewhere as opposing high fluoride fertilisers. For a long time, I have thought the production of superphosphate in NZ was chemically not ideal. On the one hand, superphosphate is a mixture product - it would be more sensible to produce a pure calcium phosphate through complete acidulation which could be used to produce specialist fertilisers. And the fluorosilicic acid by-product should be used as source material in the fluorine chemical industry. it is a valuable by-product.

The fluorosilicic acid produced as a by-product is quite pure - don't believe the lies about "toxic cocktails." It seems a criminal waste that much of it is returned to the superphosphate fertiliser and applied to the soil. Very short-sighted.

Now, fluoride is being recognised as a contaminant on pasture soils in New Zealand becuase of use of superphosphate. Such a waste - and a new problem arising in high production agriculture.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
442
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
452
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

452 Views
Message 346 of 1,448

I'm a native Californian and am fully familiar with the CA DPH analysis on fluoride carcinogenicity. They did not perform any experiments. They simply analyzed published materials. And again humans cannot be caged so they are limited to the data that was published by those humans who are not caged.

Most important, the Committee did not consider the Yiamouyiannis data because they were only looking for carcinogenic potential, not mortality incidence from extant cancers.

Their conclusion was that the evidence available in man does not prove fluoride causes cancer.

So what?

The Yiamouyiannis data prove that fluoride increases mortality in those who have cancer. lt appears to inmpair ones ability to fight cancer after it develops.

Again what is so difficult for you to grasp? And why is it my fault you cannot grasp it?  You call me names but have no justification for it. Give it up.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
452
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
452
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

452 Views
Message 347 of 1,448

What  if cancer mortality incidence dropped from 7 million to 4  million per year due to improved detection/treatment methods somewhere. If fluoridation were nonexistent then the rate could have went from 7 to 3 million. But fluoridation is present and the rate of decline is not as great because of it (Yiammouyianas finding).

Your claim that fluoridation is irrelevant in affecting mortality incidence is not proven by the data you presented. No one looked at fluoridated vs non fluoridated regions so the effect would not be recognized. You cant see what you don't look for. A snake under a rock is never seen unless you roll over the rock.

Why is this so difficult for you?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
452
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
443
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

443 Views
Message 348 of 1,448

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
443
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
458
Views

Examine the Evidence

458 Views
Message 349 of 1,448

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
458
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
445
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

445 Views
Message 350 of 1,448

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
445
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season