Learn how to spot and avoid common scams with AARP's Fraud Resource Center. Try it today!

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
343
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

343 Views
Message 331 of 1,448

BillO writes to me:  "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.  Try it."

 

To KenP,  "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."

 

KenP responds:  "Bill, I looked for this on PubMed and found nothing."

 

WOW!!  The unexpected plot twists here are blowing my mind!  KenP, have you tried looking in the society column?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
343
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
347
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

347 Views
Message 332 of 1,448

Fluoridation is founded on dosage.

 

Hierarchical evidence is a House of Cards.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
347
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
356
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

356 Views
Message 333 of 1,448

Richard, you say " I don't refer to critiques as publications.."
That is weird. Publications are documents that are published. When it comes to scientific journals this usually involves peer review.

Anyway, when it comes to discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a published study it is inevitable that critiques will serve a purpose. Of course, it is up to the reader to approach the critiques in the same way they approach the original paper, intelligently and critically.

I have a thing about this - peer review is not limited to the publication process - it occurs pre-publication and post-publication. That is why it annoys me when a  journal does not accept critiques. That interferes with the whole peer review process.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
356
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
341
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

341 Views
Message 334 of 1,448

Richard, I thought from the context I was clearly talking about purity in the sense of heavy metal contaminants. No one considers water a contaminant.

I know this from personal experience having used fluorosilicic acid in my research and being particularly interested in its heavy metal content. I was surprised it was so low - one of the things which made me realise how anti-fluoride activists had been misrepresenting the literature and lying about "toxic cocktails.

Also, Richard, you seem unaware of the situation in NZ I was talking about. Manufacturers will do things like returing the fluorosilicic acid to the fetrtilsier mix in an effort  to produice the best granulation. Obviously, changes in granulation procedure may be the response to current concerns but, as I point out, the production of the pure calcium phosphate fertilisers would be the best approach (but maybe not the most economic).

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
341
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
352
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

352 Views
Message 335 of 1,448

What? Fluosilicic acid preparations are not pure. The best grade available commercially I am aware of is only a technical grade. And it cannot be purified more concentrated than a 23% solution because further evaporation emits toxic fumes of hydrofluoric acid..

Of course fertilizer manufacturers don't re-add toxic fluorides back into fertilizer. Industiral fluoride is an enviromental pollutant, Released HF from fertilizer manufacturing is trapped in wet scrubbers to prevent the HF from poisoinng the surroundings.

The fluosilicic acid preparations from China are contaminated with bird droppings from the dead birds that fly over the exposed piles of the material sold to U.S. water districts for their bone fluoridation program as though it is an oral ingestible dental prophylactic (personal communication with the late Jeff Green, fluoride environmental attorney).

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
352
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
340
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

340 Views
Message 336 of 1,448

Get a grip. No one needs credentials to understand that fluoridation is harmful, useless, illegal, and immoral. 

A most important Christian teaching is that God is so magnanimous to man that humans are given a free will. Fluoridation takes away one's free will to drink fresh God given drinking water because water that is provided in a home by a city must be consumed to remain hydrated and living. When fluoride comes with it, it is unavoidable and free will disappears.

Fluoridation alters the chemical composition of every person's body who consumes it and alters the crystal structure of bone which weakens bone (See U.S. CDC ATSDR 2003). Even CDC scientists know this while the CDC endorses fluoridation and takes away rights of people who are supposed to have a free will.

What credentials are needed to understand this?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
340
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
332
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

332 Views
Message 337 of 1,448

So my point has been made. I don't refer to critiques as publications. They are comments and opinions about publications.  And of course peer review is not necessarily enough to weed out junk, but it is the best we have at attempting to do so.


Anyone who calls himself a scientist and yet endorses the infusion of industrial fluoride into other people to purposely alter their bodily chemistry and then to tell them that it's for their own good is not anyone I would ever work with. Sorry.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
332
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
331
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

331 Views
Message 338 of 1,448

Interesting reaction from you Bill - you completely ignored the elephant in the room - another commenter had claimed I worked ion developing high fluoride fertilisers and pesticides.

Are these sort of lies OK with you?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
331
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
310
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

310 Views
Message 339 of 1,448

Bill, I did not call you a liar but having done my own search I do not believe you had found a paper you claimed to. A simple way for you to change my mind - provide the citation I asked for.

I have no further interest in hunting down what could be a fictional claim.

Really weird for you to attack me for your inactivity and then to go an provide a citation for something irrelevant to the discussion.

But as I said, you are not a reliable discussion partner. Blocking people becuase they show where you are wrong is hardly good faith discussion.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
310
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
321
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

321 Views
Message 340 of 1,448

Richard, do you use Researchgate?

I, like many scientists, find it very useful as a storage place for my publications. I can't find pdfs of all of them but have managed to put papers from as far back as the 60s and 70s. I find people actually do download them and read them and it really saves me responding to reprint requests.

I am aware copyright could be a problem - but have only ever had one of paper removed for this reason (Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits) because of a journal's actions. I suspect journals worry far less about older papers.

I guess most of what I have put on Researchagte is peer-reviewed - but it is also handy to place pre-publication articles or even just ideas. The journal which published Bashash et al (2017) no longer allows critiques so I put my critique on Researchgate (Predictive accuracy of a model for child IQ based on maternal prenatal urinary fluoride concentratio...). Similarly my critique of Hirzy and Connett's work *(Does drinking water fluoride influence IQ? A critique of Hirzy et al. (2016) and CRITIQUE OF A RISK ANALYSIS AIMED AT ESTABLISHING A SAFE DAILY DOSE OF FLUORIDE FOR CHILDREN).- the Journal Fluoride was not going to publish my critique and turned somersaults to avoid that.

Yes, I realise some people like Geoff Pain use the ability to just put anything on Researchgate as attempting to present their material as "published." As I always say - "reader beware."

Finally, I have a lot of experience as a peer reviewer and of being peer-reviewed and have no illusions about the process. Peer review is never a guarantee of quality and it is up to the reader to make their own assessment of a paper by reading it and considering the data and discussions.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
321
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera