Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1264
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

1,264 Views
Message 271 of 1,439

Come on Bill, make up your mind. You block me on social media and think you now have the right to intervene in a discussion here with someone else. I am sure you and CarryAnne are colleagues - but why do you not let her speak for herself.

It has been me who has presented facts and have not employed a single arrow, character assassination or personal abuse, as you do. Nor do I block people or run away because I am losing an argument - If I am wrong I usually say so, apologise, and move on. I think that is the ethically correct response for a scientist

1: You admit CarryAnne harvests citations. And she does this in an extreme way - a long list of claims and citations she is completely unwilling to discuss.

2: I do not know if CarryAnne understands them or not - but her complete unwillingness to discuss her claims does suggest she has no confidence in her claims. This is a problem I find with many anti-fluoride activists who use barrages of citations. They can't discuss them because they have never read them. In many cases, they haven't even read the abstracts.

3: CarryAnne is the one who refused to have a reasonable scientific exchange on her claims. She refused my offer of a good faith, uncensored, exchange along the lines of the one I had with Paul Connett. And she refused to respond by discussing the one citation I did comment on - chosen as an example as one can have a reasonable discussion about one study but not a long list in forums like this. She just opted out saying this was not the place for such a discussion - which underlines that her citation harvesting and presenting a long list of claims had nothing to do with science or discussion, anyway.

4: I have not attacked this woman - I have simply asked for a discussion and pointed out she refused. To the extent she appears to have disappeared from this forum.

Pease, Bill, you need to stop interfering in other's discussions. It is up to CarryAnne whether she interacts with me, whether she takes up my offer of a good faith scientific exchange on even one of the claims she made. You haven't even bothered to enter into that exchange on her behalf - simply attacked me without any basis.

 

If I was CarryAnne I would consider your actions rude, intrusive and sexist. If she has the credibility to list a series of claims and citations then she should have the understanding to represent herself in a good faith scientific exchange. 

Has she asked you to speak for her or have you just rudely pushed in and taken it on yourself?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1264
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1227
Views

Stop fluoridation

1,227 Views
Message 272 of 1,439

Come on Ken.  Do you really want to shoot arrows into people or talk facts?

 

I have read many, many of Carry Anne's posts and indeed she "brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted."   

 

Do you want to go over the list of good evidence?   If I started, you would fail to respond.  Instead you try to do a character assassination.  Be professional.   You can be better than that if you try. . . I've seen you do better.

 

You criticize her for harvesting citations.  Indeed, so does everyone.  Every good researcher relies on other researchers.  You want discussion from her, but you fail to provide discussion on my questions.  

 

Part of the problem both sides have is the many many studies.  Low to moderate quality, but many studies.  For that very reason, fluoridation should stop until we know dosage, exposure, benefit and risks at that exposure.  We don't know what we don't know and should not force medicate when we don't know (or even if we do know.).   

 

I keep asking for your empirical evidence for dosage or even opinion and I have not seen any response for a couple years.  Because no one has that basic information.  Proponents talk about concentration rather than dosage because we don't know dosage.  Dosage has not really been studdied well.  

 

You say she does not understand the citations and this is not a place to discuss them in detail.    How do you know she does not understand?  Are you a mind reader?  Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't, but I know for sure, none of us fully understands all the studies and aspects of administering the fluoride contaminant as a medication/drug with the intent to prevent disease (probably due in part to excess sugar intake) to each person without their consent.  

 

Instead of a personal attack, attack the message with good evidence.

 

After all, it is you who wants to take away my freedom of choice and have me ingest more fluoride.  How do you know I need more fluoride?  You don't even know if I have teeth.  So how much more fluoride should each person ingest, at what stage of life is a benefit, and how much is a risk?  And what are the synergistic chemicals of harm and benefit.   Yes, caries is affected by other elements such as calcium in the water.   Prevention of caries is a complex issue.

 

Stick to facts and quit avoiding and evading responding to me by attacking Carry Anne.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1227
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1238
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

1,238 Views
Message 273 of 1,439

Come on Ken.  Do you really want to shoot arrows into people or talk facts?

 

I have read many, many of Carry Anne's posts and indeed she "brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted."   

 

Do you want to go over the list of good evidence?   If I started, you would fail to respond.  Instead you try to do a character assassination.  Be professional.   You can be better than that if you try. . . I've seen you do better.

 

You criticize her for harvesting citations.  Indeed, so does everyone.  Every good researcher relies on other researchers.  You want discussion from her, but you fail to provide discussion on my questions.  

 

Part of the problem both sides have is the many many studies.  Low to moderate quality, but many studies.  For that very reason, fluoridation should stop until we know dosage, exposure, benefit and risks at that exposure.  We don't know what we don't know and should not force medicate when we don't know (or even if we do know.).   

 

I keep asking for your empirical evidence for dosage or even opinion and I have not seen any response for a couple years.  Because no one has that basic information.  Proponents talk about concentration rather than dosage because we don't know dosage.  Dosage has not really been studdied well.  

 

You say she does not understand the citations and this is not a place to discuss them in detail.    How do you know she does not understand?  Are you a mind reader?  Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't, but I know for sure, none of us fully understands all the studies and aspects of administering the fluoride contaminant as a medication/drug with the intent to prevent disease (probably due in part to excess sugar intake) to each person without their consent.  

 

Instead of a personal attack, attack the message with good evidence.

 

After all, it is you who wants to take away my freedom of choice and have me ingest more fluoride.  How do you know I need more fluoride?  You don't even know if I have teeth.  So how much more fluoride should each person ingest, at what stage of life is a benefit, and how much is a risk?  And what are the synergistic chemicals of harm and benefit.   Yes, caries is affected by other elements such as calcium in the water.   Prevention of caries is a complex issue.

 

Stick to facts and quit avoiding and evading responding to me by attacking Carry Anne.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1238
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1211
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

1,211 Views
Message 274 of 1,439

 you claim Carry Anne " brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted." But this is patently untrue.

What she does is harvest the literature for citations and then throw them out in forums like this. She possibly has not even read the papers cited - but she is certainly unable to discuss them.

After one of these bouts of citation throwing from her, I offered to provide space for her to discuss these in good faith scientific exchange - she refused.

Obviously, this is not the place to discuss in detail the screeds of citations she throws out but I did offer a scientific analysis on one she cited. She then withdrew -claiming this is not the place to discuss science and ran away. We haven't seen her since.

She is typical of a number of anti-fluoride activists who harvest the literature for citations and throw them out without understanding them.

Scientists are aware that all studies have their strengths and weaknesses so we don't simply accept studies (or more naively citations) as "proof" of anything. We analyse the studies intelligently and critically. Extract their positive features and become aware of their negative ones. This leads to a greater understanding of the science.

But scientific understanding is the last thing anti-fluoride trolls want.


Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1211
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1222
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

1,222 Views
Message 275 of 1,439

Randy,

 

Focus on the facts, the science, rather than shooting arrows in other people's backs such as Carry Anne.

 

She brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted.  

 

Focus on facts.  Present your scientific research, prospective randomized controlled trials rather than consensus of those without jurisdiction.

 

For example, Dr. Chuck and I agree the EPA regulates the fluoride contaminant in water.  Do you agree?

 

We agree the CDC promotes increasing the fluoride concentration in public water but does not evaluate the risks.

 

We agree local water purveyors decide whether to fluoridation or not.  

 

Do you know of any water district that has reviewed both sides of the scientific literature by unbiased competent scientists and chosen to add more contaminant to their water?  What scientific evidence do they provide for dosage, efficacy and safety for all individuals?

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1222
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1175
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,175 Views
Message 276 of 1,439

Dr. Chuck, we agree.

 

EPA sets MCL, MCLG.  States in charge of their water systems.  CDC has opinions.  

 

So all government agencies push jurisdiction onto others.  

 

States say they simply follow CDC and EPA.  

 

EPA does not regulate the addition of the fluoride fluoride, just the contaminant levels. . . "fluoridation is not their jurisdiction."

 

CDC recommends but does not evaluate dosage or risk of the fluoride contaminant.

 

NO Government agency takes responsibility for evaluating dosage, exposure, benefit along with risk of the fluoride contaminant.  

 

Maybe you could give a clear crisp explaination with good quality science, prospective randomized controlled trials on why water purveyors contaminate the pubic water?

 

And second question, what dosage of fluoride reduces dental caries without risk?   I'm not asking for concentrations, I'm asking for research on dosage (total exposure) of both benefit and risk.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1175
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1214
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,214 Views
Message 277 of 1,439

Thank you Sirpac for your comments.

Yes the fight is endless. Just mentioning the  F word brings on massive ridicule and a  collapse on ones professional standing from many. Its amazing how judgmental people can be when they think they know something and you don't.

But i can't stand allowing my students or anyone for that  matter to be lied to.

So onward.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1214
Views
Silver Conversationalist
5
Kudos
1225
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,225 Views
Message 278 of 1,439

Thank you Dr. Sauerheber, Dr. Osmunson, CarryAnne, and others for holding down the fort against the fluoridation demons. Despite the noise these demons generate, claiming 'legal and scientific justification for fluoridation', I find the statements of DavidF, RandyJ and KenP on this thread without any rational basis in law, ethics, or science. It appears they are here just to squash the voice of reason, morality, ethics, and science to create confusion and cacophony in the minds of average readers, who might not know that fluoridation does not have any valid empirical basis and it is completely unethical and immoral at best!

Any fluoride (i.e. fluorine compound), and especially the artificial fluorine compounds added to the water supply, are designated as water contaminants by the EPA, based on empirical evidence of harm. In addition to multiple other harms, as noted in the previous responses, fluoride(s) are enzyme poisons in any amount. Regardless of common practice, or contorted interpretations of legal language, the political endorsement of fluoridation as 'beneficial' is scientifically and ethically corrupt. 

Empirical evidence and government reports substantiate that fluoridation is harmful to many consumers, including members of my family in ways that are validated by multiple recent empirical studies that I have personally read. My family is financially able to take measures to avoid this municipal polluted water, however many are not as fortunate. Consequently, the intentional addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies in order to 'treat people' is an act of intentional poisoning, with malice aforethough, because it is a knowing practice of dumping industrial waste into the public water supplies to dilute pollution, using people as filters. 

I can only hope that these demons of fluoridation, who have overwhelmed this AARP forum to confuse the readers with rhetoric will be unmasked. In the meantime, I support any efforts by the AARP, or anyone else with basic moral understanding and ethics, to end the intentional poisoning of the people in America. 
 

Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
1225
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1218
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,218 Views
Message 279 of 1,439

The EPA sets Maximum Contaminant Levels.  The states are individually in charge of their own water systems, including fluoridation.  Some states mandate fluoridation as a standard for water systems, generally with a threshold population.   The CDC has opinions re public health policy but sets none with repsect to fluoridation.   That's just the way it is.  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1218
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1187
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,187 Views
Message 280 of 1,439

I know full well how to read. 

And I'm not the only one who states that the EPA should regulate fluoride infusions into public water supplies. The FDA ruled on the fluoridation ban petition that 1) fluoride has never been approved for ingestion by the FDA and 2) as a toxic substance at any concentration the EPA needs to regulate its addition into public water supplies under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

(But the EPA refuses with the excuse that the FDA needs to regulate it because it is added for purported therapeutic purpose). 

Neither the FDA nor the EPA want to take responsibility for the scam or to challenge the CDC.

So if you think I can't read, perhaps you should also correct the FDA.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1187
Views