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
308
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

308 Views
Message 331 of 1,441

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
308
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
287
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

287 Views
Message 332 of 1,441

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
287
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
298
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

298 Views
Message 333 of 1,441

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
298
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
371
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

371 Views
Message 334 of 1,441

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
371
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
395
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

395 Views
Message 335 of 1,441

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
395
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
393
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

393 Views
Message 336 of 1,441

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
393
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
397
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

397 Views
Message 337 of 1,441

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
397
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
395
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

395 Views
Message 338 of 1,441

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
395
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
405
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

405 Views
Message 339 of 1,441

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
405
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
405
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

405 Views
Message 340 of 1,441

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
405
Views