Reply
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
672
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

672 Views
Message 481 of 1,450

Bill, you argue that I never read your comments, yet you never read mine.

 

Your quote:  "

You have repeated ad nausium photos and Limeback.   

 

Are you a dentist?  In what state are you licensed?  My memory says you denied being a dentist.

 

Are you licensed to diagnose any dental disease? DO, MD, DDS, DMD or ?   I don't think so.

 

Do you know the name of the patient in the photograph?  I'm guessing no.

 

Do your really know, factually, scietifically, with measured evidence that the patient never touched fluoridated water?  Impossible."

 

Response:  I know that this patient had never touched optimally fluoridated water because Dr. Limeback said he grew up in a non-fluoridated area, but took fluoride pills.

 

Am I a licensed MD, DDS? 

 

No, but a licensed DDS, who photographed the teeth, said he believed the teeth were iron stained, and that the patient didn't drink optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Your condescending remarks speak to the fact that you have never bothered to read the points I was making, or took the time to consider the issue at hand.

 

It says more about your closed mind than it does about mine.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
672
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
667
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

667 Views
Message 482 of 1,450

Hogwash. One person's "anecdotal observation" is another person's abject eyewitness certainty.  Anecdotal is relative. Anecdotal is for example articles published by fluoridation promoters who claim dental benefit when the error bars overlap between treated and controls, or when diet and brushing habits are not controlled. That may be abject truth to someone, but it is nevertheless anecdotal to a scientist. I visited the child myself and it is not anecdotal. Dental fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. Sorry.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
667
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
472
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

472 Views
Message 483 of 1,450

Richard:  "And here is yet another lie. I have never written that water fluoridation in Sacramento killed all the salmon in the River."

 

Response:  You are right, Richard, and I apologize.  You said water fluoridation was responsible for the salmon collapse in Sacramento.  My mistake.

 

RS:  "I provided the evidence that a large salmon collapse was prolonged after fluoridation began in Sacramrento and explained why this could be, and that there are no salmon depositing eggs near the outflow tube that discharges the city fluoridated waste water."

 

Resonse:  No, you provided zero evidence.  You couldn't tell me the background level of fluoride in the river, you didn't account for stormwater infiltration dilluting fluoride discharge, you couldn't tell me the flow of the river, you couldn't tell me the amount of discharge into the unknown volume of the river.  You didn't account for temperature variations because of discharged effluent into the river.  You provided no autopsey reports on dead fish.  

 

Richard, exactly what evidence did you provide?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
472
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
459
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

459 Views
Message 484 of 1,450

David,

 

Your apology is accepted, and then you attacked assuming deception.   Calm down.  Get off the personal attacks.  Read what is said.  

 

Again, you list several people and attack them personally.  But you fail to provide the data on which you base your scientific opinions.  You should be knighted by Donald Trump.  The two of you have similar thought processes, you go with your gut and the facts be ignored.

 

When concepts and statements do not fit into your box of tradition, you reject the person as "deceptive."  Again, attack the facts, not the people.   Could it be a problem of communication and understanding or is it moral intentional deception?   Calm down.  Good people on both sides of this discussion.  Calm down.

 

You have repeated ad nausium photos and Limeback.   

 

Are you a dentist?  In what state are you licensed?  My memory says you denied being a dentist.

 

Are you licensed to diagnose any dental disease? DO, MD, DDS, DMD or ?   I don't think so.

 

Do you know the name of the patient in the photograph?  I'm guessing no.

 

Do your really know, factually, scietifically, with measured evidence that the patient never touched fluoridated water?  Impossible.  Fluoridation is ubiquitous in water, processed foods, etc.  Your statement, "photographed iron-stained teeth, which had never touched optimally fluoridated water," is absolutely 100% unscientific, without evidence and makes no sense.  Calm down.    You are 100% wrong, on that statement. 

 

OK.  Let me try to understand your intent.  Iron stains can be polished off.  I saw these stains more in the past when people used iron pots and pans.  I have not seen iron stains for some time.    Did you try polishing the stains off so you can assure me they are iron stains?   And does iron cause intrinsic stains?  If so, show me the research with photographs.  

 

Take what a person says and try to understand what they are saying.  I'm trying to understand you, but your personal attacks make you sound very angry and with no intent to review science. 

 

I don't lump you in with others, don't lump me in with others.   Everyone makes mistakes and with time learns more.  Building walls does not help people overcome their misunderstanding. 

 

Give me good science that Dr. Limeback has misdiagnosed those photographs.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
459
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
431
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

431 Views
Message 485 of 1,450

Why do I have to respond to anyone who calls me an "alternative heath pimp"?

The Graham and Morin reference (Highlights in North American Fluoride Litigation) happens to be online at various places. I should say go find it yourself, but to help readers, here it is:

 

http://whale.to/d/Graham.pdf

 

And Slott's stupid comments are important and essential to know about. This is one of a host of reasons why fluoridation promoters, at the AWWA, the CDC, the AFS, the ADA,k etc. continue to argue that treating peoples' teeth through public water supplies is not illegal.  You may not care, but we do.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
431
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
419
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

419 Views
Message 486 of 1,450

Richard says, " Here is the Graham and Morin monograph, pleese consult footnote #88."

 

Response:  Again, who are Graham and Morin?  Where is footnote #88?  (Perhaps you meant to attach a link.  Please do so now if you would, please.)

 

RS:  "The U.S. Congress expected the SDWA to halt the spread of water fluoridation.  And yet I am denounced for making this statement. When do I throw up?"

Response:  I am not denouncing you.  I am asking who Graham and Morin are, what they are talking about, and why you believe CWF is illegal.  I don't know when you throw up.

 

RS:  "So the data point I provided is not "anecdotal"."

 

Response: 

 

"an·ec·do·tal

/ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective
 
  1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
     
    You provided a personal account with zero documentation.  Yes, your tale is anecdotal. 
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
419
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
427
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

427 Views
Message 487 of 1,450

And here is yet another lie. I have never written that water fluoridation in Sacramento killed all the salmon in the River. What nonsense. I provided the evidence that a large salmon collapse was prolonged after fluoridation began in Sacramrento and explained why this could be, and that there are no salmon depositing eggs near the outflow tube that discharges the city fluoridated waste water. If you wnt to make an issue of this, stick to the facts. We don't need even more lies.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
427
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
428
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

428 Views
Message 488 of 1,450

Just like I said, I was asked a question, but obviously merely for the purpose of being assailed, not for the purpose of learning something. Now the claim is that there is no reference provided about the intent of the SDWA. Wow.  Here is the Graham and Morin monograph, pleese consult footnote #88.

The U.S. Congress expected the SDWA to halt the spread of water fluoridation.  And yet I am denounced for making this statement. When do I throw up?

 

And BTW I object to any child having to live with the embarrassment of dental fluorosis, no matter how severe, not just my friends' kids. So the data point I provided is not "anecdotal". The Bible says kids have angels who look directly in the face of God Himself. So stop fluoride poisoning our kids, where the major contributor to the dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia is water fluoridation. Get rid of it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
428
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
435
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

435 Views
Message 489 of 1,450

Richard says, "The Safe Drinking Water Act intent, its purpose, was to halt the spread of water fluoridation (as described by Graham and Morin in their fluoridation litigation detailed monograph)."

 

Response:  Who are Graham and Morin?  Please provide a link and documentation so we know what you are talking about.

 

RS:  "However the wording of the law covered all substances (other than those required to sanitize water) where it prohibited any National requirement to add such substances"

 

Response:  Please provide the wording of the law, and document, so we know what you are talking about.

 

The remainder of your comment appears to rest on the premise of these first two.  Please clarify your meaning on those and then we can move on.  I am not interested in fluoridationist Slott.  I am interested in why fluoridation is illegal.  Please stay on topic.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
435
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
445
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

445 Views
Message 490 of 1,450

billo - what are you talking about:  "Read my post again.  You went balistics off topic.  I was not talking sex or attraction but evidence.  This is a discussion about fluoridation, not sex.  However, if you want to go to the science on fluoride and sex, I would be pleased.  

 

Is it possible for you to move off of fear, pain, sex and attraction and go back to evidence?   Or is that too much to ask?"

 

For the record, my comment wasn't about fear, sex, pain or food, Calligula.  You made a false statement and I corrected it.  End of story.  

 

If you would care to begin your comments with facts, then you have my attention.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
445
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users