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

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
356
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

356 Views
Message 761 of 1,444

Arguing with a fluoridation advocate is pretty bizarre.  Whoever the one here is, he acts like he is the authority on the subject but yet provides no credentials, and nevertheless accuses me of not being forthcoming with credentials. Pretty slick.

The latest version of the article that is now under attack was an invited book chapter that updated the orginal article published under rigorous peer review at the Jour. of Env. and Pub. Health 2013. I stand by my work.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
356
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
354
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

354 Views
Message 762 of 1,444

We've gone over this before (and I won, I didn't "lose").

My affiliation with UCSD is long-standing. I completed my BA and PhD there and have done graduate work there over the years. The listing of UCSD on the original article (peer reviewed by Dr. Stephen Peckham for the Journal of Environmental and Public Health) is through the late Dr. Andrew Benson. He assisted with the article and provided help with it eventually being published. He also taught on the toxicity of synthetic fluoride compounds in my earlier education. He completed his Ph.D. at UC Berkeley on the fluoridated derivatives of thyroxine. His work lead to the Nobel Prize in biochemistry for  discovering the carbon fixation reaction in plant photosynthesis and the development of the Calvin Benson cycle.

Since his passing I no longer work with anyone at UCSD other than the alumni association. So what?

From what is stated, one would assume that because I cited the works, of Ziegelbecker and of Teotia and Teotia and of Yiamouyiannis and of Sutton, that their work must be rejected?  And suddenly my data on the conversion of fluoride to HF over a broad pH range (down to stomach pH levels) is also not peer reviewed and somehow suspect?  How cute.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
354
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
366
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

366 Views
Message 763 of 1,444

Dr. Sauerheber, 

 

Once again you have shifted the issue at hand.  We are not talking about what is essential.  That is a discussion that you have already lost previously in this thread.  We are talking about what is considered a "drug."  

 

Again, there is no federal agency which considers optimally fluoridated water, or any of its ingredients, a drug.  Again, for the 4th time, this is a label from the FDA regulated product "Dannon's Fluoride to Go" fluoridated bottled water https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2

Where does the word "drug" appear on this label?  The FDA doen't consider this product to be a drug in any sense of the word.  Only you do.

 

Regarding your link.  This was to a non-peer reviewed paper that you wrote.  On it you claimed affiliation to the Department of Chemistry at the University of California.  That is a lie.  You have no affiliation with the the Chemistry Department at any University. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
366
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
404
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

404 Views
Message 764 of 1,444

Sorry but folic acid and vitamin D are essential vitamins,  essential for normal health. They have nothing to do with toxic fluoride, which is not a component of normal human blood and which is not a nutrient, having no physiologic purpose of any kind. The absence of fluoride does not cause dental caries. Caries are caused by leaving sugars on teeth so that streptococcus.mutans metabolic acids dissolve enamel.

 

And of course the USP does not list fluoridated water as a drug because water itself is not a drug. But the fluoride added into the water from USP sodium fluoride is already certainly labeled a drug.

 

And again, whether fluoride infused into water to treat dental caries is argued  to be only a mineral and not a drug can be debated, but what cannot be debated is the fact that the forced whole body fluoridation of citizens is harmful, useless, and illegal as published in references previously submitted (Top 10 Contributions on Environmental Health, Chapter 8, AVID Science, 2018) at: http://www.avidscience.com/book/top-10-contributions-on-environmental-health/

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
404
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
411
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

411 Views
Message 765 of 1,444

Dr. Sauerheber,

 

As usual, your rant is backed up with no objective evidence.  It is nothing more than a rant and any objective reader of this thread sees it for what it is.  

 

Your quote:  "The point is, no one has a right to reject Dr. Osmunsen for calling fluoride a drug.

The US Pharmacopia also says it is."

 

Response:  Your comment is deceptive.  U.S. Pharmacopia does not say that optimally fluoridated water is a drug.  If it does, please provide evidence.  

 

U.S. Pharmacopia does not call bread with folic acid a drug.  Nor does it call salt with iodine to prevent goiter a drug.  Nor does it call milk with vitamin D a drug.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
411
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
421
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

421 Views
Message 766 of 1,444

Some in the current FDA consider fluoride in water to be a poison, and not a drug, that should be regulated by the EPA, that is true. However others in the FDA recognize that the U.S. Pharmacopia labels fluoride, when intended for ingestion to treat caries, as a drug. 

In fact, the fight over whether the switch from using sodium fluoride (a USP Drug) to fluosilicic acid was precisely over this, since fluosilicic acid is not a USP drug (it's just another source of fluoride for its use as though it were a drug).  The usual published argument from fluoridation advocates is that there is no need to use USP grade sodium fluoride drugs in water fluoridation because the amount of arsenic in the product water might be higher than when using fluosilicic acid. But this is of course nonsense because all USP grade drugs are made under GMP conditions that do not allow impure source materials.

 

The point is, no one has a right to reject Dr. Osmunsen for calling fluoride a drug.

The US Pharmacopia also says it is.  So complaints could be addressed to them.   

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
421
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
386
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

386 Views
Message 767 of 1,444

For the readers, please examine this link:

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride#section=Top

This describes fluoride as a drug that is used in water fluoridation. Fluoride of course is actually a poison, but when it used to try to treat people for dental caries through ingestion, it is then defined as a drug by the government. 

 

Also in there you will find that the CDC website is packed with false ilnformation that contradicts the information in PubChem. For example, eating fluoride along with milk or a calcium rich breakfast reduces fluoride assimilation substantlally.  When I informed the CDC of this fact, the CDC hired their own study which was sloppily done to allow themselves the luxury of concluding that industrial fluoride ingestion (which does not contain calcium) is no different than natural fluoride ingestion when calcium is present.  

 

I personally don't care if a fluoridation advocate calls fluoride a drug, supplement, an ingestible oral dentifrice, or something else. It simply doesn't matter. The fact is that it is illegal to not only add drugs, or supplements, or foods into water, it is illegal for the National CDC to request that States (which mandate it) add ANYTHING into public water supplies (Clean Water Act and Water Polllution Control Act), other than specific allowances made for agents that sanitize the water (SDWA). . 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
386
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
245
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

245 Views
Message 768 of 1,444

I assume by "Billo" you are referring to Dr. Osmunsen? If so, understand that there are many communmications between citizens and EPA officials that are not placed in an online link.

Second, the 4 ppm allowed by the EPA, because some calcium-rich waters contain that naturally, is to prevent stage III severe skeletal fluorosis with inability to walk due to spicules extending from bone. And the 2 ppm MCLG was set to prevent severe dental fluorosis where teeth are so disfigured from fluoride ingestion as to be a gross deformity.

 

What does this have to do with water fluoridation? Water fluoridation is not regulated by the EPA. That is because it is the intentional discharge of fluoride into water to treat people which is rightfully the responsibility of the FDA (who also refuses to accept that responsibility). No Federal Agency regulates water fluoridation and accepts liabliity for any of its hazards. The NRC was commissioned by the EPA to investigate the relevance of their old 4 and 2 ppm standards and were specifically told NOT to investigate water fluoridation (again, because the EPA takes no responsibility for water fluoridation).

 

There are however data in the NRC report on 1 ppm fluoride in water that have proven harm to consumers, and the conclusion was that the old levels of 2 and 4 do not protect all consumers from all harm.  This is not difficult to understand, right?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
245
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
416
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

416 Views
Message 769 of 1,444

 

 

There has been no response from your alleged FOIA Request which stated that water fluoridation is illegal.  For one thing, FOIA Requests exist to make previously undisclosed documents available to the public.  That department of the EPA would not waste its time re-interpreting a very clear statute for you.  That's not what they do.

 

For another thing, I have searched the entire catalogue of EPA FOIA Requests for the response which you claim exists.  It doesn't exist.  It wasn't there.  You don't have it.  You can't find it.  You can't provide a link to it - and there should be a link to it.  

 

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
416
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
393
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

393 Views
Message 770 of 1,444

Billo, we've discussed this.  Your problem is that you don't want to listen.

 

The EPA would be responsible if any harm came to any person who drinks optimally fluoridated water.  Again, since you missed it the first time:  The EPA allows 4 parts per million of fluoride in our drinking water.  That's on them.

 

If any person were documented to have been harmed by drinking water with only 1 part per million of fluoride, they would have every right to sue the EPA for negligence.  And guess what - people sue the EPA all the time.  

 

The FDA has nothing to say about optimally fluoridated tap water, because the FDA doesn't consider it a drug.  No Federal U.S. Agency Considers optimally fluoridated water a "drug."

 

Again, since you seem to have missed it every time it is mentioned, the FDA has regulatory jurisdiction over bottled water because it is considered a "food."  Bottled water does not fall under the same jurisdiction as tap water (as in CWF), even though it is the same product. 

 

You will not see the word "drug" on this label of FDA regulated fluoridated water.  https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2

 

You will not see the word "drug" on a label of bread with folic acid added.  You will not see the word drug on a gallon of milk that has vitamin D added, you will not see the word drug on a package of Morton Salt that has iodine added to help prevent goiter. 

 

The only people who call optimally fluoridated water a drug are those sad true believerrs, and you, people who are trying to raise the level of paranoia about water fluoridation so that the Fluoride Action Network's donors can sell their expensive alternative health junk. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
393
Views