Can blue light from your phone cause vision problems? Find out and learn more about your vision in the AARP Eye Center.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
761
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

761 Views
Message 781 of 1,333

Me calling attention to fluoride discharges in rivers during a salmon collapse is claimed here to be extremist and out of the mainstream. But finding something others have nor noticed is not being extremist. It is simply being attentive. 

There is not a single scientist who has published in journals or the media that the fluoride discharges in the Sacramento have  nothing to to with the decimated ongoing almon population problem. None. 

And yet I am argued to be wrong and extremist?

This discussion is quite amusing. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
761
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
736
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

736 Views
Message 782 of 1,333

By the way, for the 5th time now, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works as though he was affiliated with that institution? . . as though they funded the paper? . . . as though they published the material?    Anybody?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
736
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
756
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

756 Views
Message 783 of 1,333

Sauerheber, your quote:  "Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to, or that all seven million endorse or promote fluoridation."

 

Response:  First of all, I never said they endorse or promote fluoridation.  They are not opposed to it.  You are.  You are fringe.  

 

You say, ""Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to,"  

 

Response:  If somebody is opposed to water fluoridation in this country, they are familiar with the Fluoride Action Network, or Fluoridealert.  They just are.  That is were almost all of the misinformation & paranoia comes from.  So, if somebody is visiting that site, they have been asked to sign the statement.  

 

That 4500, or maybe it's up to 5000 now, represents the sum total of those whom FAN calls "professional" & "health care" workers.  It includes some doctors, some nurses, a few dentists, aromatherapists, chiropractors, among others, lawyers (for obvious reasons).  That's it.  

 

Face it, you are fringe, and your "Demand" of the AARP here is nothing more than a lame attempt to make you look more mainstream.  

 

You call optimally fluoridated water a "drug" in your attempt to generate paranoia.  No U.S. health agency agrees with you on that.  Not the CDC, not the FDA, not the EPA, not the USDPH, nobody.  

 

You have actually said that the Safe Drinking Water Act was originally written to halt the spread of fluoridation across the country.  (this thread ‎07-13-2018 12:46 PM)

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
756
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
768
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

768 Views
Message 784 of 1,333

Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to, or that all seven million endorse or promote fluoridation. This is a typical mistake people make when analyzimg population data.

I don't mind being labeled fringe by one who knows my results are unconventional but correct. I of course am not fringe when the definition means being an extremist who is incorrect. 

The study in JEPH was first conceived  after the fluoridation overfeed killed a coastguardsman in Alaska in 1992. The analysis. and the writeup took a very long time to complete and by the time  it was published finally after lengthy reviews and discussions and encouragement from my mentor and collaborator Dr. Benson was published 2013. So from conception to finish it took my spare unpaid time over a 19 year span to finish. So what? 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
768
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
720
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

720 Views
Message 785 of 1,333

Gosh, Dr. Sauerheber, I didn’t realize you would be so defensive about being called a fringe activist.  If you don’t like being called fringe, don’t be fringe. 

 

“Fringe:  adjective

not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme.”

 

You publish papers that oppose community water fluoridation.  Opposing Community Water Fluoridation is unconventional, peripheral, and extreme.  Why do I say this? 

 

The Fluoride Action Network, the foremost contributor to misinformation about water fluoridation in the U.S., has a list of professionals who have signed their “Opposition to Fluoridation Statement.”  The list has about 4500 signatories. 

 

In the U.S. there are over 860,000 physicians, 2.8 million nurses, nearly 170,000 dentists and about 3.2 million PhD’s, or about 7 million.  If the list is accurate, then 0.064% or 1 in every 1555 oppose fluoridation.  In other words, 99.936% of Health Care and other Professionals are not opposed to water fluoridation enough to take 10 seconds to sign a statement. 

 

I understand that about 25% of the US list of Professionals Opposed to fluoridation are from outside the US, so the actual percentages opposing fluoridation might be even lower if that is the case. 

 

99.936% of all Health Care & Other Professionals don’t consider water fluoridation enough of a hazard to bother to sign a statement opposing it, which would take all of 10 seconds.   If your extreme minority position isn’t fringe, nothing is. 

 

But it goes beyond that with you.  You believe Einstein got it all wrong about time dilation.  You come up with weird stuff about the FDA & the EPA which is all provably wrong.  And not one other environmentalist attributes the salmon collapse in Sacramento to water fluoridation.  Not one.  You are a minority of one.  You are fringe my friend. 

 

And you never answered the question.  For the 4th time, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works?

 

Your quote:  “Publishing accurate scientific research is tedious, time consuming, and difficult, where the peer reivew process is rigorous and demanding.”

 

This is what another scientist, one of your peers, had to say about your time consuming work.  You’ve seen it before: 

 

“19 year study? Really. Surely the data you presented could have been produced in an afternoon in a high school chemistry lab. It is essentially just a school project to confirm already known relationships between Ca, F and pH. What took you 19 years?”  https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/calcium-fluoride-and-the-soft-water-anti-fluoridation...

 

I am surprised you would challenge any critic to find errors with your work. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
720
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
753
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

753 Views
Message 786 of 1,333

For anyone reading these posts, there are two key definitions of the term fringe. I would refer to a few of my 51 research articles published in scientific journals since 1972 as fringe, with a first definition, that is, the data are "unconventional, but correct." 

 

I do not however publish articles that are classed with the second definition of fringe, which is being used here as a criticism, to mean "extremist and false." I have no such articles. I stand by all the data I have published and yes there are several that are fringe because the results surprise many people in the field. 1. It is true that insulin stimulates glucose transporters present in the plasma membrane, rather than an opposing 'recruitment' view held by many in power at the NIH. 2. It is true that type II diabetes does not require drugs to correct the condition in all classical cases, in spite of the widespread use of drugs to treat it in the U.S. 3. It is true that time passes continuously, regardless of human acitvities or motion of observers, as revealed by real experiments published, in spite of widespread teachings otherwise. 4. It is true that swallowing  fluoride from industrial sources, including from fluosilicic acid and sodium fluoride, without plentiful calcium, causes the protonation of all fluoride ion into hydrofluoric acid HF in the acidic stomach in man, as published in the JEPH article to which is being labeled here with the false definition of fringe, when the data are nevertheless correct. 

 

I've already addressed the reference to UCSD in some of my articles, and it has nothing to do with what has been claimed. It is proper, not improper, to list an institution where work was initiated or completed even when it is published later when the author also works at a different institution. Taylor & Francis publishing group reviewed this and also agreed. The four articles on the Calculus were completed after initial work was done at UCSD. The two articles on time dilation were only able to be published, with heavy arguments from 5 physicist editors, because of the original concept that germinated to completion at UCSD. The fluoride toxicology articles were only published because Benson, my collaborator at UCSD, asked me to do so. My letters to institutions and to anyone who asks scientific questions usually list UCSD as the location where my degrees were earned, along with the institution where I now work.

 

I challenge any critic to describe any error in any work I have published, including the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490, 2013 article to which these posts mostly refer.

 

Publishing accurate scientific research is tedious, time consuming, and difficult, where the peer reivew process is rigorous and demanding. It is precisely for this reason that I have not published any information in scientific peer-reviewed journals on the likelihood that fluoridation chemicals discharged by cities into rivers where salmon spawn are deleterious to salmon. Even though I am confident that this is the case based on deduction and other published work, I cannot prove the specific point for the Sacramento River because much more work would be required to prove it beyond doubt, where all other environmental variables are so difficult to control. This does not mean however that dumping fluoride into a particular river be harmless to salmon simply because it harm has not been proven beyond doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to publish in science journals that are well peer-reviewed, as for all the articles that I have in the end actually published. Scientists are all human and all very different from each other. OK?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
753
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
793
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

793 Views
Message 787 of 1,333

Sauerheber, your quote again:  

 

""It is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned higher level math when publishing a math discovery. And it is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned that synthetic fluorides are all listed poisons (Dr. Benson, UCSD) and the scientist I collaborated with on fluoride toxicology research that I published at his request.  I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you argue that it is something other than  that, that is your belief. It doesn't change the facts."

 

Let me explain to you why this is wrong with one example.  Ted Kaczynski, the Unibomber, earned his B.A. in Math from Harvard in 1962.  

 

Do you seriously believe that it would have been ok for Ted to list Harvard as his affiliated university at the bottom of his "Manifesto," simply because he graduated from there.  That's pretty much what you're doing with the UCSD & your fringe papers. 

 

For the record, nobody is saying you are the Unibomber, you are like the unibomber, or you resemble the unibomber in any way . . because I know that's how you're going to try to spin it. 

 

I'm saying he had the good sense not to list "Harvard University" at the top of his Manifesto, and you don't seem to have that high of an ethic. 

 

It kind of makes you look more important than you really are when you imply that a major university stands behind your work, possibly funds it, maybe publishes it . . but none of that is true of your relationship with UCSD.  You just imply it by citing them on your papers.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
793
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
802
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

802 Views
Message 788 of 1,333

Dr. Sauerheber, you say:

 

"It is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned higher level math when publishing a math discovery. And it is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned that synthetic fluorides are all listed poisons (Dr. Benson, UCSD) and the scientist I collaborated with on fluoride toxicology research that I published at his request.  I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you argue that it is something other than  that, that is your belief. It doesn't change the facts."

 

Yeah.  For the third time now:   Do you know of any other scholar who does it?  When Dr. Sagan published work he listed Cornell as his affiliated University.  That is because Cornell paid him, funded his work, and published his material.  That's the norm.  

 

Carl Sagan graduated from the University of Chicago, yet on none of his work (other than his dissertation) did he cite the U. of C.  That's because the U. of C. had nothing to do with his work.  You, on the other hand, think this practice is ok.  It kind of implies that your alma mater, the UCSD, stands behind your work.  But the UCSD has no idea what you are writing or publishing, does it.

 

I only raise this point to show the AARP what kind of people are making "Demands" of them.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
802
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
801
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

801 Views
Message 789 of 1,333

Is it not utter cracpottery for fluoridation opponents to allege that America's Family Physicians (who did their own independant systematic review) oppose community water fluoridation as part of a financially based perversion on the part of dentists (ie the ADA).  

 

Ditto the Australia New South Wales Dept of Health,  the British Dental Assn, the Canadian Medical Association, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, just a few of the 150 or so prestigious organizations who have clearly advocated that drinking water be fluoridated.

 

Fluoridation opponents believe that state and federal health agencies aided by organizations such at these are, for some mysterious reason, hiding the truth and helping to poison more than 200 million citizens.

 

Rather than a far reaching and 100% effective disinformation campaitn opponents allege Isnt' it more likely that fluoridation receives such support is because it does exactly what it's supposed to -  It decreases cavities.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
801
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
823
Views

Re: Fluoride - Several unanswered questions

823 Views
Message 790 of 1,333

Richard Sauerheber – Several questions which you seem to be dodging…

 

~> Do you accept CarryAnne's and Dr. Osmunson's specific claims listed below against the specific organizations they referenced -- and also against all members of the 100+ respected organizations and their representatives who have not publically embraced the anti-F opinions?

 

Actually CarryAnne and Dr. Osmunson are dodging the same questions...

 

~> Specific claims by CarryAnne:

(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

You also claim (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “Most [dentists] are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks

(07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates

(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.”

 

~> And comments To Dr. Johnson by Dr. Osmunson (07-09-2018 09:09 PM):

"CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing."

"Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust."

"I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation."

"Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion."

 

~> If you answer yes, explain how you can trust any science or health conclusion or procedures accepted by anyone in those organizations?  If all professionals who support community water fluoridation are mindless lemmings who are willfully or ignorantly blind when it comes to the issue of fluoridation – and are willfully or ignorantly subjecting their patients to the allegedly obvious and damaging harm from fluoridation, how on earth can they be trusted to make any beneficial decisions?

 

Several Questions about the scientific consensus: 
~> What is your opinion of the importance of the scientific consensus in making science and health related decisions – both in general and specifically with respect to CWF? 

~> If you don’t accept the scientific consensus as a legitimate representation of the majority position on relevant issues, what is your alternative explanation and terminology?

~> What do you accept as the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) on CWF?
~> If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have FOs been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative? 
~> What is your explanation for the fact that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF – and their members & representatives have not mutinied?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
823
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark