Take a look at aging around the world in 'A New Age,' a special report by AARP and Magnum Photos.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
708
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

708 Views
Message 1001 of 1,248

You honestly expect me to find all the successful lawsuits? Jeff Green was the head of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and headed many lawsuits. God rest his soul. Victories occured in Poughkeepsie, in Gilroy, Sant Cruz, and Selmer, Tenn, and other locations. But these are long, arduous struggles conducted by legal experts against municipalities and were not even attempted if city councils were unanimously controlled and sold on the policy to fluoridate people. The larger the city, the harder the task the lawsuit becomes.  The L.A. suit is still ongoing now for 11 years and is expensive.

Even the suit in Hooper Bay Alaska where a fluoridation overfeed killed a 42 year old Coast Guardsman is still not resolved. The city argues it is the State Board of Health's fault for making them fluoridate. The State argues it is the city's fault because the system was improperly operated.

I personally don't believe in suing people. My folks taught me to discuss a problem and get it resolved with facts to get reparations instead. Anyone who doesn't heed facts and morals is not worth suing anyway.  So don't expect me to sue anyone to get anything done. I admire Jeff though for doing all he could because fluoridation will not stop without such action since so many peple have been led to believe swallowing fluoride is useful and harmless, when in fact it is ineffective and chronically harmful.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
708
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
729
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

729 Views
Message 1002 of 1,248

Dr. Sauerheber, you say, "There have been many lawsuits filed against fluoridation."

 

Response:  I stand corrected.  I should have said, 'Where are all the Successful lawsuits?'

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
729
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
731
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

731 Views
Message 1003 of 1,248

Oh, please. Your argument falls flat on its face. There have been many lawsuits filed against fluoridation. The one in Los Angeles is still ongoing and requires a team of legal experts to even have a chance of getting very far. A few cases are won such as in Poughkeepsie New York but victories are rare especially  in large cities. Common cilizens have no ability to successfully sue ciites such as Los Angeles. Are you kidding?

The man in the White House of course has been sued a lot, but as a single person, not a suit against the Government, which is required to halt fluoridation in any city.  And even there what did all the suits against this man achieve? He is still in office.

Are you serious right now?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
731
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
735
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

735 Views
Message 1004 of 1,248

The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.  The original directive waa authored knowing that fluoride is a contaminant in water, not a required ingredient.   

The FDA described fluoride added into water as an "uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug." I have a personal copy of the FDA letter stating so. You don't have to believe me, but regardless this is true.

 

Luride (sodium fluoride) is a drug listed in the PDR, and is regulated by prescription, and has never been approved for ingestion by the FDA, but likewise is not banned. It is an allowed drug, not an approved drug. There are many such substances that the FDA is aware are being used. The FDA rules on minerals are now also the same as traditionally for drugs. So if one dislikes ruling fluoride as a drug, fine, call it a mineral, the result is the same. The FDA ruled that prescription fluoride should not to be used in areas where water fluoride exceeds 0.6 ppm (PDR, 2017). Adding fluoride ion into water to treat humans also fits the Congressional definition of a drug.

I'm sorry  if you have a hard time understanding this, but I don't think the fault is onb my end. And whoever said you are keeping track of statements of mine, that's great. This is written for the general public.

 

The SDWA exact words are "no National requirement for the addition of any substance into water other than to sanitize the water" may be made. So the CDC gets around this law by claiming the CDC only requests fluoridation, they don't actually require it. The original statutes approved by Congress also state that U.S. States can be "no less restrictive." So State attempts to mandate fluoride are in violation of Federal water law. But who follows laws when one is convinced that eating and drinking fluoride is necessary for a population and is a great health achievement, if only others would come to their senses?  Laws become something to argue against. The SDWA indeed was later modified to delineate exceptions for fluoride, which allowed keeping this desired action as though it is indeed now lawful. Treating people without their permission through altering natural water supplies is unlawful. The action even violates the original Water Pollution Control Act section 101 that was instituted by President John Kennedy, where the mission of the law was to maintain the natural chemistry of drinking waters in the U.S.  If a natural supply contains high levels of a dangerous contaminant, then the substance can be removed (Clean Water Act). But intentionally adding any substance into drinking water violates this law. It was adjusted later with the SDWA to allow for adding chemicals such as chlorine to sanitize water of microbes. The adiditon of other substances however is prohibited. It is unlawful even to add vitamin C into public water supplies, let alone a diluted hazardous waste simply becuse it contains fluoride.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
735
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
685
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

685 Views
Message 1005 of 1,248

 

Carrie Anne has said,

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” - Dr. Wm. Marcus (1998)

         "Follow the money." - Deep Throat (1972)  (Timestamp 07-04-2018 09:07 AM – this thread)  

 

And, “Dr. Wm. Marcus who wrote a memo about management interference for manipulation of cancer data in order to disappear the evidence of carcinogenicity in a fluoride study.”

 

Carrie Anne has also said, “Cancer was a red herring that Chuck Haynie threw in to disrupt the conversation. If you, Chuck and others want to argue cancer - get a room.”  (Timestamp 07-12-2018 03:53 PM)

 

Response:  I take it now that you Don’t wish to discuss cancer and water fluoridation, which you originally brought up in the first place, before complaining that the issue was a distraction.  Is that correct?

 

 

Carrie Anne has also said:

 “ . . lawsuits are expensive and given the way fluoridation is set up (there are no deep pockets to sue), . .”  (Timestamp 07-04-2018 09:07 AM – this thread)  

 

 

And, “ . . it is big business to add fluoride to water between 0.7 and 1 ppm . .”  (Timestamp:  ‎07-13-2018 06:36 AM)

 

Response:  If it is big business to add fluoride to water . . there must be some deep pockets to sue.  Which is it?

 

Carrie:  “Speaking about consensus, here are just a few professional American organizations who are on record opposing fluoridation in teh 21st century.”

 

Response:  The Fluoride Action Network has a list of professionals, about 4500, who have signed the opposition to fluoridation statement.   

 

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, 0.036 % of all Health Care and other professionals are NOT opposed to water fluoridation.  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. 

 

0.036% can in NO WAY be considered a consensus!

 

Carrie, with all due respect, you and Dr. Sauerheber lack a certain credibility.  You have said blatantly false things about the Safe Drinking Water Act and what is in it.  Dr. Sauerheber has said the FDA bans  pregnant women from drinking fluoridated water.  He said, “fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water,” Which has been proven false, and on, and on, and on.

 

I bring these points up because now we have to take you at your word that you were harmed (rashes, gastro-intestinal problems, etc.) from drinking optimally fluoridated water.  There is no documentation.  You have cited Hans Moolenburgh . . he has a Youtube video in which he literally says, “We know it was the fluoride causing these problems because we took their baby bottles away from them and they stopped crying.”  It’s laughable.

 

You've cited something from Waldbott, from 1971, ("Chizzola" Maculae) to prove that people do get sick from drinking fluoridated water . . while in another comment you have complained to me that I am not looking at the "current science" (post 2015).  You are inconsistant and you have come to lack credibility.

 

Now you say, “5% may have a genetic intolerance that manifests immediately like my family and me, but at least an additional 10% become intolerant due to chronic low dose exposure.”

 

Ok, let’s look at that.  According to the CDC, in 2014 there were 211,393,167 people who were drinking fluoridated water.  https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2014stats.htm  5% of that would be over 10.5 million people.  According to you, over 10 million people are intentionally being poisoned by their local governments and suffering great harm because of it.   If anything would merit a lawsuit, it would be that. 

 

Where is this Class Action Lawsuit with 10 million plaintiffs?  You are right.  This is my standard response . . because it is so obvious!  We are blessed to live in a country that is so lawsuit crazy that the world’s most powerful fast food chain was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot!!

 

You have said there is too much money behind water fluoridation and it is not possible to sue for that reason.  Odd!  I can think of a Billionaire who holds the record for being on the receiving end of more lawsuits than any other sitting U.S. president in history. 

 

You have said that it is too expensive to sue.  Many attorneys will not charge a fee until there is a payout.  I don’t get it.  There are no successful lawsuits by anybody who claims to have all these ailments that you allege.  You seem to be afraid to prove it in court . . where such a win could actually change U.S. policy.   A lot of people sue the EPA and win.  The EPA does have jurisdiction over CWF.  I would start there.

 

If nothing more, drinking optimally fluoridated water does appear to have a correlation with hypochondria, and I think you’ve proven that. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
685
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
749
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

749 Views
Message 1006 of 1,248

“As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms. The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed..... this can hasten health calamities.”  - Dr. Hans Moolenburgh, MD (1993)

 

Case studies abound, but stubborn doctors refuse to admit their existance. I remember when weighing only 90 something pounds, chronically ill and really frightented, I first asked my GP if the small clusters of coin sized bruises on my arm were hives. He leaned back in his chair across the desk from me to put more distance betwen us and said, "they're bruises." I said, you can't see that well from there and started to get up to go around to his side of his massive desk "Stay seated!" he demanded, "I can see from here" - I said, "my daughter has them, too," holding out her tiny arm. "Some people bruise easily"  - I pulled open my shirt to reveal one on my chest "I think I'd remember if I got bumped here?" Shrug - then I asked, "Could it be something in the water?" That got him out of his chair - waving his arms and yelling at me "Who put you up to this!" and complaining about people coming into his office to tell him there was something the matter with the water - he yelled me and my two small children out of his office - last time I saw him.

 

He was the chair of the BOH who ordered fluoride into the water begun two years earlier. I knew nothing about that, then. It was a subsequent doctor who diagnosed my 'bruises' as a 'lesion' an odd allergic hive.... which is well documented in case studies as a unique type of hive some women and children get in the early stages of fluoride poisoning - Chizzola maculaeBut I didn't find that out till over 30 years later. But he knew, why else would a doctor refuse to examine odd clusters of 'bruises' that a patient complained about? He didn't want to admit he had made a mistake that poisoned the women, children and senior citizens who were apparently streaming into his offices. 

 

See 1993 affidavit of and 2014 interview with Dr. Hans Moolenburg, a medical doctor who actually paid attention to the people who started streaming into his office from one of the two communities he served - the one recently fluoridated. He and his fellow doctors conducted a study that resulted in the cessation of the fluoridation experiment in the Netherlands.  

 

Case Studies: 

1993 Literature Review: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/spittle-1993/ 

1998 Collection: http://www.fluoridation.com/waldbot.htm

1967: http://www.nofluoride.com/allergy.cfm 

1969 "Neighborhood Fluorosis":  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/15563656908990948 

1957 topical: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/16804/ 

International collection:  http://fluoridefree.org.nz/information/research/fluoride_allergy/ 

US self-reports: http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/mom-fluoride-stories

 

Contaminants & Concentrations

In India, 1.0 ppm is considered the threshold of an 'excessive' fluoride concentration in drinking water. The U.S. EPA sets 4 ppm as the actionable safety threshold. The rule of thumb is that there should be a factor of 10 between the lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) and safe for vulenerable populations. It is well documented that 0.5 ppm causes adverse effects. Consequently, a 'safe' level of this poison should be below 0.05 ppm or 0.1 ppm or 0.4 ppm per accepted practices - but no government or health authority in fluoridating countries pays attention to those rules because it is big business to add fluoride to water between 0.7 and 1 ppm - which is doubled the dose documented to cause adverse impacts. 

 

1990: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853

2015http://fluorideandfluorosis.com/Reprints/pdf/IJPP%2017(2)%202015.pdf

 

BTW: From my reading of the scientific and medical literature, 5% may have a genetic intolerance that manifests immediately like my family and me, but at least an additional 10% become intolerant due to chronic low dose exposure. That may take a couple of months, a couple of years, or a couple of decades - but in the US where 75% of the population consumes fluoridated water and essentially 100% of the food is fluoridated, that means  approximately 50 million Americans suffer from fluoride poisoning, about 1 million in my state and  4,500 in my city - whether they know it or not.  

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
749
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
744
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

744 Views
Message 1007 of 1,248

 

Carrie Anne, you say, “Cancer was a red herring that Chuck Haynie threw in to disrupt the conversation. If you, Chuck and others want to argue cancer - get a room.”

 

You may be confusing Chuck Haynie with me.  The first time I brought up "cancer" it was in response to one of your comments. This is my exact quote:

 

 

“Carrie Anne has presented a quote by Dr. Wm Marcus: 

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” “

 

Since you want to talk about “Cancer,” where would you like to get a room? 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
744
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
727
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

727 Views
Message 1008 of 1,248

Dr. Sauerheber, you say, “Furthermore, fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water.”

 

That is odd, because on this label of bottled water http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2 I see that there are 23 mcg of fluoride per 30 gram serving.  That comes to 0.77 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, which is very close to the optimal level for maximum benefit and no harm. 

 

I’m going to start keeping track of your false statements, Dr. Sauerheber J .

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
727
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
693
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

693 Views
Message 1009 of 1,248

Carrie Anne,

 

Where did you get your Water Treatment Operator’s License? 

 

You say, “. . . SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people.”  Clearly you are talking about the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, since states do not have authority over the Federal Government. 

 

Could you please cite the specific statute which says this?  Of course you can’t.  Your comment is false. 

 

You also say, “fluoride is characterized by the FDA as an 'unapproved drug.'”  As I pointed out to Dr. Sauerheber, while the FDA does not have regulatory authority over Community Water Fluoridation (the EPA does), the FDA does have regulatory authority over Bottled Water.  This includes fluoridated bottled water.

 

This is a label from the FDA regulated product “Dannon’s Fluoride to Go” bottled water:  http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2   .  Under “Nutrition Information” you will see that Fluoride is listed as a Mineral.  It is not identified as a “Drug.”   Could you please show me any place on this FDA regulated product where the word “drug” exists?  Of course you can’t.  The FDA doesn’t classify, identify, consider, or label optimally fluoridated water as a drug. 

 

Could you please show me anything, on any FDA website, which identifies optimally fluoridated water as a drug?

 

So, when you say, “Neither my city nor you, David, have the right to use municipal water to dose me with a drug that worsens my health!”  you can’t be referring to optimally fluoridated water, since neither the FDA, the CDC, the EPA, . . No Federal Agency considers fluoridated water to be a “drug.”  People who try to generate paranoia about safe drinking water call fluoridated water a drug.  And they’re the only ones who do so.

 

Moreover, if you claim that you have gotten “fluoride poisoning” by drinking water with 1 ppm of fluoride in it, you would be the first person in history to suffer from such an ailment.  . . . Oh wait, there was a guy, about 50 years ago, from the 1950s to the 1970s (his name escapes me at the moment) who did have some anecdotal stories about people who allegedly suffered from drinking fluoridated water, but it never really panned out.  Someone would develop a rash, they moved out of the city, and the rash disappeared.  Imagine that.  Besides, you like to look at post-2015 science don’t you.

 

There was one other guy, Hans Moolengurgh, whose idea of science was to take a baby bottle away from a screaming baby to see what would happen.  lol

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
693
Views
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
648
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

648 Views
Message 1010 of 1,248

Richard - since you mention them, check out the National Cancer Registry’s own statement on this at https://www.ncri.ie/tags/water-fluoridation which states how it’s data has been misused by antifluoridation campaigners and that there is no link between their cancer findings and fluoridation. The Institute of Public Health showed similar or lower levels of chronic diseases in the Republic, see lots of detail at http://chronicconditions.publichealthwell.ie/ . Waugh’s material did not take into account different definitions and different data collection systems in both jurisdictions. For example, the primary cause of deal the for a diabetic with pneumonia might be recoded as diabetes in the South and pneumonia in the North. Simple misunderstandings like these are constantly made by people with no qualifications in epidemiology and no knowledge of the systems of data collection. Other examples of these types of mistakes are comparing prostate cancer rates which have to be much higher in the Republic due to PSA screening, which detects preclinical lesions, which is not carried out in the North, or comparing Down Syndrome birth rates where abortion was outlawed in the South but freely available in the UK, where the large majority of such pregnancies are terminated. Such are the pitfalls of comparative health statistics, they are really much better left to the professionals. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
648
Views