Do you or your loved ones suspect a scam? Report it now to the AARP Fraud Watch Network.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
441
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

441 Views
Message 291 of 1,248

I'm being asked whether fluoridation is illegal or not, with the pretense to actually want to learn something from me. The answer will not be received, but it is this: 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). 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 This allowed fluoridationists to twist the law and claim it does not prevent specifically fluoridation (with various excuses provided, see below).

So my statement in the earlier post was that it would be best if the law could be written more forcefully, namely a stated disallowing of fluoridation period, rather than the prohibiting of a requirement. The requirement provision was obviously insufficient to halt the spread of fluoridation. So the anwer is yes it is illegal because it does not sanitize water, but all laws can be broken when enough rewriting and excuses are made.

Fluoridationist S. Slott for example argues that fluoridation is comparable to chlorination because chlorine and fluoride are both toxic at high concentrations but are added to treat water at lower concentrations for a benefit, so this is consistent with the SDWA. This is in complete denial of the intent of the Act and is chemically incorrect also.  Chlorine is added to kill bacteria to make water potable and nonlethal. Fluoride has nothing to do with sanitizing water which the Act allows. Fluoride is added to treat human beings. Slott then retorts that fluoride does not treat humans, it treats the water, but this is of couse nonsense. There is no reason to add fluoride to water to support hydration. If a community had good dental care with no caries problem, why would anyone add fluoride to the entire water supply of the city? (The irony here of course is that eating fluoride all day long does not affect caries anyway).

Is this clearer?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
441
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
456
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

456 Views
Message 292 of 1,248

Billo, you began your rant with two false statements so I stopped reading:  

 

"Consider 3 main catagories of evidence strongly affecting most people.

 

1.  Marketing/money are the most powerful.

 

2.  Tradition is almost as powerful as marketing and money."

 

Wrong.  Fear and pain are the strongest human motivators.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-main-ingredient/200909/the-most-powerful-motivator

 

Food and sex are the first things human beings notice and are attracted to.  https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/food-and-sex-are-the-same-to-your-brain

 

Bill, your little stories, which appear to have no basis in fact, are of no interest to me.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
456
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
454
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

454 Views
Message 293 of 1,248

Richard says,  "I think readers understand that AARP is not an organization that spends time in attempts, usually futile, to change laws, as neither am I in such a position."

 

Change laws?  You just said the SDWA, which is the law, was written to halt the spread of water fluoridation.  If it is the law . . as you say . . you don't need to change anything.  You need to get the Courts to impliment the law.  

 

You're not in a position to do that?  Because that would take money, right?  Don't tell me there is no money behind your fear-mongering campaign.  Mercola invested $1 Million into an anti-water-fluoridation fear-mongering campaign in Portland, Oregon.  That sounds like there is plenty of money behind your paranoia crusade.  

 

Well is water fluoridation against the law or isn't it?  Was the SDWA really "written specifically to halt the  spread of artificial fluoridation of peoples' drinking water," or wasn't it?  .  .  No, of course not.  These are very strange comments by people who are motivated by a bias so intense that it warps reality.  

 

And . . your undocumented, anecdotal story about somebody in Temecula is meaningless.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
454
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
467
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

467 Views
Message 294 of 1,248

David,

 

Consider 3 main catagories of evidence strongly affecting most people.

 

1.  Marketing/money are the most powerful.

 

2.  Tradition is almost as powerful as marketing and money.

 

3.  Current facts/science which changes our paradigm has less power for most people (like Donald Trump).  However, facts and science should have the most impact for critical thinking individuals.  

 

Which of those do you think Delta Dental and other dental insurance companies put emphasis, rely on?  Money, marketing, profit, unless alittle waste would upset tradition, their base.  Delta Dental support tradition so they can lower fees paid to dentists.  They don't want to totally anger dentists and other insurance companies go along.  8 years ago I twice asked Delta for their numbers on cost benefit of fluoridation, reduced caries and/or costs in fluoridated communities.  Delta said the numbers were soon to be published.  8 years later and nothing published.  I bet the numbers don't show cost reduction so they don't publish.  A few clicks on their computers would show the difference in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.  Facts don't support tradition so silence.

 

What about organizations other NGO and Governments and Public Health?  What do they rely on?  Tradition?  Lots of work to review the science.

 

What about you?  Your emails keep going to tradition and marketing/money.

 

Fluoridation had great marketing and money, little science, when it started.

 

NGO's jumped in, partly to "do good."  

 

Tradition keeps fluoridation going inspite of the new science showing lack of benefit (probably because other sources of fluoride and excess fluoride increases caries) and serious risks.

 

David, when you reference money, marketing or tradition, I pay little attention and for those opposed to fluoridation I expect they turn off their hearing.  We should not abandon tradition on a whim, but on science and facts.

 

If you would start to provide science within the last 20 years, I'm listening.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
467
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
465
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

465 Views
Message 295 of 1,248

I think readers understand that AARP is not an organization that spends time in attempts, usually futile, to change laws, as neither am I in such a position. 

But it is the trurh that matters.

A friend I hadn't seen in years has a child in Temecula who has consumed fluoridated water since it began there in 2007 and now has substantial dental fluorosis that is unsightly.  I am upset that I was unable to explain to them the truth about fluoridation. 

Another source of fluoride in bone is general anesthesia where 10 % of the drug is metabolized to the ion. To answer Dr. Osmunsen's question about what fluoride sources should be removed to curtail these problems from fluoride exposure, it is obviously fluoride in water which has no benefit at all, as proven in controlled animal studies and in the largest human studies we have.

It was claimed that Delta Dental is knowledgable enough to believe in fluoridation. But the truth is that DD is a business that collects premiums and pays from that part of peoples' dental bills, but never more than what is paid in, so massive amounts of money are accumulated which are regularly given to city councils to coerce cities to undergo this bone fluoridartion program where it is argued to be "mandated by law". DD believes in what they are doing but people would be better served if their premiums were used in full to pay dental bills, like a real insurance company does such as AAA auto insurance. They replace the whole car, not part of a wrecked car. That way DD would be insulated ftom the useless harmful fluoridation scam.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
465
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
478
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

478 Views
Message 296 of 1,248

Richard Sauerheber,

 

I laugh every time I hear you repeat this (one of so many) falsehood:  “ Indeed , the safe drinking water act was written specifically to halt the  spread of artificial fluoridation of peoples' drinking water. Fluoride promoters not only deny this, they misinterpret the law the way they want.”  Timestamp:  01-14-2019 02:37 PM

 

Below your odd interpretation is “Carry Anne,” as she is known in this thread, quoting from the Safe Drinking Water Act:  “Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”  Timestamp:  01-14-2019 02:07 PM

 

Aside from the fact that the statute that “Carry Anne” quotes does not prohibit community water fluoridation, I have to wonder, Richard, since you seem to have such an enlightened perspective of the law, why you present these interesting legal opinions to the attention of the AARP in a discussion thread.  Do you believe that after accepting your legal opinion, the AARP has the ability to change the law? 

 

I’m just thinking out loud here, but wouldn’t your expert legal opinion be better served in a Court of Law where actual results may occur? 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
478
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
491
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

491 Views
Message 297 of 1,248

Dr. Johnny,

 

Wow, we are on the same page.  I'm impressed.  Finally a fluoridation promoter who is willing to evaluate research rather than tradition.

 

However, my point is, "too many are ingesting too much fluoride."   You failed to address that key point.   Pick any measurement of dosage you want and many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

 EPA "Dose Response Analysis 2010, ignores 10% of the population drinking the most water, all fetuses and all infants and still about a third of children are ingesting too much fluoride even with their calculations of 33% more dosage (RfD). (See 2010 EPA)  Too much fluoride for too many.  

 

Changing the subject to the studies. 

 

Urine fluoride concentrations in the USA are commonly above 0.85 mg/L which is where we find risk.  As we focus more on possible risk of fluoride dosages considering age, gender, measurement methods and types of neurologic harm,we are finding more harm at ever lower dosages.  The research is over 50 human studies reporting harm and few having found no harm.  

 

To expect the trend in the research to start to claim fluoride is safer and safer is simply unrealistic.

 

What consitutes proof in science.  Several high quality studies. 

 

BENEFIT has lower quality and historical studies with mixed conclusions.   

SAFETY has not been seriously studied safety (until recently) and likewise, studies are lower/moderate quality but the quantity showing harm at ever lower dosages raises concern.  A public health intervention without adequate evidence either on efficacy or safety.  Amazing marketing of tradition. 

 

Think about that Johnny, everyone dosed with a highly toxic substance (low but uncontrolled dosages) and no careful safety evaluation.  Even EPA admits no neurotoxicity evaluation has been done on fluoride in public water. (Legal review of EPA fluoride Post-harvest fumigant)

 

Ethically, risk/safety evaluation is much more complex than benefit because we cannot ethically intentionally cause harm. 

 

Nor can we claim "all safe because we don't know." 

 

Lack of evidence is not proof of safety.

 

If you are willing to accept poor/moderate quality of evidence as "proof" of fluoridation's efficacy, then you must accept poor/moderate quality of evidence as "proof of excess fluoride's risk and lack of safety.  

 

Specifically to the Bashish studies.  I talked to a co-author who claimed the research was good although not applicable to the USA.  The major fault was that we had no national USA data on urine fluoride concentrations, "we don't know what we have here."  That makes zero sense on several fronts, especially administering without consent because we don't know how much we are getting.   Crazy public health logic.

 

True, not everyone in the USA has had urine fluoride concentration measured, but public health policy is not made on everyone in the USA being tested.  And reverse the logic.  If we call fluoride safe until everyone is tested, should we not avoid administering the fluoride until everyone is tested.   Do NOT administer or call it safe when we don't know.  

 

We have studies in the USA on urine fluoride studies with controls and subjects and the controls sometimes have over 0.85 mg/L. No lower maternal fluoride urine concentration threshold for the fetus has been shown.  Maybe one day we will, but I would put money it is below 0.3 mg/L urinary fluoride concentration.

 

Yes, we always need more studies, but more than 50 human studies reporting harm should be a big red public health flag for AARP, water purveyors, HHS, EPA, CDC, PHS, FDA, you and me.

 

The absence of evidence is not proof of safety.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
491
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
493
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

493 Views
Message 298 of 1,248

“The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude. Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement. Uproarious laughter frequently ensues. No special statistical equipment is necessary to detect those peccancies. Of course the class and the Group soon tired of those infantilities, and sought and found greater challenge.”- Prof. Hubert A. Arnold, Ph.D. (1980)

 

People trust authority… It is sobering to realize that human beings blindly trust authority and that authority figures… are the ones most easily duped.” - Stephen Greenspan, author of “Annals of Gullibility: Why We Get Duped and How to Avoid It” who lost $400k of his retirement to Bernie Madoff (2010)

 

Fluoridation promotion has always been flawed and has always had learned opponents. Going along with the crowd has always been popular, but never any guarantee. 

 

As to looking in the mirror, there are about 35 seniors opposed to fluoridation on the AARP forum  including several peer-reviewed scientists. The handful of fluoridationists on this thread are members of a well known troop that has overwhelmed local letters to the editors all over the country and abroad with vitriolic character assassination for years - often outnumbered but persistent in their dogged attacks. They include retired or semi-retired dentists. This group descended  on AARP en masse in June 2018. The forum had been proceeding unmolested with periodic activity since Feb 2015.  

 

For more on the orchestrated efforts of this small band of fluoridationists, see the letter below. Also pay attention to the resources attached to that letter: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf

 

Regardless, fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that forces contaminated products into the the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of adverse impact on individuals for whom consumption is ill advised. Senior citizens are a class of people who have been identified as particularly vulnerable to the ill effects of fluoride consumption as fluoride is an inflammatory drug that accumulates in bones, damages kidneys and has been implicated in plaque formation in hearts & brains. 

 VennMM.jpg

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
493
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
489
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

489 Views
Message 299 of 1,248

Bill,

 

Have you critically evaluated these Bashash literature pieces?  Granted, they are excellent researchers. But doesn’t something strike you as fundamentally missing?

 

You are a reasonable person. Take a look at the shortcomings of both studies. And of the Canadian study of pregnant women drinking CWF. Be truthful with what you see. You are savvy enough to call in others for help with the shortcomings. 

 

Get back with me ONLY on this one commonality when you’re ready with your facts. Talk to the researchers if need be. Don’t quote pieces in the media. 

 

I’ll be waiting......

 

Johnny 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
489
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
490
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

490 Views
Message 300 of 1,248

Ross F,

 

It is so funny, yet sad, how the opposition to CWF discounts anyone who doesn’t agree with them. My father always told me if you think everyone is wrong, it’s time to look in the mirror. 

 

Just sayin’

 

Johnny

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
490
Views