Are you as smart as a high-tech car? Take this quiz and test your knowledge.
Reply
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
249
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

249 Views
Message 41 of 861

billo, your comment:

 

"You wrote,  "Your quote:  "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,""

 

You responded, "Response:   Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA?  Are you saying this is the FDA's official position?  If so, show me the link.  If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive".

 

Sorry.  I don't remember giving you a quote from the head of the FDA in 1983.  Other quotes, but I don't remember that one.  My memory is not good, but I don't hide my own Easter eggs. . . yet."

 

Response:  That was a response to Dr. Sauerheber.  Please look at the top of a comment, to whom it is addressed, if you feel confused.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
249
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
243
Views

Re: Fluoride is a drug when consumed for medical or dental purpose per FDA

243 Views
Message 42 of 861

Ah, no dr. bill, you have completely re-written history with your comment.

 

You originally said . . (you know, because you wanted to make the argument that optimally fluoridated water was a drug) . . you said, 

 

"In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug.   One way is "INTENT" of use.  FDA considers a placebo a drug.  Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug."

 

That flawed statement is the only thing I was addressing in my comment.  

 

Now you say, "For one thing, a food is not a highly toxic substance defined in law as highly toxic or poison."

 

Irrelevant to your statement.  Toxicity was not part of your definition of the word "drug."

 

You now say, "And the FDA has determined fluoride is to be regulated as a drug, not a food or mineral.  Read the toothpaste labels."

 

Irrelevant.  Toothpaste is not optimally fluoridated water.

 

You say, "You call the FDA a joke, but you need to read and study how to indroduce a drug, the definitions of drugs and how the FDA regulates drugs vs foods."

 

No.  I called your argument a joke.  The FDA does not consider optimally fluoridated water - you know, what we are talking about here - to be a drug.

 

You say, "Several places I have pointed out you lack a full understanding, but I have not called you a liar."

 

Response:  You seem to have a problem with accepting reality.  It is you who lack understanding, and you have demonstrated it many times.  You don't understand the purpose of the FOIA, you don't understand clear statutes in the SDWA. And to this discussion, there is not one federal U.S. agency which considers optimally fluoridated water a drug - in any sense of the word, and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
243
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
248
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

248 Views
Message 43 of 861

David, 

 

You wrote,  "Your quote:  "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,""

 

You responded, "Response:   Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA?  Are you saying this is the FDA's official position?  If so, show me the link.  If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive".

 

Sorry.  I don't remember giving you a quote from the head of the FDA in 1983.  Other quotes, but I don't remember that one.  My memory is not good, but I don't hide my own Easter eggs. . . yet.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
248
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
253
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

253 Views
Message 44 of 861

David,

 

You call three people liars.  Stop it.  We are not liars.

 

You sound like Trump, a bully.   Be professional.

 

And you "call out" Carry Anne because she changed her statement.  Well, read your statements.  You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list.

 

Then you change your statement and say "US Federal Agency. . . ."    Look in the mirror David.  You changed your statement.  OK, give others the space to change their statements if need be.  But that does not make anyone a liar.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
253
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
247
Views

Re: Fluoride is a drug when consumed for medical or dental purpose per FDA

247 Views
Message 45 of 861

David,

 

Two items here.  

 

A.  You raise the issue of "foods" vs "drugs" and reference an opinion of the Mayo Clinic rather than the FDA.  The FDA is more precise.  But lets look closer.  The FDA regulates industry claims and has given precise wording.  Read their web pages, many of them.  

 

And is a high fiber diet listed in the US Pharmacopea?  No.  

 

You are correct, there is a difference between foods and drugs and the fine line can be confusing.  For one thing, a food is not a highly toxic substance defined in law as highly toxic or poison.  Fluoride is highly toxic and if not regulated under pesticide laws or drug laws is regulated under poison laws. 

And the FDA has determined fluoride is to be regulated as a drug, not a food or mineral.  Read the toothpaste labels. 

 

You call the FDA a joke, but you need to read and study how to indroduce a drug, the definitions of drugs and how the FDA regulates drugs vs foods.  You think the FDA is funny because you have not read their web pages or gone through the approval process.  I have with an approved device and the FDA is excellent and fair.   They are not a joke.  You think they are a joke because you don't understand their rules.

 

Now to the second point.  Don't be a bully.  Be professional and use professional words.  Several places I have pointed out you lack a full understanding, but I have not called you a liar.  Derogatory personal attacks don't look well on you.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
247
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
235
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

235 Views
Message 46 of 861

Dr. Sauerheber, please.

 

"I looked at the facts on salmon in Sacramanto, made a deduction and since that was against a fluoridation belief system I was called "a liar.""

 

No, you were claiming to be making a declarative fact, not a deduction.  You call yourself a scientist and you make outrageous claims with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.  No fluoride levels measured in the river, no fluoride levels measured in the fish, no measurement of fluoride levels in effluent discharge . . you just know it.  Ok, I won't call you a liar, but you're no scientist either.

 

"Carry Ann clarified a post so that it would not be misinterpreted again by someone who wants to misinterpret it, and she is also called "a liar.""

 

Response:  No, I called out "Carrie Anne" because of an error of fact that she had made.  "Carrie Anne" then edited her original post to cover up her original statement and then attacked me for pointing out her error of fact.  That's about as dishonest as it gets.

 

"Now Dr.Osmunsen who correctly states that the U.S. Pharmacopia lists fluoride if ingested as a drug (since it is not a normal bodily component), and Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics lists fluoride in water as a drug, and the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, and yet he also is called "a liar.""

 

Response:  No U.S. Federal Agency calls optimally fluoridated water a "drug" - Period.  No matter how much you twist and squirm and try to spin it, that is the simple fact.  We are talking about water fluoridation here.  Anything else is irrelevant.  

 

Your quote:  "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,"

 

Response:   Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA?  Are you saying this is the FDA's official position?  If so, show me the link.  If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
235
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
232
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

232 Views
Message 47 of 861

"Rhetorical deceits."  Hilarious.  You made a statement that was factually incorrect.  I called you out on it.  You edited your own comment - to cover up - and then attacked me for pointing it out.  

 

Get real.  And now you are re-writing history.  "ORIGINAL:"...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."   --  i.e., they (the FDA, when taken in context of the entire sentence.)

 

I stand by my statement that you are dishonest, and it has been fully documented here.

 

Now what's the problem with your NSF timeline?  The NSF water additives program began in 1985 because that is when it was contracted by the EPA.  So what?  

 

As for the rest of your attachment.  I don't see the problem.  You are talking about what they didn't know in 1983 about the health effects of fluoride in water at over 4 times the optimal level.  4 times the optimal level of fluoride is not relevant to community water fluoridation.  That's like saying, my doctor prescribed 2 aspirin, so I took 8 instead - same thing, right?  Now why am I throwing up blood?  

 

Am I missing something?  If so, please explain.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
232
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
228
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

228 Views
Message 48 of 861

I looked at the facts on salmon in Sacramanto, made a deduction and since that was against a fluoridation belief system I was called "a liar." Carry Ann clarified a post so that it would not be misinterpreted again by someone who wants to misinterpret it, and she is also called "a liar."

Now Dr.Osmunsen who correctly states that the U.S. Pharmacopia lists fluoride if ingested as a drug (since it is not a normal bodily component), and Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics lists fluoride in water as a drug, and the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, and yet he also is called "a liar."

Between us and this criticizer, I know who is trying to pull the wool over readers.

And the Office of Water most certainly wrote that adding chemicals to treat people, rather than the water, as for fluoride, is the resonsibility of the FDA, not the EPA. The joint MOU between the EPA and FDA, that FDA requested to attempt to avoid regulating fluoridation, was dissolved long ago.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
228
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
222
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

222 Views
Message 49 of 861

Fluoride trolls play with language for rhetorical deceits. My original was gramatically correct, but could be misinterpretted which DavidF did..... so I repeated the subject ' EPA' in the second part of of that phrase.

 

ORIGINAL:"...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF." 

 

FOR CLARITY: "...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."

 

Now how about the documentation I provided about that timeline?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
222
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
216
Views

Re: NSF and EPA Timeline: Colleagues in Cover-up

216 Views
Message 50 of 861

Very good, Carrie Anne,  

 

This was your original comment:  

 

"Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. "

 

As I said, that is incorrect.  The FDA does not contract with NSF.

 

When I just took a look at your original comment I see that you have corrected yourself.  This is your edited comment:

 

" Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and the EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."

 

That is correct.  EPA contracts with NSF.  I'm glad to see you listened to me and corrected your error.

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
216
Views