From travel insurance to fraud protection, AARP has you covered. Take a closer look at your member benefits.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
225
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

225 Views
Message 721 of 1,351

David,

 

You keep asking for "proof" and yet I don't see that you are looking at the facts.

 

I have given you many studies on fluoride's effect on cancer, the human brain, and thyroid.  

 

Once again, read CarryAnne's post on the recent published research on fluoride.  Repeating:

 

"Another damning study was just published. Here are the October citations and urls to date with my thumbnail descriptions: 

 

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they have low thyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Overall, 9% of the population is diagnosed with low thyroid. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201830833X

  • Ashley J. Malin, Julia Riddell, Hugh McCague, Christine Till. Fluoride exposure and thyroid function among adults living in Canada: Effect modification by iodine status.Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 667-674.

PREGNANT WOMEN: Pregnant Canadian women drinking  'optimally' fluoridated water had twice the fluoride exposure per individual testing as compared to pregnant women in non-fluoridated Canadian communities - and consistent with the range in the Mexican women whose children had up to 6 points lowered IQ based on prenatal exposure to fluoride (from salt).  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116302808

  • Christine Till, Rivka Green, John G. Grundy, Richard Hornung, Raichel Neufeld, E. Angeles Martinez-Mier, Pierre Ayotte, Gina Muckle, and Bruce Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2018. 

LEARNING DISABILITIES: Over 200 children were individually tested. Study found attention deficit disorder apparently caused by their prenatal exposure to fluoride specific to dose. This is the 3rd report out of the NIH sponsored 12 year study that seems to have been designed with the intention of showing no ill effect, but instead has three times to date confirmed low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities causes subtle but permanent brain damage for many consumers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018311814

  • Morteza Bashash, Maelle Marchand, Howard Hu, ChristineTill,  Angeles Martinez-Mier, Brisa N. Sanchez, Niladri Basu, Karen Peterson, Rivka Green, Lourdes Schnaas, Adriana Mercado-García, Mauricio Hernández-Avila, Martha María Téllez-Rojo. Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age in Mexico City. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 658-666

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume unsafe amounts of fluoride in excess of the upper limits of fluoride considered safe per government regulations. Even 4 % of babies in non-fluoridated communities are overdosed on fluoride. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, mottled teeth, a condition associated with more learning disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease. http://jocpd.org/doi/10.17796/1053-4625-43.1.7 

  • Claudia X Harriehausen, Fehmida Z Dosani, Brett T Chiquet, Michelle S Barratt, and Ryan L Quock. Fluoride Intake of Infants from Formula. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2018. 

GOVERNMENT BIAS: A National Toxicology Program’s animal experiment used the wrong rats, the wrong dose, and the wrong study design in order to manufacture a finding of no prenatal or postnatal effect, apparently in an effort to protect policy instead of people. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987718308600

  • Karen Favazza Spencer, Hardy Limeback. Blood is Thicker Than Water: Flaws in a National Toxicology Program Study. Medical Hypotheses. Volume 121. December 2018. Pages 160-163

SKELETAL MUSCLE DISEASE: Doses consistent with doses in the general population of optimally fluoridated communities can cause an autoimmune response and cell inflammation that results in either skeletal muscle enlargement or wasting. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118325673  

  • P. Sudheer Shenoya, Utsav Sena, Saketh Kapoor, Anu  V. Ranade, Chitta R.Chowdhury, Bipasha Bose. Sodium fluoride induced skeletal muscle changes: Degradation of proteins and signaling mechanism. Environmental Pollution. Available online 10 October 2018. 

 

AARP - it’s time to fish or cut bait. You’ve been informed of the modern evidence of harm and substantial scientific opinion against fluoridation. This forum began in Feb 2015. It blew up in June 2018 when a small group of fluoride trolls pounced on it. It is obvious that this topic is both of interest to seniors and that there is an organized astroturf effort to suppress science, silence medical opinion and stifle voices of victims. Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! "

 

Remember, 60% of adolescents are ingesting too much fluoride.  It is time to reduce the fluoride exposure for the next generation. . . if we value their brains and thyroid function and bones and teeth.

Severe dental fluorosis is an adverse risk and has reached over 2% of adolescents.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
225
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
219
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

219 Views
Message 722 of 1,351

David,

 

There are many opinions on the internet, contact the EPA an FDA on who has jurisdiction over fluoride when used with the INTENT to prevent disease.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
219
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
225
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

225 Views
Message 723 of 1,351

David, 

Contact the EPA and ask for a copy of the FOIA.

 

You wrote, "I said you were lying because the statute from the SDWA which you cited clearly does not prohibit water fluoridation.  It says the Federal Government can not Require it.   That's a little bit different than prohibiting it."

 

I agree with you, the statute is not very clear, to me either.  OK, we need to understand that if Congress does not require something and pay for it, then I presume the Agency is prevented from doing it. . . . maybe???

 

Because I was uncertain, I asked the EPA to explain the statute and they responded.  Of course I added a reference to the EPA.  And if I sent you a copy of the letter you would say I forged it.  So the best course of action is for you to do your own home work.  Clearly you have plenty of time with all the posts, so contact them.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
225
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
244
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

244 Views
Message 724 of 1,351

When a Federal agency, namely the CDC, still claims fluoridation is a "great public health achievement" and requests that the eniter country's water districts fluoridate, that is the same as a mandate. A request from an authority is a mandate. It is illegal, and forced fluoridation against the voting public, as continues in CA, is illegal.

 

The SDWA is an offshoot of the CWA which is a modernized derivative of the WPCA which states its mission (section 101A) is to maintain the natural chemistry of all U.S. waters.

 

Get a grip, fluoridationists.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
244
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
241
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

241 Views
Message 725 of 1,351

Dr. Chuck,

 

I certainly agree with you that fluoride is found in many substances and used for many purposes, it is a powerful, excellent element.  I do acknowledge your statement and the many uses of fluoride.  That is one reason 60% of adolescents showed dental fluorosis in 2010-2011 NHANES.  And 20% with moderate/severe.

 

You also correctly state, "Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use."   I acknowledge and agree.

 

The EPA regulates fluoride in water as a contaminant.  Currently, 4 mg/L Maximum Contaminant Level.   

Contaminating water makes no sense and is a violation of law.  We can discuss contaminating water below MCLG, but we are still contaminating the water.

 

Fluoride is highly toxic and fits within all state and Federal laws defined as a poison.  Look up your state laws defining "poisons" and fluoride fits as a poison and is exempt from poison laws when regulated under either pesticide or drug laws.   No law permits regulation of highly toxic substances as a nutrient.  Caffeine and all oil soluble vitamins (such as A and E) can be toxic, but the dosage required is above poison laws. 

 

When the INTENT is for use as a pesticide or fumigant, then fluoride is exempt from poison laws (highly toxic laws) and regulated under pesticide/fumigant laws.

 

When the INTENT is to prevent disease, then fluoride is regulated under drug laws (FDA) such as prescription medications (many contain fluoride) or over-the-counter such as toothpaste.

 

I have not found anywhere that the Food and Drug Administration claims fluoride to be an essential nutrient.  Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate intake of fluoride (like scurvy with Vit. C.).

 

And I agree with you, there are different purity standards.  The purity added to water is not pharmaceutical grade.

 

Thanks Chuck for your well said comment.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
241
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
245
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

245 Views
Message 726 of 1,351

Dr. Chuck,

 

I certainly agree with you that fluoride is found in many substances and used for many purposes, it is a powerful, excellent element.  I do acknowledge your statement and the many uses of fluoride.  That is one reason 60% of adolescents showed dental fluorosis in 2010-2011 NHANES.  And 20% with moderate/severe.

 

You also correctly state, "Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use."   I acknowledge and agree.

 

The EPA regulates fluoride in water as a contaminant.  Currently, 4 mg/L Maximum Contaminant Level.   

Contaminating water makes no sense and is a violation of law.  We can discuss contaminating water below MCLG, but we are still contaminating the water.

 

Fluoride is highly toxic and fits within all state and Federal laws defined as a poison.  Look up your state laws defining "poisons" and fluoride fits as a poison and is exempt from poison laws when regulated under either pesticide or drug laws.   No law permits regulation of highly toxic substances as a nutrient.  Caffeine and all oil soluable vitamines (such as A and E) can be toxic, but the dosage required is above poison laws. 

 

When the INTENT is for use as a pesticide or fumigant, then fluoride is exempt from poison laws (highly toxic laws) and regulated under pesticide/fumigant laws.

 

When the INTENT is to prevent disease, then fluoride is regulated under drug laws (FDA) such as prescription medications (many contain fluoride) or over-the-counter such as toothpaste.

 

I have not found anywhere that the Food and Drug Administration claims fluoride to be an essential nutrient.  Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate intake of fluoride (like scurvey with Vit. C.).

 

And I agree with you, there are different purity standards.  The purity added to water is not pharmaceutical grade.

 

Thanks Chuck for your well said comment.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
245
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
242
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

242 Views
Message 727 of 1,351

Bill:  "I agree with you, the SDWA is not crystal clear and that is why I contacted the EPA back in 2010 to find out how they interpreted the SDWA.  Their response was unambiguous."

 

Response:  No, you don't agree with me.  The Safe Drinking Water Act is very clear and very precise.  

 

This is the statute you seem to be having trouble with:   “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

 

How is that not clear?  It means that the Federal Government can't require it.  They can't impose a mandate.  How do you get "Prohibit" from that? 

 

The Federal Government can't require that everyone in my home town eat vegetarian food.  But the Federal Government can't prohibit us from being vegetarians either.  How is that not clear?

 

Please, copy and paste the entire exchange you had with the EPA so that we may all see it here.    I'd love to see it.

 

And you never answered the question:  Since your name is plastered all over Attorney James Deal's "Fluoride Class Action," . . . and you & Dr. S. claim to have some documentation which proves the illegality of water fluoridation, why are you arguing about it on an internet website?  Why aren't you guys in court with your documents?

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
242
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
267
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

267 Views
Message 728 of 1,351

Sorry, but many people, even in government, believe false claims, including the notion that fluoride is an "essential nutrient." The old notion posited by fluoridationists was that fluoride, which "must be good," therefore in bone "must strengthen bone." But the FDA commissioned the NIH to study this and found that fluoride in bone does not strengthen bone at any concentration. The claim is false, and in fact fluoride in bone causes the formation of bone regions of poor quality and abnormal crystal structure. Moreoever, the hallmark of a nutrient is that when it is lowered in concentration its effect is reversible. Fluoride in bone has such a very long half life that it may be considered irreversible through normal biochemical means. It is a chronic cumulative poison, which is why "community water fluoridation" is actually a permanent, chronic bone fluoridation program.. .

 

Second, detailed controlled experiments with mamals in two U.S. labs and one in the U.K. proved that raising animals in the complete absence of fluoride for lifetimes does not cause any adverse condition (as reviewed in: Yiamouyiannis, J., Fluoride, the aging factor, 1985). Hence fluoride is correctly not listed as an essential nutrient. Internet sites exist that claim the opposite but have no basis in fact.

 

Third,  controlled experiments indicate that providing fluoride water to mammals does not decrease the incidence of spontaneous dental caries. The entire idea that somehow fluoride "strengthens" teeth enamel but without actually being able to penetrate into the enamel matrix is false and always has been a false correlation. Correlation of coincidental lower caries rates with fluoride in water does not prove causation, and this is a prime example. Lower caries rates in some areas with fluoride in water were presumed to be related, but were not..

 

Finally, James Deal has stated that he has never taken any fluoride case to court, namely because 1) of the difficulty of dealing with people who believe the myth, such as the person who accuses me of presenting falsehoods on this site, and 2).proving harm from fluorldated water in a victim who was not kept in a cage to know for certain where his fluoride exposure was from, or at least monitoring the person during his chronic exposure, is nearly impossible, other than for dental fluorosis from exposure in youth, which is readily visible. The known effects on increasing TSH levels and elevating both PTH and calcitontin levels simultaneously whilch is pathologic, as published for populations on 1 ppm fluoride in water described in the NRC 2006 Report, are very difficult to exlusively blame in any particular person on drinking water. This is because of other sources of fluoride that could be blamed instead which are difficult to prove never occurred. The legal expense of fighting such cases is prohibitive, when dealing with a low dose chronic very long term poison. In any event, the answer to your ridiculous question is zero funds have been collected from fluoridation lawsuits by James Deal because he has never litigated any. The title of his fluoride class action site, which reflects the hope that one day such a case could be brought to a high court, really bothers some people, but I say, so what?.The truth really hurts, doesn't it?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
267
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
286
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

286 Views
Message 729 of 1,351

David,

 

You don't believe a word I say and refuse to do your homework to find out for yourself.  

 

Contact the EPA yourself.  

 

You are spending a ton of time arguing, but refuse to simply contact the EPA.  They will answer your question.

 

I agree with you, the SDWA is not crystal clear and that is why I contacted the EPA back in 2010 to find out how they interpreted the SDWA.  Their response was unambiguous.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
286
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
316
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

316 Views
Message 730 of 1,351

Dr. Sauerheber says: 

"Also it is not lying to repeat what officials from the EPA or FDA have writen, whether a link to such a written statement exists or not. Truth is not all contained in computer links..

Most people know the SDWA wording that prohibits a national requirement for adding fluoride. But fewer understand that the Act,was written to halt the,spread of water fluoridation ."

 

Dr. S., I will respond to you exactly as I have responded to Dr. Osmunson.  Since I see both of your names plastered all over a website called "Fluoride Class Action," why doesn't your friend, Attorney James Deal take this case to court?  With all this documentation which you claim exists, even though you can't seem to provide evidence of it here, that would seem to be a natural solution.  Isn't that what Attorney Deal is supposed to be doing?

 

https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/

 

By the way, I've asked Dr. Osmunson, but I can't seem to get an answer.  How much money does  Attorney Deal take from prospective clients whom you've made afraid of fluoridated water?  .  .  And how much has he actually collected for them?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
316
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