Is your 'stuff' stressing you out? TV personality Matt Paxton has tips for downsizing and decluttering in our free, two-part webinar! Register now.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
798
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

798 Views
Message 761 of 1,306

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
798
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
797
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

797 Views
Message 762 of 1,306

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
797
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
820
Views

Re: Fluoride - Several unanswered questions

820 Views
Message 763 of 1,306

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
820
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
833
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

833 Views
Message 764 of 1,306

But it is completely rational to oppose a fluoridation promoter who continues to endorse increased fluorosis incidence in U. S. children if he is discussing  treatments for the fluorosis he endorses. This is a gross conflict of interest. 

And it is rational to not oppose a man who  discusses treating fluorosis who also fights against fluoridation that causes it. 

If you can't see that then I can't likely help you. 

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. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
833
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
855
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

855 Views
Message 765 of 1,306

Dr. S.,

 

Yes you "explained" it.  The question was, "Do you know of any other scholar who deceptively does it?"

 

I never said you "have no right to claim he is good at organic gardening."  Maybe you should apologize to me.  

 

RS:  "Why would I argue with a person who already understands the truth, that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis?"

 

Answer:  So that we don't think of you as a hypocrite.  You jumped all over Dr. Johnson about that because of your inability to read what he had written.  You said, "A fluoridation promoter requests that dental enamel fluorosis, which is abnormally thin enamel, be treated with abrasion."  ‎09-05-2018 06:51 PM

 

I guess it doesn't matter What is said.  The only thing that matters to you is Who says it.  That makes you a hypocrite.  If Dr. Johnson says it, you "can't believe what you are hearing."  If Dr. Limebeck says the same thing, he "understands the truth."  

 

Frankly, I can't remember ever reading more blatant hypocricy. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
855
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
811
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

811 Views
Message 766 of 1,306

But you have not apologized for the false claim that since Deal doesn't list organic gardening on his website then I have no right to claim he is good at organic gardening.

And I already answered my affiliations with UCSD (alma mater, alumni association, the late Dr. Benson coworker, and the Chemistry department faculty). I also described why letters I write list UCSD as the location of my degrees. I wasa asked to do that and there is nothing wrong with it.

 

Why would I argue with a person who already understands the truth, that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis? Those opposed to fluoride are already tryinhg to halt dental fluorosis properly. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
811
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
808
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

808 Views
Message 767 of 1,306

Dr. Sauerheber,

 

Your inability to read is manifesting itself again.  Dr. Johnson was referring to a Dr. Limebeck's (a fluoride opponent) paper on microabrasion.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16674673

 

Perhaps you should criticize your fellow anti-fluoridationist who wrote a paper on the subject in the first place.  

 

By the way, you never answered the question.  On this paper you list your affiliation with UCSD.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract 

 

UCSD was simply your alma mater.  They did not publish your work and they did not fund your research.  I had asked you if you knew of any other scholar who listed his place of graduation as his affiliated university.

 

For example, Carl Sagan listed Cornell on his work because Cornell published his material and funded his research.  He graduated from the University of Chicago, but we don't see this on any of his work.  

 

So, do you know of any other scholar who deceptively lists his alma mater on scholarly material as though that institution funded & was responsible for the work?

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
808
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
803
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

803 Views
Message 768 of 1,306

I don't believe what I'm hearing. A fluoridation promoter requests that dental enamel fluorosis, which is abnormally thin enamel, be treated with abrasion. In other words, don't bother fixing the cause of this problem by halting fluoridated water ingestion in childhood, but instead let's just treat the symptoms after they appear so the teeth will visibly look better while even losing more enamel.

Similar illogic is used when prescribing certain drugs to achieve a normal level of a body component such as high glucose from overeating sugar, so then you have two problems, the original cause of the high glucose plus the drug side effects. 

When a cause can be corrected, correct it. Don't leave it there and treat its effects. In other words,  eat less sugar and one won't need the drug. And stop eating fluoride and no one would need the treatment for fluorosis.

What a sick joke.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
803
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
827
Views

Re: Fluoride and Cancer

827 Views
Message 769 of 1,306

Hey Bill,

 

Why didn't you hang around in Potsdam, NY last night after your fluoridation presentation by Skype?  You missed out on the best part of the presentation.  

 

1. How you have the intestinal fortitude to show mild fluorosis that you've cut down and put veneers over at the cost of $10-15,000 (your numbers) is a sin.  Why don't you ask your buddy Hardy Limeback about what he teaches and promotes as a conservative alternative to mild fluorosis?  He would tell you to use microabrasion to remove these areas if people even asked to have it addressed.  

 

Hardy has told me that "you Americans" put veneers over these areas as we aren't taught microabrasion.  Well, I guess that you've made him correct.

 

Have you ever considered bleaching a patient's teeth and/or microabrasion?  

 

2.  It was very interesting how you, like FAN and other fluoridation opponents, avoid commenting or even acknowledging the National Toxicolog Program's Report which showed absolutely no IQ or neurological deficits, or any effects of any of the 9 areas that they studied?  YOU pushed, praised and hailed this study that would be the one to end fluoridation.  As you know, this prestigious group is not stacked with pro-fluoridation scientists.

 

The NTP looked at fluoride levels in water that the rats were given at 0ppm, 10ppm, and 20ppm.  As you know, this coorelated to fluoride levels in water for humans of 0.7ppm (community water fluoridation) and at the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level of 4mg/L (ppm).  No neurological issues from fluoride whatsoever.  Why not just comment on it, Bill?  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29404855

 

Incidentally, Israel voted to restart fluoridation and is going throught the steps to do so.  You again misrepresented this fact last night stating that they voted it out without stating that they voted it back in. 

 

3.  You should learn the difference between Severe Early Childhood Caries (S-ECC) and Early Childhood Caries (ECC) if you are to continue seeing children as you stated that you do.  Those slides that you showed, which happen to be almost exactly the ones that Paul Connett shows, is Severe Early Childhood Caries.  These are distinctly different.  Making claims about community water fluoridation and S-ECC is incorrect.  You should be speaking about water fluoridation and ECC.  As a matter of information, community water fluoridation reduces hospitalization under general anesthetic for full mouth rehabilitation of children with ECC by 2/3rds to 3/4ths.  If you need the references for these studies conducted in the U.S., U.K., and Israel, I can supply them to you for your next presentation.

 

Maybe sometime you can actually come to one of these meetings instead of Skyping in like you did last night and in Cortland, NY.  We can then face off in testimony and you'll have to back up your abuse of the credible science,  unlike we, the American Fluoridation Society, uses the credibly conducted science to help decision-makers make educated, informed decisions.  That would be fun.  

 

Best wishes,

 

Johnny 

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society (AFS), a non-profit all volunteer group of healthcare professionals that do not accept a penny for what they do.  AFS is funded by Delta Dental of California's Education and Research Fund.

www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.org

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
827
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
814
Views

Re: Fluoride and Cancer

814 Views
Message 770 of 1,306

Hi Chuck,

Sorry it has taken a bit for me to get back to your comment.  I wanted to get some research on fluoride and cancer on the table.  

(Your comment in italics)

 

Chuck:  "The final nail on the box dismissing the cancer claims was the 2011 California Carcinogen ID Committee determination by unanimous vote that fluoride does not cause cancer at ANY concentration."  

Bill:  Committee was biased.

 

Nothing in science is nailed shut.  Beware of any suggestion that science is static. No scientist is satisfied with research. 

 

There are several ways to achieve the desired results with research reviews.  For example, suppose Ford wanted to know which pickup truck is the best pickup truck.  Simply, ask each Ford dealer what make is their favorite pickup truck.  The results are in the sampling.  

 

How many scientists on the California Carcinogen ID Committee were opposed to fluoridation and how many in favor when the committee was formed?  How was the committee charged and the scope, etc.

 

  The NRC 2006 committee asked three people who were neutral or opposed to fluoridation to be on the committee and the results were of greater concern and caution, with specific recommendations which the EPA has still not followed.   

 

Chuck: "California has all of the submissions made to the committee for consideration, including those from Fluoride Action Network and other opponents here:

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cic092311.html

No systematic review before or since has found fluoridation related to cancer cases. Why would America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians and Internal Medicine specialists advocate for fluoridation if it causes cancer?"

 

Bill:  No ethical person would intentionally cause cancer in humans.  And no ethical person without bias, reading the research would be comfortable giving everyone an uncontrolled dosage (not everyone drinks 1 liter of water a day up to 10 mg more fluoride/day) of fluoridated water when they don't know anything about the patient or have the patient's consent or know how much fluoride the patient is getting from other sources. 

 

A person supporting fluoridation is recommending giving everyone up to 7 -10 mg of fluoride a day.  Would you put your professional license on the line and write a prescription for everyone without them being a patient of record for 7 or 10 mg/day of fluoride?  

 

Science is not a belief system.   Church has the nails in the cross/coffin.  Science has no nails in any theory.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
814
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet