Open enrollment for the ACA health insurance marketplace ends Saturday! There's still time to sign up or change your plan.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1198
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,198 Views
Message 21 of 47

KF, Wow!  Stalking?  Not really.  You criticized one of my comments for focusing on the law so I went back & took a look at Dr. Sauerheber's comment . . you know, the guy who brought it up in the first place, and I noticed that he had 5 "Kudos."  Since there are only about 5 of you (and two of you may be the same person for all I know), I thought I'd check.  And by golly, sure enough.  The same person who criticized me for dwelling on the SDWA, "Kudo'd" another guy who was guilty of the same "crime," simply because he was helping you push your agenda.  I just brought that up to illustrate your hypocricy.  And I thank you for providing a reason for me to bring it up again. 

 

Ok, I had asked for one documented case of any human being who was harmed in any way from drinking optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime.  And I said that it would be nice if you could provide the successful lawsuit that would have naturally followed from a local government intentionally poisoning its citizens by putting something harmful in their drinking water. 

 

Well, at least you tried.  You provided a link to sworn affidavits from a lawsuit, which was not successful, in which “Safe Water Association” sued Fon du Lac County.  And you had to go back to the Last Century to find this one.   

 

You directed my attention to Page 58, the sworn testimony of Attorney, George W. Kell, who said that he suffered from a kidney tumor because he drank overly-fluoridated water for several years.  (That sounds like correlation to me.)

 

The following is from Mr. Kell’s testimony:

 

4.)  “  .  .  Monterey Park's water, however, contained approximately two to three parts per million of fluoride because Monterey Park water supplies were drawn from deep wells which brought Page | 59 the water up from an area of former volcanic activity.”

 

So, at the start we know that Mr. Kell had not been drinking optimally fluoridated water, 0.7 – 1.0 parts per million F.  He had been drinking water containing much higher concentrations.  I point this out because, even though 2 – 3 ppm is within the allowable limit, no one who fluoridates their water puts that much fluoride in it.  Community water reports are all over the internet.  I challenge you to find one community that artificially fluoridates its water and has that much fluoride in it. 

 

The water that Mr. Kell was drinking was checked for fluoride one time per year.  If Mr. Kell had been drinking water from an artificially fluoridated community, his water would have been analyzed on a daily basis, and the fluoride concentration would have been much less. 

 

Moreover, Mr. Kell provided no documentation that fluoride in his drinking water caused his health problems.  This is Mr. Kell’s statement:

 

19.) “ Based upon the fact that Dr. Dean Burke, PhD, former head of the Cytochemistry Section of the National Health Institute found that there was a 30% increase in gastrointestinal and urinary tract tumors in fluoridated cities, as compared to the demographics of unfluoridated cities; and based upon the fact that it is known that any irritant may cause cancer if it is present in the body long enough, and the further fact that the fluoride used for fluoridation of water is not a natural substance to the body, I believe that it is quite likely that fluoridation is also the cause of my tumor.”

 

A few things about Dr. Burk (misspelled in the affidavit)  Dr. Burk is famous for saying, In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical.”  In point of fact, tobacco causes more cancer than any other substance, according to the World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer  Moreover, the American Cancer Society doesn’t even list fluoride as a known or probable carcinogen.  https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html  Moreover, The National Health Institute, Dr. Burke’s former employer, supports & endorses community water fluoridation. 

 

So what we have here is an attorney, with no medical training, who has provided no medical documentation to support his own belief that his drinking water with several times the optimal level of fluoride caused his health problems. 

 

Moreover, his belief is based on the comments of a once great scientist, Dr. Burk, who, sadly, made some mistakes in his later life.  For example, he also supported the use of Laetrille, which is now known to be ineffective and dangerous. 

 

According to the Affidavit, Attorney Kell had a client, Mr. Riggins who wanted to sue the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (and Mr. Kell says) “for allegedly poisoning him.”  And once again, Mr. Riggins provided his own diagnosis.  He did, however, bring in a Dr.’s report about “chronic fluoride poisoning” from 1968, Fifty Years Ago in the middle of the Last Century!!  But this was the science of the time.

 

Neither of these two men had ever been diagnosed as having been “poisoned” by fluoride by a real physician!!

 

This was the Best You Could Do??

 

Moreover, at the top of this list of Affidavits is this statement:  “Judge Grimm found fluoridation harmful but did not have the power to “enjoin” (forbid) the practice.”

 

This begs the question, if Judge Grimm knew that he did not have the power to “enjoin” the practice, why did he waste everybody’s time and money?  Was there some kind of monetary settlement?  I’m sure if there was you would have presented that as evidence also. 

 

Come on, Karen.  I asked for one documented case of any human being who was ever harmed in any way because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.  You didn’t even give me a medical diagnosis.  Nothing from a real physician even saying these men ever touched fluoride.   This was your best.

 

The short answer is, there are no documented cases of any human beings who have ever had their quality of life diminished because they drank optimally fluoridated water even for their entire lives. 

 

But you go ahead and keep imploring the AARP.  It seems to be your little pet project . . and everybody needs something.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1198
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
1222
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,222 Views
Message 22 of 47

DavidF writes: "please cite one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime.  A documented case, then, would be agreed upon and supported by the medical community.  That’s what documentation does."

 

*****

In his multiple insulting responses, DavidF dismisses my personal testimony, questions my trust-worthiness and reveals that he is stalking me on AARP (he criticizes me for giving a kudo to another post). That’s all in addition to demanding a documented case of someone harmed by fluoridated water that is "agreed upon and supported by the medical community” which he implies means the CDC or their fluoridation promoting associates. 

 

Fluoridation of community water was initiated on short term correlation information with an agenda and with biased information and researchers.  Every “study” DavidF mentioned is correlation, not scientific evidence.  He even used the word correlation.  Those randomized studies he requests following personal testimony are the real hard core, costly studies.  These randomized studies were NEVER initiated to justify water fluoridation, nor were any performed to test the ingestion of toxic by-product, HSFA, and the like.  Ask any dentist: even the pharmaceutical grade fluoridation products used in the dentist office are not approved for ingestion.

 

Each year, the evidence gets stronger against stopping water fluoridation while those who support it just keep changing their rhetoric.  Take dental fluorosis as an example.

 

Prior to 1980s, all dental fluorosis was considered an adverse dental or health effect. Then, at some point in the 1980s the language used was changed to “cosmetic effect" over the objections of EPA scientists (1999 NTEU Paper).   In 2006, after what seems to have been a heated debate, the NRC again listed severe dental fluorosis as an adverse health effect. It appears to be a compromise with a 10 to 2 committee split.  Most of the committee apparently wanted to list moderate fluorosis as an adverse health effect, but settled for listing moderate fluorosis as an adverse dental effect.  

 

The CDC acknowledges that there is more dental fluorosis in fluoridated communities so it is not only a function of kids swallowing toothpaste.   In the 1993 NRC report, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” that committee documented doubled the rate of dental fluorosis in fluoridated communities.  I know of no young adult who is pleased with their ‘spotted’ tooth enamel and ironically, their dentist does not tell them what it is.  Both incidence and severity of dental fluorosis has been increasing with every government surveillance report published by the CDC.  The latest data found 61% of teens have dental fluorosis and 23% of American teens have moderate to severe dental fluorosis, brown mottled disfigured teeth regarded as either an adverse dental effect or adverse health effect according to the definitions of the medical community. Dental fluorosis is worse in environmental justice communities which is why LULACCHEJ and other human rights organizations oppose fluoridation policy.  This should satisfy the conditions DavidF tries to put around his rhetoric. 

 

Beyond teeth, read the sworn 1993 testimonies of 23 experts including doctors. These scientific and medical experts document harm caused to patients and a few testify to personal adverse health effects from fluoridated water supplies. The judge found fluoridation was harmful to health but legal.  Incredible!   What is harmful to health should not get a legal pass.

 

Examples from the 23 expert affidavits:  https://firewaterfilm.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/affidavits-safe-water-assn_plaintiff-vs-fond-du-la...

 

The sworn testimony of George W. Kell, Esq. (pg58) includes both his personal medical history and documents having received medical records from the doctor of his client, Mr. Riggins.  Mr. Riggins was sickened by artificially fluoridated community water.  His doctor documented that fluoridated water was a known risk to those who have reduced kidney function or a history of nephritis or hepatitis and harmful to Mr. Riggins.  15% of Americans have kidney disease.  Reduced kidney function is part of aging which puts senior citizens at increased risk of suffering from fluoride intoxication.  This is potentially life threatening medical harm documented by the medical community that is supported by recent science. (Perera et al. 2018; Martín-Pardillos et al. 2014; Agalakova et al. 2012; Barbier et al. 2010)    

 

John R. Lee, MD (pg76) also offers compelling testimony in 1993 about health risks and the "tortured reasoning" in government agencies that admit fluoride is a health risk but continues to protect fluoridation policy.  Dr. Lee was well published and a member of several health associations and committees in California.   

 

Many, many more compelling testimonies offered in these affidavits will provide good reading for AARP, senior citizens and physicians today.

 

I implore AARP to respond to the testimony of their constituents

Fluoridation is a health hazard for so many, but especially for vulnerable senior citizens. 

 

A Registered Nurse 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1222
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1264
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,264 Views
Message 23 of 47

KF, just as a passing observation, but it is definitely worth noting.  You made the following comment to me: 

 

“Your dismissal of both personal testimony of harm or scientific evidence with your long comments (focusing on analysis of wording in laws or dental studies) has nothing to do with the health experience . . . “

 

In that light, I find it interesting that you would have given a “Kudos” to this comment by Dr. Richard Sauerheber:

 

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits any requirerment to add any substance into public water supplies except for substances needed to sanitize it. If you can't follow the truth (that ingested fluoride causes formation of bone of poor quality when accumulated into bone at any level), then follow the law.
As Graham and Morin published, the SDWA was written specifically to halt the spread of water fluoridation in the U.S. The fact that courts do not support the law is not unusual and is no excuse to ignore the law."  07-07-2018 05:27 PM

 

Aside from the fact that both of his observations are false, (He has brought up some law which he alleges exists in the Safe Drinking Water Act, and a legal opinion from some paid attorney) it is interesting that 8 lines of his 11 line comment are focused on analysis of laws which you claim “has nothing to do with the health experience of those of us for whom fluoridation causes sensitivity, illness, and disability.”  End quote.   08-11-2018 02:07 PM

 

If that’s how you feel about it, that this irrelevant subject has nothing to do with all the suffering that’s going on, I have to wonder why you would give that comment a “Kudos.”  Hmm. .   Perhaps because it doesn’t really matter what’s being said, or what evidence is presented, as long as it supports a particular agenda, then it is valid.  Is that your idea of good science?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1264
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1287
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,287 Views
Message 24 of 47

KF46,

 

You have signed your comments, “A Registered Nurse.” 

 

My wife is a registered nurse and I am very proud of her.  She has worked and studied hard to get where she is now, and she continues to study and work hard.  She understands the scientific method, and she understands medicine enough to know that when she is ill she should seek help from a qualified professional who is able to treat her and document that treatment.    

 

In your comment you said this:  “ . .  those of us for whom fluoridation causes sensitivity, illness, and disability.”

 

You are a registered nurse who claims to suffer from what you call “fluoride sensitivity” which is, presumably, brought about by drinking optimally fluoridated water.  Presumably, because that is the issue at hand.

 

A registered nurse who suffers from fluoride sensitivity, who suffers when he or she drinks optimally fluoridated water, who has become an enough of an activist against water fluoridation that he/she is involved in a campaign to convince the AARP to oppose this health initiative, would have proper documentation at hand to support his/her activism.

 

A registered nurse would not simply throw a few undocumented, anecdotal stories out into the internet, with the hope that they would be believed.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1287
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1163
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,163 Views
Message 25 of 47

KF46, there are a few things wrong with your comment.

 

KF46 . ., your comment:  “In medicine, evidence should be the basis of all science and risk assessment should be the basis of all decision making.”

 

Response:  We are talking about Community Water Fluoridation here, optimally fluoridated water.  Please name one governmental health or scientific agency, the EPA, the CDC, the FDA, . . . anyone who describes optimally fluoridated water as a “medicine.” 

 

KF46:  “Your dismissal of both personal testimony of harm or scientific evidence with your long comments (focusing on analysis of wording in laws or dental studies) has nothing to do with the health experience of those of us for whom fluoridation causes sensitivity, illness, and disability.”

 

Response:  First of all, the only reason I discussed laws (the SDWA), or dental studies was because erroneous statements were made by either Dr. Sauerheber, Dr. Osmunson, or Dr. Limebeck, in the first place.  I was only responding to their false statements and asking for evidence to support them.  If you have a problem with someone discussing the SDWA, talk to the people who brought these issues up in the first place.

 

Moreover, I don’t dismiss personal testimony, as long as it is properly documented and agreed upon by the scientific community.  Nor do I dismiss scientific evidence.  I do, however, dismiss cherry-picked studies, non-peer-reviewed books which claim to have a plethora of “scientific evidence” backing it up in the form of end-notes (like “The Case Against Fluoride), and comments taken out of context in order to support a particular agenda. 

 

KF46:  “There is substantial testimony, as well as science, showing fluoride consumption causes ill effects in some, if not many consumers, especially vulnerable senior citizens and anyone with kidney or thyroid disease.”

 

Response:  There is substantial testimony of alien abductions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction_claimants , but there is no documented evidence of it.  That is why we require documentation.  Aren’t you a registered nurse?  Haven’t you had medical and scientific training?  Don’t you know this already?

 

That being said, please cite one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime.  A documented case, then, would be agreed upon and supported by the medical community.  That’s what documentation does.  It documents the event with solid proof.  Anecdotal stories are not documented evidence.  You are a registered nurse.  Don’t you know this already?

 

KF:  “It did not require high level evidence (only anecdotal) nor scientific studies (incomplete) to approve water fluoridation mid-twentieth century.”

 

Response:  Not true.  Dr. Frederick McKay documented a phenomenon called Colorado Brown Stain in the early part of the 20th Century, and correlated that with stronger resistant to decay.  His observations were well documented.  H. Trendly Dean conducted research examining lower, safer levels of fluoride in water.  He published his research in 1942.  More research by Dr. Gerald Cox was published after that.  All well documented.  There is nothing anecdotal about it.  Shouldn’t a registered nurse be aware of actual documentation of health issues before dismissing something as anecdotal? 

 

So, again, before you bring up issues like UNESCO, please name any U.S. governmental health or scientific agency which identifies optimally fluoridated water as a “drug” or “medicine,” . . and please cite one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime.

 

Along with that documented case, it would be nice if you could cite the successful lawsuit that would have naturally followed because a local government put something harmful in its citizens’ drinking water and poisoned them in some way.  Because if anything would merit a lawsuit, it would be that.  .  After all, we live in a country that is so lawsuit crazy that even the world’s most powerful fast food chain was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot. 

 

More people enjoy the health benefits of optimally fluoridated water in the U.S. than any other place on the planet, and more lawsuits tie up the courts here than anywhere else on earth.  I would think you should be able to find at least one successful lawsuit for health reasons . . with all the harm you are alleging. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1163
Views
Conversationalist
6
Kudos
1251
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,251 Views
Message 26 of 47

DavidF:

 

In medicine, evidence should be the basis of all science and risk assessment should be the basis of all decision making.  Individual health is personal and each person, with their physician, can make decisions affecting individual health. Both evidence and risk assessment begin with observations and testimony.  Your dismissal of both personal testimony of harm or scientific evidence with your long comments (focusing on analysis of wording in laws or dental studies) has nothing to do with the health experience of those of us for whom fluoridation causes sensitivity, illness, and disability. 


There is substantial testimony, as well as science, showing fluoride consumption causes ill effects in some, if not many consumers, especially vulnerable senior citizens and anyone with kidney or thyroid disease. I noted several of those scientific studies in my original testimony in this forum. 

 

It did not require high level evidence (only anecdotal) nor scientific studies (incomplete) to approve water fluoridation mid-twentieth century.  In order to abandon the outdated fluoridation policy today, it takes a greater level of scientific evidence then it took to approve the policy.  On this issue of community water fluoridation, policy has dictated scientific evidence for too long.  Scientific method has gone by the wayside while political will has dictated dental care over individual risk.

 

Fluoridation policy today ignores personal testimony and medical science. Fluoridation policy is mob rule based on political decisions. Fluoridation is an intervention that worsens the physical and mental health of many, perhaps most, senior citizens.  Community Water Fluoridation is an unethical medical mandate. No doctor would continue prescribing a medication that harmed someone - and if by chance he did, the individual can opt to not take the medication.  Adding an unnecessary contaminant to something as essential as water, is criminal at best.  


”In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - Informed Consent in UNESCO documents on Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)  

 

Informed consent is a BASIC medical tenant that community water fluoridation ignores.  Once community leaders understand this, they quickly remove Fluoridation Chemicals.  I would like to see the AARP take a serious look at the outdated fluoridation policy and write a resolution opposing fluoridation like the one written by the League of United Latin American Citizens in 2011:  https://lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2011/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation_Regarding_Forced_Medic...

 

A Registered Nurse

Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
1251
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1231
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,231 Views
Message 27 of 47

Dr. Sauerheber, your comment:  “The SDWA was written with the intent to halt the spread of fluoridation (Graham and Morin, Fluoride litigation, Pace law review FOOTNOTE)” 

 

Response:  The SDWA was not written with the intent to halt water fluoridation. 
As evidence of you far-fetched claim, you cited a footnote from “Graham & Morin.”   You cited a legal opinion written by a paid attorney.  His legal opinion was obviously meaningless, since the law office of Graham & Morin were not able to convince any court of that rather odd interpretation.  You have provided no legitimate proof of that claim. 

 

Let’s look at your original comment:  “The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits any requirerment to add any substance into public water supplies except for substances needed to sanitize it.”   ‎07-07-2018 05:27 PM

 

When I pointed out that Corrosion Control additives are required for populations >50,000, you then said, “Adding corrosion  inhibitors is an allowance for the purpose of reducing toxic metals in treated water systems.  F has nothing to do with that.” 08-10-2018 04:58 PM

 

Response:  I never said it did.  But the fact is your statement was incorrect, whether F has anything to do with it or not. 

 

You also said, “F is not added to purify water. It is added to increase  the F level in blood to affect  teeth.”  08-10-2018 04:39 PM

 

That’s a new one.  Could you please provide any documentation which supports your claim that anyone ever had the intent of adding to water to increase the fluoride level in blood? 

 

 

In another thread, you said water fluoridation was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in Sacramento.  You may see my response to that original claim here:  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2041354#M940

 

Dr. Sauerheber, we can do this until the end of time.  You can continue to make very strange, unsupported claims until the end of time, and I can waste my time trying to refute them.

 

But the bottom line is that the AARP has been given ample evidence to consider your “Demand that the AARP Take Action.”  Again, and again, and again your statements are proven false.  Perhaps it’s time to give it a rest.  Your “Demand” is going nowhere.

 

By the way, what exactly are you a Dr. of?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1231
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
6
Kudos
1236
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,236 Views
Message 28 of 47

Please. There is no sentence that says fluoride infusions are prohibited. There is no separate sentence that prohibits adding food, or all known poisons, all known contaminants, etc. How could you list them all? To exclude them all including the contaminant fluoride, the general all-encompassing statement that prohibits them all was passed by Congress. 

Adding corrosion  inhibitors is an allowance for the purpose of reducing toxic metals in treated water systems. F has nothing  to do with that. F is not added to reduce contaminants. It is a contaminant itself. Arsenic at one time was used as a drug treatment and F is now used by some as a treatment, but both are contaminant toxic substances. Arsenic has been dealt with finally, but fluoride is still at large in spite of the SDWA that prohibits it from being required in water (because it does not belong in normal pristine clean fresh drinking water). Water is a required dietary ingredient. Fluoride is not. As stated before, the total absence of F has no pathologic consequence because F is not a nutrient.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
1236
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
6
Kudos
1185
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,185 Views
Message 29 of 47

I am on vacation in Alaska and only have limited sporadic access to this conversation. The accusation that I am avoiding answering questions is incorrect.

The SDWA was written with the intent to halt the spread of fluoridation (Graham and Morin, Fluoride litigation, Pace law review FOOTNOTE) Key provisions in the act are 1) no national requirement may be made for any substance added into water other than to sanitize water. And 2) the States can be no less restrictive.

F is not added to purify water. It is added to increase  the F level in blood to affect  teeth. It is added to treat humans and it is now a national program authorized or at least recommended by the Federal CDC (who cannot require it) .

The SDWA was based on the original Water Pollution Control Act whose mission (section 101A) is to maintain the natural chemistry of U. S. drinking water. Removing natural arsenic when high is ailowed of course and other toxic substances. But adding any nonessential chemical (unrelated to sanitizing water) into water is a crime. 

The original congressional approved statutes in the SDWA did not make any allowance for F and in fact were written to halt the spread of fluoridation. F is an EPA recognized contaminant, not an essential nutrient, has no physiological role in man, and instead accumulates during lifelong ingestion in bones as a contaminant that alters the structure of bone in a pathological manner. 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
1185
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1166
Views

Re: Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

1,166 Views
Message 30 of 47

Dr. Limebeck,

 

Thank you for bringing up the 2006 National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water in which you participated as a member. 

 

I believe toxicologist, Dr. John Doull Chaired that Committee.  Please correct me if that is wrong.  

 

According to Dr. Doull:  “I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level.”

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1166
Views