I've been hearing about this issue with fluoride lately, something about making people dumber along with other negative effects. Is there any truth to this or is it just paranoia?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I welcome you.....to the pure world I have forged.
I've been hearing about this issue with fluoride lately, something about making people dumber along with other negative effects. Is there any truth to this or is it just paranoia?
As in flouride in water and toothpaste? Radically unfounded.
As mad mat notes, if someone gave you a glass of pure flouride you should probably decline to drink it. But in the minute doses you get it in, it helps keep teeth strong.
But they also mention that it builds up in the body over time (at least that's what they say), and that is the way the toxin builds. I'm not sure if it's true though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I welcome you.....to the pure world I have forged.
But they also mention that it builds up in the body over time (at least that's what they say), and that is the way the toxin builds. I'm not sure if it's true though.
That's not really true, it's more of a conspiracy theory. You can drink 10l of Flouridated Water a day with no ill side effects, meaning your body can flush it out pretty easily. So unless you're drinking the equivalent of 5 large bottles (2L) of soda of flouridated water a day, you're not having any build-up.
You should also be aware that some amount of fluoride in water sources is naturally occurring, and can even exceed the recommended amount in certain regions.
Remember: the dosage makes the poison. The amount added to our water supply is far, far less than the amount required to do harm. Although, yes, Fluoride can have detrimental effects at high enough dosage.
If you look at F location on the periodic table of elements,it is the bully of all the elements under it. For this reason F acts as an endocrine disruptor by uptaking to the thyroid and kicking iodine to the side. This causes hypothroidism. Obesity, depression, sleep issues, all can be part of a thyroid disorder. The number one prescribed drug between July 2013-June 2014 was synthroid with 22.6 million prescriptions used to treat hypothroidism.
I avoid as much F as possible. It is impossible because it is in most city waters. Small doses can have the largest biological effect on the body. This is how many pharmaceuticals work.
There is a lot of scandal revolving around the history of F. It was supposed to be a 10yr trial in 1945. Because of the popularity of the program other cities began the practice in 1946 without having the data for adverse effects. Numerous issues of cancer have been brought up or documented over the years and people have been fired from positions for not agreeing with the 'status quo' that F is safe and effective. There is not one biological function that needs F and no disease caused by a lack of F. Phosphate and aluminum companies have over 280, 000 tons of hydrofluosilicic acid that can not be discharge from smoke stacks. H2SiF6 is then sold to cities to use this industrial chemical contaminated with arsenic, treating or preventing tooth decay in people who eat sugar.
If you look at F location on the periodic table of elements,it is the bully of all the elements under it. For this reason F acts as an endocrine disruptor by uptaking to the thyroid and kicking iodine to the side. This causes hypothroidism. Obesity, depression, sleep issues, all can be part of a thyroid disorder. The number one prescribed drug between July 2013-June 2014 was synthroid with 22.6 million prescriptions used to treat hypothroidism.
Biochemistry is vastly more complicated than just what you learned in high school. I'm no expert myself, but I can read a scientific paper. Fluoride does not directly compete with iodide in the thyroid, as the ion is smaller (source). What it does seem to do is complicate the effects of iodine deficiency - in sufficiently large doses. No effect is observed for low or recommended levels. Please note that this is a survey of controlled medical studies, not the wildly uncontrolled superficial observation that Synthroid was the most prescribed drug for a year. (The most prescribed drug now is apparently rosuvastatin, for high cholesterol. Should we conclude that fluoridation causes this too?)
Numerous issues of cancer have been brought up or documented over the years and people have been fired from positions for not agreeing with the 'status quo' that F is safe and effective.
Uselessly vague. I can just as easily say that "people" have been fired from positions for claiming that the four-dimensional lizard people are infecting humans with cancer. This demonstrates nothing, because (a) there is nothing to show that these people and their claims actually exist, and (b) even if they do exist, there is nothing to show that they weren't absolutely right to be fired because what they were saying was crazy. To be persuasive, you need to supply us with some specifics of who had this experience and why they should be believed over the consensus of the scientific community.
What's the deal with this thread? I have absolutely no references that I can cite, but I've definitely heard stories of it making people dumber. Perhaps through its supposed effects on the brain?
Okay, well, in case you don't know, uncited, secondhand, anecdotal statements are not normally considered to have probative value when we're trying to learn scientific facts. We've all heard stories that fluorine is responsible for all sorts of maladies. We've also heard stories that black cats are responsible for all sorts of maladies. The way we determine whether or not these stories have any truth to them is by asking for and carefully examining the evidence. Without evidence, they are just stories.
As far as fluoride and brain damage goes, the evidence seems suggestive but not conclusive. And please note again that this is for high levels of fluoride - levels that are dangerous for other reasons. Put it this way: if you were to straight-up drink fluoride, it's not brain damage that would kill you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If you look at F location on the periodic table of elements,it is the bully of all the elements under it. For this reason F acts as an endocrine disruptor by uptaking to the thyroid and kicking iodine to the side. This causes hypothroidism. Obesity, depression, sleep issues, all can be part of a thyroid disorder. The number one prescribed drug between July 2013-June 2014 was synthroid with 22.6 million prescriptions used to treat hypothroidism.
That's a whole lot of leaps right there. You've yet to establish that flouridated water is the cause of those hypothyroid cases.
I avoid as much F as possible. It is impossible because it is in most city waters. Small doses can have the largest biological effect on the body. This is how many pharmaceuticals work.
What? Saying 'this is how something works' doesn't make it so. That's the kind of nonsense that makes homeopathy so popular.
There is a lot of scandal revolving around the history of F. It was supposed to be a 10yr trial in 1945. Because of the popularity of the program other cities began the practice in 1946 without having the data for adverse effects.
And yet, we've had 70 years since then and there has been what? One study? And it's just a correlation study at that, it doesn't make any claims about causation. It looks at UK's population (Urban and Suburban) and looks at Hypothyroidism rates... except pretty much every major urban city has flouride in the water, while most small rural towns probably don't. I could make a correlation between the number of cabs and hypothyroidism, too.
People who live in cities consume all sorts of junk on a daily basis. Diabetes has a much higher prevalence there as well, and is much more likely to be the cause of the upswing in Hypothyroidism.
Numerous issues of cancer have been brought up or documented over the years and people have been fired from positions for not agreeing with the 'status quo' that F is safe and effective.
So you're saying for 70 years there has been a global flouride conspiracy? And yet, in all that time there has been one serious public health study, published a month ago. Jesus, even the oil companies couldn't hide lead for that long and you're telling me flouride advocates can manage it?
There is not one biological function that needs F and no disease caused by a lack of F. Phosphate and aluminum companies have over 280, 000 tons of hydrofluosilicic acid that can not be discharge from smoke stacks. H2SiF6 is then sold to cities to use this industrial chemical contaminated with arsenic, treating or preventing tooth decay in people who eat sugar.
This is all entirely nonsense. You know, I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and went to all those crazy 'health' websites where they make outlandish claims about flouride. But you know what, every single time they made outlandish claims about 'overwhelming evidence'. Only one (out of about 5 or 6) actually cited their 'overwhelming evidence' So I followed the 'footnote' for that overwhelming evidence.
Guess where it took me? A CDC list of statistics, which doesn't even mention flouride is is just a rote listing of numbers. Except, if you're not quick on the uptake and can't kick nonsense to the side, you might not realize it doesn't actually prove anything.
Oh, but they're real quick to sell you their 'natural' supplements on all those websites. Your purchases make their scams possible! And is why the 'Alternative' Medicine field is so lucrative.
Come back here with evidence, rather than just outlandish claims, and we can discuss why you're wrong and I can help you not be taken in by nonsense and common schemes.
Protip: If a website advertises for a product it touts, or rails against a product that it just so happens to have a substitute for, you're better off finding your factual information elsewhere. For that same reason, ignore Dr. Oz completely.
Okay, well, in case you don't know, uncited, secondhand, anecdotal statements are not normally considered to have probative value when we're trying to learn scientific facts. We've all heard stories that fluorine is responsible for all sorts of maladies. We've also heard stories that black cats are responsible for all sorts of maladies. The way we determine whether or not these stories have any truth to them is by asking for and carefully examining the evidence. Without evidence, they are just stories.
As far as fluoride and brain damage goes, the evidence seems suggestive but not conclusive. And please note again that this is for high levels of fluoride - levels that are dangerous for other reasons. Put it this way: if you were to straight-up drink fluoride, it's not brain damage that would kill you.
Sorry, I usually stay away from WCT/Debate, so that was my fault for choosing my words poorly. The tone of my post was supposed to be more "why is this thread still going?" and less "I agree with OP -- dis bad."
I'm fully aware of how to evaluate scientific claims and knowing the difference between an anecdotal observation and higher-level evidence. I guess I was expecting something a little more substantive in the way of content from the opening statement, is all, and my attempt at snark backfired. Carry on!
It was just something that scared me is all. I'm not particularly good at research and fact checking, weakness of mine that hurt me here. Sorry about that. Although something else that comes up is calcification of the pineal gland and something regarding spirituality.
I've been hearing about this issue with fluoride lately, something about making people dumber along with other negative effects. Is there any truth to this or is it just paranoia?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this one of the articles of interest?
+1 Roland does 1 damage to up to 6 target creatures, players or plainswalkers.
-2 Roland twirls a bullet casing. Tap all opponents creatures.
-11 Reset life totals to 20 x the number of activations of this ability. Begin a new game shuffling all cards into owners decks except for Roland who remains in play.
It was just something that scared me is all. I'm not particularly good at research and fact checking, weakness of mine that hurt me here. Sorry about that. Although something else that comes up is calcification of the pineal gland and something regarding spirituality.
If it mentions spirituality, it isn't scientific. Look at my 'protip' above as well, always be aware of how the people pushing information at you are making their money.
I've been hearing about this issue with fluoride lately, something about making people dumber along with other negative effects. Is there any truth to this or is it just paranoia?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this one of the articles of interest?
Oh, good! So I do want to address this one. It's impossible to tell whether the spike in ADHD during the 90's was because there was a genuine 'cause', or because it got a ton of press, and every parent with a kid doing badly in school or who behaved poorly was brought to their Primary Care Physician to check and have their kids put on Ritalin. Except, ADHD is a mental health disorder, something PCP's aren't really trained on, but they were able to prescribe Ritalin.
Scroll down, and you'll see Newsweek interviewed a lot of people who were overstating the relevance of the link, and how the authors of the study themselves were very cautious to not imply causation. Correlation does not imply causation, just because two things are seemingly linked doesn't make them cause and effect. If you're starting at 1992, and look at the rates of internet usage compared to ADHD, you'd find a link there too.
Here is the thing, when doctors aren't looking for something, they generally don't diagnose it. When ADHD was big in the public consciousness in the mid to late 90's, a lot more docs were looking for it and diagnosing it, for a variety of reasons. But they can't go back in time and diagnose it for all those times they missed it. Which is why you'll often see spikes in diagnoses for things like this, and you always have to be aware of the cultural impact on data like that.
Well this seems to have good evidence of it's effect on the brain.
Don't trust that website. They're purposefully misleading and many of their 'references' lead to other articles on their own site that they don't cite the sources for. I even tried following some of the links and a few key ones that didn't point to their own website were broken. OR they link to something that doesn't actually prove their point, like the previous article I dismantled.
That said, flouride IS toxic. But only in large doses. The amount of flouride you are getting from an American flouridated water supply is well below that threshold.
Now, if you want to talk Flouride simply not being as effective as it was touted to be, I'm all ears.
BUt they cite the studies in the page, doesn't that mean something?
Not if it's impossible to find the studies. And I'm not going to take their word for what the studies say, as their scholarship elsewhere is questionable at best.
Also they mentioned how in European countries that don't fluoridate, the drop in tooth decay was the same as in countries that did it.
This is an entirely separate discussion. Fluoride's efficacy isn't the same issue as flouride's negative health effects.
At the very least, this literature review came to the conclusion that it's still the best solution when balanced with the access to dental care. The effectiveness of the strategy has certainly diminished over time as better access to good dental care has become available, but that doesn't mean flouride itself isn't effective.
Not if it's impossible to find the studies. And I'm not going to take their word for what the studies say, as their scholarship elsewhere is questionable at best.
Just to be fair, they do list the ~43 studies at the bottom of their webpage (most of which are actually quite easy to find) and quote text directly from those publications. That being said, most of these reports come from journals with very poor impact factors (< 1.0), some of which aren't even indexed in common databases like PubMed, EMBASE or the Cochrane library (e.g., Fluoride, Journal of Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, etc), so take that for what you will.
These were mostly small epidemiological studies in non-industrialized regions, where fluoride levels in groundwater far exceed what we typically see in our own municipal water sources. Until we have more rigorously-defined studies in higher-impact peer-reviewed journals, it's going to be hard to generalize any results to a broader population.
These were mostly small epidemiological studies in non-industrialized regions, where fluoride levels in groundwater far exceed what we typically see in our own municipal water sources. Until we have more rigorously-defined studies in higher-impact peer-reviewed journals, it's going to be hard to generalize any results to a broader population.
Fair enough.
You're right that this specific website does list the studies, but again they're all about toxic flouride contamination, which I mentioned earlier.
As in flouride in water and toothpaste? Radically unfounded.
As mad mat notes, if someone gave you a glass of pure flouride you should probably decline to drink it. But in the minute doses you get it in, it helps keep teeth strong.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Remember: the dosage makes the poison. The amount added to our water supply is far, far less than the amount required to do harm. Although, yes, Fluoride can have detrimental effects at high enough dosage.
I avoid as much F as possible. It is impossible because it is in most city waters. Small doses can have the largest biological effect on the body. This is how many pharmaceuticals work.
There is a lot of scandal revolving around the history of F. It was supposed to be a 10yr trial in 1945. Because of the popularity of the program other cities began the practice in 1946 without having the data for adverse effects. Numerous issues of cancer have been brought up or documented over the years and people have been fired from positions for not agreeing with the 'status quo' that F is safe and effective. There is not one biological function that needs F and no disease caused by a lack of F. Phosphate and aluminum companies have over 280, 000 tons of hydrofluosilicic acid that can not be discharge from smoke stacks. H2SiF6 is then sold to cities to use this industrial chemical contaminated with arsenic, treating or preventing tooth decay in people who eat sugar.
Biochemistry is vastly more complicated than just what you learned in high school. I'm no expert myself, but I can read a scientific paper. Fluoride does not directly compete with iodide in the thyroid, as the ion is smaller (source). What it does seem to do is complicate the effects of iodine deficiency - in sufficiently large doses. No effect is observed for low or recommended levels. Please note that this is a survey of controlled medical studies, not the wildly uncontrolled superficial observation that Synthroid was the most prescribed drug for a year. (The most prescribed drug now is apparently rosuvastatin, for high cholesterol. Should we conclude that fluoridation causes this too?)
No. It is how the fraudulent practice of homeopathy allegedly works. In real life, larger doses produce larger effects.
Uselessly vague. I can just as easily say that "people" have been fired from positions for claiming that the four-dimensional lizard people are infecting humans with cancer. This demonstrates nothing, because (a) there is nothing to show that these people and their claims actually exist, and (b) even if they do exist, there is nothing to show that they weren't absolutely right to be fired because what they were saying was crazy. To be persuasive, you need to supply us with some specifics of who had this experience and why they should be believed over the consensus of the scientific community.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Seriously.
Oh.
Okay, well, in case you don't know, uncited, secondhand, anecdotal statements are not normally considered to have probative value when we're trying to learn scientific facts. We've all heard stories that fluorine is responsible for all sorts of maladies. We've also heard stories that black cats are responsible for all sorts of maladies. The way we determine whether or not these stories have any truth to them is by asking for and carefully examining the evidence. Without evidence, they are just stories.
As far as fluoride and brain damage goes, the evidence seems suggestive but not conclusive. And please note again that this is for high levels of fluoride - levels that are dangerous for other reasons. Put it this way: if you were to straight-up drink fluoride, it's not brain damage that would kill you.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What? Saying 'this is how something works' doesn't make it so. That's the kind of nonsense that makes homeopathy so popular.
And yet, we've had 70 years since then and there has been what? One study? And it's just a correlation study at that, it doesn't make any claims about causation. It looks at UK's population (Urban and Suburban) and looks at Hypothyroidism rates... except pretty much every major urban city has flouride in the water, while most small rural towns probably don't. I could make a correlation between the number of cabs and hypothyroidism, too.
People who live in cities consume all sorts of junk on a daily basis. Diabetes has a much higher prevalence there as well, and is much more likely to be the cause of the upswing in Hypothyroidism.
So you're saying for 70 years there has been a global flouride conspiracy? And yet, in all that time there has been one serious public health study, published a month ago. Jesus, even the oil companies couldn't hide lead for that long and you're telling me flouride advocates can manage it?
This is all entirely nonsense. You know, I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and went to all those crazy 'health' websites where they make outlandish claims about flouride. But you know what, every single time they made outlandish claims about 'overwhelming evidence'. Only one (out of about 5 or 6) actually cited their 'overwhelming evidence' So I followed the 'footnote' for that overwhelming evidence.
Guess where it took me? A CDC list of statistics, which doesn't even mention flouride is is just a rote listing of numbers. Except, if you're not quick on the uptake and can't kick nonsense to the side, you might not realize it doesn't actually prove anything.
Oh, but they're real quick to sell you their 'natural' supplements on all those websites. Your purchases make their scams possible! And is why the 'Alternative' Medicine field is so lucrative.
Come back here with evidence, rather than just outlandish claims, and we can discuss why you're wrong and I can help you not be taken in by nonsense and common schemes.
Protip: If a website advertises for a product it touts, or rails against a product that it just so happens to have a substitute for, you're better off finding your factual information elsewhere. For that same reason, ignore Dr. Oz completely.
Lol, exactly.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Sorry, I usually stay away from WCT/Debate, so that was my fault for choosing my words poorly. The tone of my post was supposed to be more "why is this thread still going?" and less "I agree with OP -- dis bad."
I'm fully aware of how to evaluate scientific claims and knowing the difference between an anecdotal observation and higher-level evidence. I guess I was expecting something a little more substantive in the way of content from the opening statement, is all, and my attempt at snark backfired. Carry on!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this one of the articles of interest?
http://www.newsweek.com/water-fluoridation-linked-higher-adhd-rates-312748
-2 Roland twirls a bullet casing. Tap all opponents creatures.
-11 Reset life totals to 20 x the number of activations of this ability. Begin a new game shuffling all cards into owners decks except for Roland who remains in play.
Well this seems to have good evidence of it's effect on the brain.
Oh, good! So I do want to address this one. It's impossible to tell whether the spike in ADHD during the 90's was because there was a genuine 'cause', or because it got a ton of press, and every parent with a kid doing badly in school or who behaved poorly was brought to their Primary Care Physician to check and have their kids put on Ritalin. Except, ADHD is a mental health disorder, something PCP's aren't really trained on, but they were able to prescribe Ritalin.
Scroll down, and you'll see Newsweek interviewed a lot of people who were overstating the relevance of the link, and how the authors of the study themselves were very cautious to not imply causation. Correlation does not imply causation, just because two things are seemingly linked doesn't make them cause and effect. If you're starting at 1992, and look at the rates of internet usage compared to ADHD, you'd find a link there too.
Here is the thing, when doctors aren't looking for something, they generally don't diagnose it. When ADHD was big in the public consciousness in the mid to late 90's, a lot more docs were looking for it and diagnosing it, for a variety of reasons. But they can't go back in time and diagnose it for all those times they missed it. Which is why you'll often see spikes in diagnoses for things like this, and you always have to be aware of the cultural impact on data like that.
Don't trust that website. They're purposefully misleading and many of their 'references' lead to other articles on their own site that they don't cite the sources for. I even tried following some of the links and a few key ones that didn't point to their own website were broken. OR they link to something that doesn't actually prove their point, like the previous article I dismantled.
That said, flouride IS toxic. But only in large doses. The amount of flouride you are getting from an American flouridated water supply is well below that threshold.
Now, if you want to talk Flouride simply not being as effective as it was touted to be, I'm all ears.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Also they mentioned how in European countries that don't fluoridate, the drop in tooth decay was the same as in countries that did it.
This is an entirely separate discussion. Fluoride's efficacy isn't the same issue as flouride's negative health effects.
At the very least, this literature review came to the conclusion that it's still the best solution when balanced with the access to dental care. The effectiveness of the strategy has certainly diminished over time as better access to good dental care has become available, but that doesn't mean flouride itself isn't effective.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Just to be fair, they do list the ~43 studies at the bottom of their webpage (most of which are actually quite easy to find) and quote text directly from those publications. That being said, most of these reports come from journals with very poor impact factors (< 1.0), some of which aren't even indexed in common databases like PubMed, EMBASE or the Cochrane library (e.g., Fluoride, Journal of Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, etc), so take that for what you will.
These were mostly small epidemiological studies in non-industrialized regions, where fluoride levels in groundwater far exceed what we typically see in our own municipal water sources. Until we have more rigorously-defined studies in higher-impact peer-reviewed journals, it's going to be hard to generalize any results to a broader population.
You're right that this specific website does list the studies, but again they're all about toxic flouride contamination, which I mentioned earlier.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath