U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-19-2019, 12:33 PM
 
67 posts, read 13,808 times
Reputation: 68

Advertisements

Daily Beast, which knew everything, seems a little unnerved by it:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fluori...ediatrics-says

It correlates with the latest from Harvard and NIH:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?te...89/ehp.1104912
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2019, 08:22 PM
 
11,301 posts, read 2,953,482 times
Reputation: 7604
Its pretty scary what they say about this being the ONLY time they have decided to create an 'editors note' in regards to a controversial finding...so I guess that means, normally, they would just go ahead and withhold study details from the public (if the findings were not in line with the current/popular narrative!!)


They used to give us fluoride twice a week in grade school, they lied to us outright and told us it was to benefit our dental health....of course, many years later, talking with teachers back then, even they admit this was a lie, they had other reasons for giving us Fluoride back then. (but those would have been way too controversial to be honest about).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 09:08 PM
 
620 posts, read 325,566 times
Reputation: 1806
Hi all,
I have no dog in this fight. I just want to make two points, one with respect to the second of eastriver's links, the other after checking the JAMA-Pediatrics article:

1)The first link eastriver provides is to the Daily Beast article, the other is to an NIH study. I have nothing to say about the Daily Beast article. The NIH study is a meta-analysis, that is, it is an analysis of multiple other analyses. Social scientists also use meta-analyses, but they are hard to use well, for the reasons I outline as follows. What a meta-analyst does is collect all the studies that have been published on a topic, and then they assess (in this case) whether the average finding is for or against a negative affect of flouride. Not really a bad idea . . . BUT. The problem is, not every study gets published. And, papers that have findings the establishment does not expect are more likely to be submitted for publication and thus are more likely to make it into journals. Why? Because when academics find something we (think we) already know, they don't write a paper on it, they move on, because there's no career value to publishing a paper saying "Yeah, for the 2,000th time--no negative effect of flouride." [Note: Often people obtain such "obvious" findings in passing--they control for flouride, while studying something else. Few set out to study flouride.] So, meta-analyses are not definitive if you can't address what is called the "File drawer" problem--when academics find ho-hum results, they drop it in the file drawer and move on. Those studies--and there could be thousands--are missing from the meta-analysis. Thus, the meta-analysis is biased toward finding the unexpected under most conditions.

2)I skimmed the paper and, if this thread grows, I'll read it unless someone else does and assesses it. The term is starting, and I don't have time to do it now. I will note that the study reports the following IQ averages for 3-4 year olds in the study:

Effect of exposure to flouride in the womb for boys: from -0.60 IQ points to -8.38 IQ points
Effect of exposure to flouride in the womb for girls: from -2.51 IQ points to +7.36 IQ points

So, this analysis says boys lose, and girls we can't say but maybe they gain. Hmm. The average "effect" of flouride on boys IQ is -4.49. Another interesting gap in the study is as follows:

Boys average IQ: 104.61
Girls average IQ: 109.56
Boys in relation to Girls: -4.95

So, boys lose more IQ points in the womb by becoming boys than they lose by exposure to flouride. If one thinks flouride is a cognitive health disaster, then I suppose a bigger disaster is becoming a boy.

Before we start killing boy babies, maybe what we are really learning is this analysis is odd. Something seems awry. Alas, I can't look at it more closely now, but at this point I'm okay advising people continuing to drink mildly flouridated water--including pregnant people. If the evidence changes, I'll update. And, as always, people can do what they want. There's always bottled water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 10:08 PM
 
21,461 posts, read 14,233,502 times
Reputation: 15027
Just so people know; sodium fluoride is poisonous. It was used until rather recently as a common insecticide and rodentcide, and may still be for all one knows.

Horrifying asylum kitchen mix-up left dozens dead | Offbeat Oregon History | #ORhistory

Dosage needed to harm or kill a human isn't very large. That is one reason for those warnings on toothpastes with fluoride about not swallowing, and monitoring children under a certain age when using.

Depending upon which camp you believe; fluoride in drinking water and toothpaste is either a huge public health risk, or one of the greatest public health things since antibiotics.

https://bebrainfit.com/fluoride-neurotoxin/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 11:31 PM
 
620 posts, read 325,566 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Just so people know; sodium fluoride is poisonous. It was used until rather recently as a common insecticide and rodentcide, and may still be for all one knows.

Horrifying asylum kitchen mix-up left dozens dead | Offbeat Oregon History | #ORhistory

Dosage needed to harm or kill a human isn't very large. That is one reason for those warnings on toothpastes with fluoride about not swallowing, and monitoring children under a certain age when using.

Depending upon which camp you believe; fluoride in drinking water and toothpaste is either a huge public health risk, or one of the greatest public health things since antibiotics.

https://bebrainfit.com/fluoride-neurotoxin/
No dog in this fight. Just want to note that two essential substances for human health are oxygen and water. Yet:

1)Too much oxygen can lead to damage to cell membranes, collapse of the alveoli in the lungs, retinal detachment, and seizures.
https://indianapublicmedia.org/amome...ygen-be-toxic/

2)Drinking too much water can lead to dangerously low levels of sodium in your blood, which can cause muscle weakness, spasms, cramps, seizures, unconsciousness, and/or coma.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php

EVERYTHING has a dangerous dosage. NOTHING is such that there are no consequences of having "too much." That sodium flouride is dangerous in some concentrations is unremarkable because EVERYTHING is dangerous in some concentrations. I say this so maybe we can avoid scare-words like "poisonous." EVERYTHING, in the right dose, is "poisonous."

That doesn't change the fact that there are many things we do not know, and maybe we will learn that our dosages of flouride in drinking water should be reduced or even eliminated. That I do not know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2019, 11:32 AM
 
21,465 posts, read 17,049,955 times
Reputation: 40044
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Its pretty scary what they say about this being the ONLY time they have decided to create an 'editors note' in regards to a controversial finding...so I guess that means, normally, they would just go ahead and withhold study details from the public (if the findings were not in line with the current/popular narrative!!)


They used to give us fluoride twice a week in grade school, they lied to us outright and told us it was to benefit our dental health....of course, many years later, talking with teachers back then, even they admit this was a lie, they had other reasons for giving us Fluoride back then. (but those would have been way too controversial to be honest about).
I recall sitting in the dentists chair with this huge wax or plastic thing filled with some purple fluoride gel jammed into my mouth for 20 minutes or so. It was impossible not to swallow a lot of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2019, 08:12 PM
 
1,051 posts, read 248,694 times
Reputation: 3780
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 08:14 AM
 
11,301 posts, read 2,953,482 times
Reputation: 7604
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
I recall sitting in the dentists chair with this huge wax or plastic thing filled with some purple fluoride gel jammed into my mouth for 20 minutes or so. It was impossible not to swallow a lot of it.
The Fluoride we got in school was a bluish-purple color, they gave it to us in little paper cups, (about 2 oz), we had to swish it around for 3 minutes. Im sure I swallowed plenty too!


Its hard to remember, but I think they did this up until about the 5th grade.


I dont like that they lied to us and our parents about why they were giving us this stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Seattle
1,495 posts, read 316,049 times
Reputation: 1483
Yes I saw this in science mag. The anti-flouridation crowd always struck me as being a bit like the anti-vaxers, but this study is a little concerning.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...ial-study-says

The Dental community is probably freaking right about now. I'm sure we'll see follow-up studies, but those will take a while.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 01:02 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,949 posts, read 7,211,456 times
Reputation: 14790
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastriver View Post
Daily Beast, which knew everything, seems a little unnerved by it:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fluori...ediatrics-says

It correlates with the latest from Harvard and NIH:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?te...89/ehp.1104912
I see two things in these articles ( ie, noting that the article in the JAMA article is an editorial, note: stated opinion):

1. Very large grain of salt along with stated opinions. I note that those expressing concerns over the findings also state additional ( high quality) studies need to be done before such conclusions can be reached.

2. Fodder for the rabid anti-fluorider alarmists.

They seem to be more worried about what OB-Gyns will tell their pregnant patients who will hear or read about this information, as well as being bombarded on all sides by messages about the dire consequences of exposure to fluoride, by the anti-fluoriders.

I think if I were an OB-Gyn I'd tell a pregnant woman to drink just bottled water if she's worried about the fluoride.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top