Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Top Medical Journal Labels Fluoride a Neurotoxin

Options
  • 12-02-2015 4:29pm
    #1
    tulx
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭


    Quite an interesting article on the Global Healing Center's web site describes that The Lancet medical journal ("one of the world's oldest and best known general medical journals,[1] and has been described as one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.") has officially re-classified Fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin.
    It also references this earlier study by the Harvard University which could scientifically link fluoride to various adverse neurological effects.

    Would be interesting to see if this changes the perception of water fluoridisation here in Ireland.
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Mod Note
    Provide a link to the lancet study quoted and I'll allow this. If not will remain closed.


  • Options
    #3
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Thanks to gctest50 for the reference

    Please note will allow debate supported by references and evidence from scientific and peer reviewed journals.

    Dr. Philippe Grandjean, MD, Philip J. Landrigan, MD. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 330-338, March 2014. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3.


  • Options
    #4
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    tulx wrote: »
    Quite an interesting article on the Global Healing Center's web site describes that The Lancet medical journal ("one of the world's oldest and best known general medical journals,[1] and has been described as one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.") has officially re-classified Fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin.
    It also references this earlier study by the Harvard University which could scientifically link fluoride to various adverse neurological effects.

    Would be interesting to see if this changes the perception of water fluoridisation here in Ireland.

    The Lancet has not labelled fluoride a neurotoxin just the Harvard researchers have proposed this and this seems to be entirely based on their meta analysis of the poor quality Chinese data.

    The Harvard team have also said no judgement can be made on water fluoridation based on this research.

    http://mydigimag.rrd.com/iphone/article.php?id=1782858&id_issue=220817&src=&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fcites%3D183821357771545632%26as_sdt%3D2005%26sciodt%3D0%2C5%26hl%3Den


  • Options
    #5
    Taco Chips
    Registered Users Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Taco Chips


    jh79 wrote: »
    The Lancet has not labelled fluoride a neurotoxin just the Harvard researchers have proposed this and this seems to be entirely based on their meta analysis of the poor quality Chinese data.

    The Harvard team have also said no judgement can be made on water fluoridation based on this research.

    http://mydigimag.rrd.com/iphone/article.php?id=1782858&id_issue=220817&src=&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fcites%3D183821357771545632%26as_sdt%3D2005%26sciodt%3D0%2C5%26hl%3Den

    I'm baffled as to the motives behind a Harvard group of researchers analysing such poor data.


  • Options
    #6
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Taco Chips wrote: »
    I'm baffled as to the motives behind a Harvard group of researchers analysing such poor data.

    They got a paper out of it. Reason enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Xeyn
    Registered Users Posts: 555 ✭✭✭Xeyn


    jh79 wrote: »
    They got a paper out of it. Reason enough.

    Along with positive results bias, the pressure to produce papers from most institutions is really diluting the quality of science somewhat.
    My consultant admitted that to get on schemes himself and his colleagues did 'jumping lymphocyte' research. In essence - anything to put next to your name. In may not be fraudulent but it hardly added to the science already out there.
    Research should be left to academics who have a passion to do it and not for those with little interest trying to progress their career.


  • Options
    #8
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Xeyn wrote: »
    Along with positive results bias, the pressure to produce papers from most institutions is really diluting the quality of science somewhat.
    My consultant admitted that to get on schemes himself and his colleagues did 'jumping lymphocyte' research. In essence - anything to put next to your name. In may not be fraudulent but it hardly added to the science already out there.
    Research should be left to academics who have a passion to do it and not for those with little interest trying to progress their career.

    In the case of Grandjean i think his exaggeration of the effects of fluoride is more to do with flogging his latest book to conspiracy theorists .


  • Options
    #9
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Mod note
    Can criticisms please be backed up with evidence and references rather than just comments?
    We regularly delete conspiracy theory threads due to lack of evidence and will apply the same standards here.
    Rob


  • Options
    #10
    Kurtosis
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 2,881 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kurtosis


    The two papers in question are both easily accessible.

    The citation given above for the Lancet Neurology article is fully accessible once you register on their site. This is just a review of potential developmental neurotoxicants and it cites the following systematic review and meta-analysis regarding fluoride and IQ levels (available open access through PubMed). I haven't had a chance to read this in detail but from a quick read through, like a lot of analysis using observational studies there's likely to be a lot of uncontrolled confounding. Parental income/socioeconomic status wasn't accounted for, which may be a cause of both living in certain geographical areas and lower childhood intelligence so the relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ is likely to be biased.


  • Options
    #11
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    Xeyn wrote: »
    Along with positive results bias, the pressure to produce papers from most institutions is really diluting the quality of science somewhat.
    My consultant admitted that to get on schemes himself and his colleagues did 'jumping lymphocyte' research. In essence - anything to put next to your name. In may not be fraudulent but it hardly added to the science already out there.
    Research should be left to academics who have a passion to do it and not for those with little interest trying to progress their career.

    Unfortunatly much research produced was only done for career advancement, ironically with the glut of jobs, i expect the volume of research produced by surgeons in training to drop, a good thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    his_dudeness
    Registered Users Posts: 229 ✭✭his_dudeness


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    Unfortunatly much research produced was only done for career advancement, ironically with the glut of jobs, i expect the volume of research produced by surgeons in training to drop, a good thing.

    Unfortunately, the volume of good quality research is likely to drop, with some possible adverse effects. The health research needs active clinical input to maintain relevance.

    The glut of low-hanging-fruit research, such as meaningless incomplete audits and reviews of departmental practice that fill all the major surgical conferences in Ireland will continue as everyone will still want lines on the CV.


Advertisement