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.
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.
Water Fluoridation
Options
Comments
-
-
MOD NOTE:
wildboots, you are aware that this is a scientific forum, not CT
unless you provide a direct source for your IMB claims, your posts will be deleted as the unsubstantiated scare-mongering that they are. (oh, and by "direct" i mean from the IMB, not "so and so says they said it" or some heavily biased website)0 -
Now the real reason Wildboots is ignoring a very very simple question in his quest to get the truth out about fluoridation is because there is no source for this quote.
A google search only throws up 5-6 results, this page included.
The nearest I can find to a reliable article is this one:
http://www.nofluoride.com/Irish_fury_over_fluoride.cfm
The button in the top corner indicating it appeared originally in the Irish Independent.
However a search of the Indo's site does not come up with this article.
And even ignoring this, looking at the context of the quote we find even less information.
The article makes no mention of who supplied the quote or when or in what context.
So even if someone at the IMB actually said those words, they have more than likely been taken out of call context.
So Wildboots, have you anything that you add to support this ridiculous claim of yours?0 -
Jeesh this old chestnut.
Now first let me say. I am not well read enough on this to have a strong opinion myself.
But I do know of a guy who is quite expert on it and campaigns:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-statement.htm
I also know that he has collated tonnes of evidence on the subject and has complied a 50 reasons list that is heavily referenced:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm
I actually would like to read up substantially on the subject but I haven't gotten the time. Anyhow I just thought I'd kick this into the melee here for you all to pick over.
Now since you more sciencey types have been crying out for references and data from the non-sciencey types I expect you all and read all these references by Dr Connett and objectively reassess your opinions before shouting down those who don't have the benefit of a science education.
Ok ?
Enjoy
0 -
Well read the list.
It's pretty crap, uninformed and biased.
Totally irrelevant.1) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.
No one is claiming that it is a nutrient. And no one is claiming that it's required to have healthy teeth, just that having it in the water increases dental health.
Cause most fluoridate their salt.2) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the US
No it's not. I posted a ream of studies showing both the effectiveness and safety of fluoride.3) Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. .
And that was only from the first few pages of searching.
When I looked up one of these studies, imagine my surprise when I found them to be taken out of context.4) Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780A possible explanation for this unexpected finding and for the good oral health status of the children in La Salud is the effect of the school mouthrinsing programme, which has involved fortnightly mouthrinses with 0.2% NaF solutions (i.e. 15 times/year) since 1990.
No source for this one.5) There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.
I wouldn't exactly call stuides from the 70's "modern" or "recent"6) Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde, 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized. Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002 and Ekanayake 2002).
Again irrelevant and dishonestly presented.7) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged the findings of many leading dental researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride's benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC.
Again shockingly no source for this.8) Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective. Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water (Kelly 2000).
And yet again it has to be pointed out for what must be the eighth time:9) The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride.
10) Dental fluorosis means that a child has been overdosed on fluoride.
Fluoridation sometimes involves the removal of excess fluoride in the water supply.
And this is just the first ten nonsense claims. But they aren't the worse.
This is blatant unsupported scaremongering at it's worse.12) Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well like i said its not my issue I don't consider myself read enough to have an informed opinion. So most of what you said I'm not going to argue with.
But:
This is blatant unsupported scaremongering at it's worse.12) Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.
Which bit is blatant unsupported scaremongering at it's worst ?
50% being retained ?
Accumulation in bones, pineal gland, other tissues
The bit about impairment of kidney functioning leading to more retention0 -
To be honest you don't need to be well read to notice that the site is incredibly biased.opinion guy wrote: »Well like i said its not my issue I don't consider myself read enough to have an informed opinion. So most of what you said I'm not going to argue with.
The fact that none of it is backed up.opinion guy wrote: »Which bit is blatant unsupported scaremongering at it's worst ?
50% being retained ?
Accumulation in bones, pineal gland, other tissues
The bit about impairment of kidney functioning leading to more retention
The fact that the number is seemingly made up.
The fact that it doesn't factor in the fluoride expelled after a day.
And if your kidney is impaired you have much more pressing problems.
It's pretty much the same as saying "if you swallow water while you lung is collapsed it'll cause harm. Therefore do not drink water."0 -
The fact that none of it is backed up.
The fact that the number is seemingly made up.
The fact that it doesn't factor in the fluoride expelled after a day.
How do you know ? Have you checked ? How do you know it doens't factored in fluoride expelled after a day ? And I don't mean read some epidemiological studies. I mean read up on the basic science on the half-life of fluoride, its pharmacodynamics. You do know that if the rate of excretion, which is dependent on the halflife (usually), is lower than the rate of ingestion then fluoride will bio-accumulate? And you also realise that differences in genetic makeup will mean that these figures are different for different people, yes ?
You see - I don't know those things about fluoride either. I'd like to read up on them but as I said I havne't got the time. But until I do I wouldn't go making the wild assumptions of what these facts are as you have just done.
Oh and by the way - you can have kidney impairment without being symptomatic of kidney disease. Quite significantly so in fact. if memory serves you can remain asymptomatic until you've lust up to 70% of your nephrons. Trouble is people like that, who are numerous are more susceptible to micro-toxins than the 'average man' results of large scale epidemiology studies.0 -
I know he doesn't back up those claims because he doesn't provide any references for them.opinion guy wrote: »How do you know ? Have you checked ? How do you know it doens't factored in fluoride expelled after a day ? And I don't mean read some epidemiological studies. I mean read up on the basic science on the half-life of fluoride, its pharmacodynamics. You do know that if the rate of excretion, which is dependent on the halflife (usually), is lower than the rate of ingestion then fluoride will bio-accumulate? And you also realise that differences in genetic makeup will mean that these figures are different for different people, yes ?
Again what wild assumptions have I made? That he hasn't backed up those claims?opinion guy wrote: »You see - I don't know those things about fluoride either. I'd like to read up on them but as I said I havne't got the time. But until I do I wouldn't go making the wild assumptions of what these facts are as you have just done.
How can it be an assumption if it's patently true?
And those with collapsed lungs are much more at risk from a lot more things.opinion guy wrote: »Oh and by the way - you can have kidney impairment without being symptomatic of kidney disease. Quite significantly so in fact. if memory serves you can remain asymptomatic until you've lust up to 70% of your nephrons. Trouble is people like that, who are numerous are more susceptible to micro-toxins than the 'average man' results of large scale epidemiology studies.
But you can't honestly use the example of this person as illustrative of normal people.
But the guy who wrote this trashy article had no problems with making a dishonest argument.
This isn't the only one he makes.0 -
I know he doesn't back up those claims because he doesn't provide any references for them.
Again what wild assumptions have I made? That he hasn't backed up those claims?
How can it be an assumption if it's patently true?
No no no. Hes I asked you about very specific points of fact. So he didn't reference them. Look them up and disprove them. You are the one casting everything out as biased - the onus is on you. You are making the assumptions that the figure of 50% is wrong. That it has a short half-life. The fluoride does not bioaccumulate. Apparently you don't even realise you made these assumptions.
Forget this guy and his argument. Here are some simple questions on fluoride that you surely must know the answers to given the strenght of your assertions. Simple answers here - yes, no, figures or I don't know will do.
1. Is fluoride a cumulative poison ?
2. What is its half life ?
3. Does it accumulate in bones, pineal gland and other tissues?
4. What are its half-lives in bones, pineal glands and other tissues ?
5. Is fluoride excreted by the kidneys?
6. Is the excretion rate via the kidneys 50% of the absorbed dose ?
7. how is this excretion impaired by reduced kidney function ?
So please answer simply.0 -
Advertisement
-
opinion guy wrote: »...So he didn't reference them. Look them up and disprove them...
How can King Mob look up references that aren't provided?
Please answer simply!
You've posted here often enough to know how it works: YOU have posted this stuff, so it's up to YOU to provide the references that support your argument. It is not the responsibility of other posters to "look them up and disprove" what YOU are saying, it's YOUR responsibility to back up what YOU post.
I'll give you an opportunity to do so before the other mods and I start deleting and possibly banning.0 -
No it's not. He made the claim, he has the burden of proof.opinion guy wrote: »No no no. Hes I asked you about very specific points of fact. So he didn't reference them. Look them up and disprove them. You are the one casting everything out as biased - the onus is on you.
He didn't reference. That was my point.
Actually you are making the assumption that I am making the assumptions.opinion guy wrote: »You are making the assumptions that the figure of 50% is wrong. That it has a short half-life. The fluoride does not bioaccumulate. Apparently you don't even realise you made these assumptions.
I am not assuming the figures are necessarily wrong (though they certainly could be) I am assuming based on the other dishonest points he made on his list, that these claims are not trustworthy. This is made doubly worse by the fact he provides no evidence do support these figures.
They could by right, but he's shown nothing to support them, and given the rest of his list uses dishonest tactics, I have no reason to take his word on it.opinion guy wrote: »Forget this guy and his argument. Here are some simple questions on fluoride that you surely must know the answers to given the strenght of your assertions. Simple answers here - yes, no, figures or I don't know will do.
1. Is fluoride a cumulative poison ?
2. What is its half life ?
3. Does it accumulate in bones, pineal gland and other tissues?
4. What are its half-lives in bones, pineal glands and other tissues ?
5. Is fluoride excreted by the kidneys?
6. Is the excretion rate via the kidneys 50% of the absorbed dose ?
7. how is this excretion impaired by reduced kidney function ?
So please answer simply.
Well I never claimed or asserted anything about any of these things, just that the article doesn't support it's claims.
But if you want yes no answers.
1. No.
2. 2 seconds.
3. No.
4. 2 seconds.
5. No.
6. No.
7. Magic.
Now if we are to apply your logic, you can't ask me to back up these claims, in fact you have to go and find out the answers for yourself.
Does that seem fair to you?0 -
locum-motion wrote: »How can King Mob look up references that aren't provided?
No I didn't post the arguments. I provided a link to someone else who follows the argument. I clearly said this.
But I'm tired of waiting. How can he do this ? By looking up the standard and most highly regarded sources of information of the subject.
In this case The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. The ATSDR a branch of the FDA and is the US government official resource for information on toxic substances for one thing. In short - its as authouritive as it gets. They produce for each toxic substance a "Toxicological Profile". The one for fluoride and related substances is TP11:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.html
Here is an extract - section 1.4:Generally, most of the fluoride in food or water that you swallow enters your bloodstream quickly through the digestive tract. However, the amount that enters your bloodstream also depends on factors such as how much of the fluoride you swallowed, how well the fluoride dissolves in water, whether you ate or drank recently, and what you ate or drank. Factors such as age and health status affect what happens to the fluoride ion once it is in your body. After entering your body, about half of the fluoride leaves the body quickly in urine, usually within 24 hours unless large amounts (20 mg or more, which is the amount in 20 or more liters of optimally fluoridated water) are ingested. Most of the fluoride ion that stays in your body is stored in your bones and teeth.
The emphasis added is mine.
It directly vindicates the most recent point of discussion from the website I linked to and directly contradicts King Mob's statementThis is blatant unsupported scaremongering at it's worse.
King Mob - are you willing to conceed those point above fromt he website I linked are in fact correct ? EDIT: Note that this comment was in direct reference to tthose specific issues of 50% renal excretion and retention in the body.
I leave it up to you to decide who is backed up by authority and who is biased. I will say anyone, who is actually expert enough to have a valid opinion on the safety or otherwise of fluoride supplementation should know where to find the Tox Profile for fluoride on the ATSDR site. Its the basic reference point for the science of any toxicological substance (Toxbase being the clinical online resource, Goldfranks being the top paper reference).
The reason I don't have an official opinion on this is because I know that it would take me many months of reading and thinking to form a rounded opinion. But I do know the kind of issues that are relevant.
So what was it you were saying about deleting and banning ?0 -
See my above post as regards to who is assuming and who is knowing. I do know enough about fluoride toxicity to know it is retained without having to look it up, but I did so anyhow for your benefit.Actually you are making the assumption that I am making the assumptions.But if you want yes no answers.
1. No.
2. 2 seconds.
3. No.
4. 2 seconds.
5. No.
6. No.
7. Magic.
Where did you get the 2 seconds from ? Well since my last post pointed out that fluoride is retained in the body, we know you are making it up.0 -
Partially.opinion guy wrote: »King Mob - are you willing to conceed those point above fromt he website I linked are in fact correct ?
It says it accumulates mostly in the bones, so special mention of the pineal gland like in the article.
It doesn't call it a accumulative poison.
And most importantly it does not say such an accumulation is harmful, which the article claims.
So using it to make it sound like it is harmful is scaremongering.
I stand by that part of my statement.
I even stand by the fact that it was unsupported in the article.
But I have to agree that the figures are accurate.
Again what was I assuming? That the writer isn't presenting information honestly?opinion guy wrote: »See my above post as regards to who is assuming and who is knowing. I do know enough about fluoride toxicity to know it is retained without having to look it up, but I did so anyhow for your benefit.
That's not an assumption, it cold hard fact.
Again, by your logic it was your job to supply the information right?opinion guy wrote: »Where did you get the 2 seconds from ? Well since my last post pointed out that fluoride is retained in the body, we know you are making it up.
Why should I have to explain where I'm getting my figure?0 -
opinion guy wrote: »No I didn't post the arguments. I provided a link to someone else who follows the argument. I clearly said this.
You were, however, the person who introduced those arguments here, were you not? So therefore the onus fell on you to provide backup. Which you have now done. That is what I was asking you to do. Thank you.
Note: I am trying to act as a referee in this discussion. I'm trying to see that the discussion proceeds correctly, not to rule on the actual facts or otherwise of the information provided. I'm not an expert in this area, nor do I pretend to be, nor do I have the time (or the inclination) to become one, much as Opinion Guy has stated he doesn't have the time either. That said, my father's a dentist with over 50 years experience, so his opinion is one that I value on subjects like this, and which I sought last night. He is unequivocal in his support for water flouridation. He is also the most passionately professional person I know; what I mean by that is that he values the dental health of his patients and the population at large way ahead of his own fiscal gain. If people are interested, I'll post more of what he told me later.0 -
opinion guy wrote: »Where did you get the 2 seconds from ? Well since my last post pointed out that fluoride is retained in the body, we know you are making it up.
I think it is perfectly obvious that he made it up. It's also perfectly obvious why he made it up, which was to point out the flaw in how you were presenting your arguments.
Let's ALL try to calm down a bit, folks, and try not to let the thread descend into a slagging match.0 -
Partially.
It says it accumulates mostly in the bones, so special mention of the pineal gland like in the article.
It doesn't call it a accumulative poison.
And most importantly it does not say such an accumulation is harmful, which the article claims.
So using it to make it sound like it is harmful is scaremongering.
I stand by that part of my statement.
I even stand by the fact that it was unsupported in the article.
But I have to agree that the figures are accurate.
Again what was I assuming? That the writer isn't presenting information honestly?
That's not an assumption, it cold hard fact.
Again, by your logic it was your job to supply the information right?
Why should I have to explain where I'm getting my figure?
Sigh.
I already gave you the reference. Granted its hundreds of pages long, but you might have at least searched it before making me do it. Again from the toxicological profile:3.4.2.2 Oral Exposure
Fluoride. Once absorbed, fluoride is rapidly distributed throughout the body via the blood. Fluoride is
distributed between the plasma and blood cells, with plasma levels being twice as high as blood cell levels
(Whitford 1990). After ingestion of sodium fluoride, the plasma fluoride does not appear to be bound to
proteins (Ekstrand et al. 1977a; Rigalli et al. 1996). However, there is evidence that following ingestion
of sodium monofluorophosphate, the plasma contains diffusible fluoride and protein-bound fluoride (Rigalli et al. 1996). The elimination of fluoride from plasma following short-term exposure to sodium
fluoride has been fit to a two-compartment model (Ekstrand et al. 1977a). The half-life of the terminal
phase ranged from 2 to 9 hours. The rapid phase of fluoride distribution represents distribution in soft
tissues, with fluoride being more rapidly distributed to well-perfused tissues. In pigs, the plasma
clearance half-time of fluoride was 0.88 hours (Richards et al. 1982). Fluoride does not accumulate in
most soft tissue; the ratio between tissue fluoride levels and plasma fluoride levels is typically between
0.4 and 0.9 (Whitford et al. 1979a). It is likely that fluoride enters the intracellular fluid of soft tissues as
hydrogen fluoride (Whitford et al. 1979a). Studies in rats and ewes suggest that the blood brain barrier is
effective in preventing fluoride migration into the central nervous system (Spak et al. 1986; Whitford et
al. 1979a); brain fluoride concentrations typically do not exceed 10% of plasma concentrations (Whitford
et al. 1979a). Higher fluoride concentrations are found in the renal tubules, the concentration often
exceeding plasma concentrations.
The largest concentration of fluoride in the body is found in calcified tissues. Approximately 99% of the
fluoride in the body is found in bones and teeth (Hamilton 1990; Kaminsky et al. 1990). The pineal gland
which contains hydroxyapatite also accumulates fluoride (Luke 2001). Fluoride is incorporated into bone
by replacing the hydroxyl ion in hydroxyapatite to form hydroxyfluroapatite (McCann and Bullock 1957;
Neuman et al. 1950). Fluoride is not irreversibly bound to bone and is mobilized from bone through the
continuous process of bone remodeling and to a lesser extent from ionic flux between interstitial fluoride
and the crystalline bone surface (Turner et al. 1993; Whitford 1990). The biological half-life of fluoride
was estimated to be 58.5 days in pigs orally exposed 2 mg fluoride/kg/day as sodium fluoride for
6 months (Richards et al. 1985). A comparison between the retention of sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic
acid, and sodium fluorosilicate did not find significant differences in the percentage of intake retained in
the body of female rats exposed to 24 ppm fluoride in the diet for 5 months; fluoride retentions were 66.2,
68.1, and 64.8, respectively (Whitford and Johnson 2003; only available as an abstract).
Hmm. Pineal gland eh ? Fancy that.
Also note. The "biological halflife" is that halflife of fluoride on average over all the tissues of the body. Some will have a shorter half life like blood as seen in the first paragraph, some will have longer - probably bone. Heck maybe even the pineal gland.0 -
locum-motion wrote: »I think it is perfectly obvious that he made it up. It's also perfectly obvious why he made it up, which was to point out the flaw in how you were presenting your arguments.
Let's ALL try to calm down a bit, folks, and try not to let the thread descend into a slagging match.
No I appreciate that locum-motion and I appreciate your balanced modding also. Its a tough job!
But I just feel if you are going to question the other sides argument, call it biased and demand references, you kind of are obliged not to do biased unreferenced things like making up half-life's to suit your point (especially when said half-life is wildy out of range to reality)0 -
Again, if you are supporting the assertion, you kinda have to do it.opinion guy wrote: »Sigh.
I already gave you the reference. Granted its hundreds of pages long, but you might have at least searched it before making me do it. Again from the toxicological profile:
Hmm. Pineal gland eh ? Fancy that.
But I have to concede that point as well. It does indeed accumilate in the pineal gland.
However, there's no mention of it being harmful, as the original article is implying.
Implying that it is harmful is scaremongering.
Also note that this fact isn't mentioned in the original article either...opinion guy wrote: »Also note. The "biological halflife" is that halflife of fluoride on average over all the tissues of the body. Some will have a shorter half life like blood as seen in the first paragraph, some will have longer - probably bone. Heck maybe even the pineal gland.
Dude, I was obviously not seriously suggesting that it's half life was 2 seconds.opinion guy wrote: »No I appreciate that locum-motion and I appreciate your balanced modding also. Its a tough job!
But I just feel if you are going to question the other sides argument, call it biased and demand references, you kind of are obliged not to do biased unreferenced things like making up half-life's to suit your point (especially when said half-life is wildy out of range to reality)
I was using a made up number to illustrate the burden of proof.0 -
Advertisement
-
opinion guy wrote: »No I appreciate that locum-motion and I appreciate your balanced modding also. Its a tough job!
But I just feel if you are going to question the other sides argument, call it biased and demand references, you kind of are obliged not to do biased unreferenced things like making up half-life's to suit your point (especially when said half-life is wildy out of range to reality)
I took it as an attempt to humoursly counter your argument, and I thought it was obvious that that's what it was, rather than an actual assertion that that's what the half life was. In that context, the farther away from reality the number was, the better, coz it would reinforce the intention of the post. If he'd said for example "36hours" then some readers might take it for a genuine rather than a tongue in cheek half life.0 -
Right, guys, back on topic now, please!!0
-
Well no. If you are coming on here having a definitive opinion on the subject you have to be prepared to back it up. I only asked questions. "The experts say" simply isn't good enough.Again, if you are supporting the assertion, you kinda have to do it.
Thats because toxicity is dealt with in a whole other section of the manuscript. I haven't read it but feel free to read it yourself.But I have to concede that point as well. It does indeed accumilate in the pineal gland.
However, there's no mention of it being harmful, as the original article is implying.
Has it occurred to you that Dr Connett has read the toxicity section of the manuscript ?Implying that it is harmful is scaremongering.Dude, I was obviously not seriously suggesting that it's half life was 2 seconds.
I was using a made up number to illustrate the burden of proof.
Ok. How is some randomer reader of this page to know you were not being serious ? Making up a number like that is an act of biasing. Even if you didn't mean it that way.
Anyhow I must go to bed. Locum-Motion thanks for the modding. Can I ask you - I mean know disrespect to your father or to his views - but to the best of my knowledge toxicology is not part of the dental curriculum - did he self-educate on fluoride toxicology and read myriads of papers upon which to base his views ?
Forgive my question. But I know a bit about low dose toxicology. Just a bit mind. But I do know that one of the problems in the field is that some of the assumptions made by clinicians and epidemiologist are often made without a full biochemical understanding of the toxicology of the subject. This is widespread to the point of being standard. Moreso, in recent years the understanding of low dose toxicology has changed radically - even more so when you consider variant genes etc which to date have been averaged out by epidemiology. Nutritional factors are often also significant confounders. Its distinctly probable for any toxicant that there are hyper-responders and hypo-responders. This is only just beginning to be accounted for in epidemiology. Its complicated stuff. Skepticism of any definite opinions either side of the argument is to be advised! And this doens't even consider combination exposure toxicology which is in its infancy!
Edit: Locum-motion - apologies jsut saw your ontopic post after posting this0 -
Well the only assertion I made was that the claim in the article was unreferenced (which is true) and unsupported (which you have shown to be false.)opinion guy wrote: »Well no. If you are coming on here having a definitive opinion on the subject you have to be prepared to back it up. I only asked questions. "The experts say" simply isn't good enough.
If you make a claim you have to support it.
It's how the burden of proof works.
Yes, but he provided nothing to show that he did, or that the manuscript supports his assertion.opinion guy wrote: »Thats because toxicity is dealt with in a whole other section of the manuscript. I haven't read it but feel free to read it yourself.
Has it occurred to you that Dr Connett has read the toxicity section of the manuscript ?
Which is my point.
The question is do you think it is harmful?
Because the context makes it clear?opinion guy wrote: »Ok. How is some randomer reader of this page to know you were not being serious ? Making up a number like that is an act of biasing. Even if you didn't mean it that way.
Did you miss the bit where I claimed the kidney works by magic?0 -
The Irish Medicines Board declared that fluoride is "not a medicine" and has "never been proven safe or effective for use on humans." Is this the unfounded nonsense you are talking about?
This post seems to be distressing people so how about:
According to Kathy Sinnott, the Irish Medicines Board declared that fluoride is not a medicine and has never been proven safe or effective for use on humans( I think this is what she stated in the video more or less). Better? I can try and contact the IMB and see what they have to say if people want to know what their opinion is? Or mabe they could contact the IMB themselves if they feel like it?
I find it amazing that people have chosen to concentrate on what was nothing more than a small typing error while ignoring some of the other information that I presented, such as:
"Isn't water fluoridation illegal anyway, as it contravenes both EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine?
The use of unregistered substances for medicinal purposes is illegal under the Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive 2001/83/EEC
The intent to medicate renders any substance presented as having any beneficial effect on a medical condition a medicinal substance under Article 1 of this Directive, irrespective of its efficacy. All medicinal substances must be registered as such, and subjected to full clinical testing for safety. Fluorosilicates have not been so registered nor tested for safety. Manufacturing these chemicals under BS EN 12174/5 does not authorise their use as medicinal substances.
The use of fluoridation chemicals to medicate the public indiscriminately violates the code of medical ethics set out in the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
This Convention establishes a valid Code of Medical Ethics and is widely accepted throughout Europe - the failure of the British Government to endorse it does not render its provisions invalid, as all such national codes should comply with the principles set out therein. States may not medicate any individual except under exceptional conditions of recognised public health emergencies. All medical interventions must be carried out under proper medical supervision, and in accordance with the patient's needs and fully informed wishes".
The addition of fluoride (some call it a medicine, I call it a poison) to the public water supply is ILLEGAL yet we continue to do it.
Obviously too many people have been drinking from the tap.0 -
MOD NOTE:
wildboots, you are aware that this is a scientific forum, not CT
unless you provide a direct source for your IMB claims, your posts will be deleted as the unsubstantiated scare-mongering that they are. (oh, and by "direct" i mean from the IMB, not "so and so says they said it" or some heavily biased website)
Scare-mongering? Lol, who's scared?0 -
So did she porvide a source or not?According to Kathy Sinnott, the Irish Medicines Board declared that fluoride is not a medicine and has never been proven safe or effective for use on humans( I think this is what she stated in the video more or less).
Are you just swallowing everything you are told?
Well you claimed that they made this statement, the onus is on you to back that up.Better? I can try and contact the IMB and see what they have to say if people want to know what their opinion is? Or mabe they could contact the IMB themselves if they feel like it?
Well I wouldn't say making a claim about a body's position with nothing to support the claim is a bit different that a small typing error.I find it amazing that people have chosen to concentrate on what was nothing more than a small typing error while ignoring some of the other information that I presented, such as:
"Isn't water fluoridation illegal anyway, as it contravenes both EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine?
The reason I haven't addressed those point is because they are unsourced opinion, not fact.0 -
So did she porvide a source or not?
Are you just swallowing everything you are told?
Well you claimed that they made this statement, the onus is on you to back that up.
Well I wouldn't say making a claim about a body's position with nothing to support the claim is a bit different that a small typing error.
The reason I haven't addressed those point is because they are unsourced opinion, not fact.
I was quoting what she said, I'm sure if she made it up she would have been sued by now.
Fluoride is added to the water supply to prevent dental cavities right? I don't think there's any other reason. So fluoride is being used for medicinal purposes, this is illegal because
(a)The use of unregistered substances for medicinal purposes is illegal under the Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive 2001/83/EEC
The intent to medicate renders any substance presented as having any beneficial effect on a medical condition a medicinal substance under Article 1 of this Directive, irrespective of its efficacy. All medicinal substances must be registered as such, and subjected to full clinical testing for safety. Fluorosilicates have not been so registered nor tested for safety. Manufacturing these chemicals under BS EN 12174/5 does not authorise their use as medicinal substances.
http://www.edctp.org/fileadmin/documents/ethics/DIRECTIVE_200183EC_OF_THE_EUROPEAN_PARLIAMENT.pdf
(b) The use of fluoridation chemicals to medicate the public indiscriminately violates the code of medical ethics set out in the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
This Convention establishes a valid Code of Medical Ethics and is widely accepted throughout Europe - the failure of the British Government to endorse it does not render its provisions invalid, as all such national codes should comply with the principles set out therein. States may not medicate any individual except under exceptional conditions of recognised public health emergencies. All medical interventions must be carried out under proper medical supervision, and in accordance with the patient's needs and fully informed wishes".
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/bt/cassese/cases/part3/ch16/1121.pdf0 -
According to Kathy Sinnott, the Irish Medicines Board declared that.... I can try and contact the IMB and see what they have to say if people want to know what their opinion is? Or mabe they could contact the IMB themselves if they feel like it?I was quoting what she said, I'm sure if she made it up she would have been sued by now
hearsay is not good enough in this forum, as already explained to you.
and if you make a claim, the onus is on you to back it up, not on others here.Scare-mongering? Lol, who's scared?
not me. but others who might be more naive and/or have less scientific knowledge than me may very well be taken in by what is essentially empty rhetoric. we dont tolerate that here.
last chance to back up that statement with a direct source form the IMB.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nope, you claimed it as fact without stating where you got it form.I was quoting what she said,
Seriously? That's your only reason to believe her?I'm sure if she made it up she would have been sued by now.
Wow.
Now you see there's a difference between legal fact and legal opinion.Fluoride is added to the water supply to prevent dental cavities right? I don't think there's any other reason. So fluoride is being used for medicinal purposes, this is illegal because
Something is only illegal when it's been shown to be against the law by qualified law makers.
Any one who can string words together can have a legal opinion, but that opinion does not equal fact.
The little passages you keep copy pasting are opinion.
Can you show any specific evidence that fluoridation is considered illegal by any kind of legitimate body?
Fluoride isn't unregistered.(a)The use of unregistered substances for medicinal purposes is illegal under the Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive 2001/83/EEC
QED.
Fluoridation is not an intervention.(b) The use of fluoridation chemicals to medicate the public indiscriminately violates the code of medical ethics set out in the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
All medical interventions must be carried out under proper medical supervision, and in accordance with the patient's needs and fully informed wishes".
QED.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement