Water Fluoridation

Warrior Monk

Does anyone know if bottled water available in Ireland contains fluoride? If so, are there any brands which do not contain it?

On the mineral content list of bottled waters, fluoride never seems to be listed. Does that mean it is not present?

A doctor I spoke with said to me that I should try completely avoiding fluoride for 2 weeks and see if I feel more healthy. He advised that fluoride slows our thinking and removing intake of it for a while will result in much better focus.

We all know that fluoride is in tap water in Ireland and I understand that in some of the United States it is also present. However, many countries have banned fluoride from being added.

There is an argument that fluoride is necessary for dental benefits but also, some say that it is detrimental to our teeth.

So the bottom line is that I want to test this for 2 weeks to see what happens.

Please let me know if you have any information on this.

Kind regards,
Warrior Monk

ballsymchugh

Warrior Monk wrote: »

A doctor I spoke with said to me that I should try completely avoiding fluoride for 2 weeks and see if I feel more healthy. He advised that fluoride slows our thinking and removing intake of it for a while will result in much better focus.

what did he base this on??

fluoride is added at water treatment plants as it enters the public water scheme, so it's not present in bottled water, unless you still have some of the stuff coca cola were selling a few years ago.

bleg

Warrior Monk wrote: »

Does anyone know if bottled water available in Ireland contains fluoride? If so, are there any brands which do not contain it?

On the mineral content list of bottled waters, fluoride never seems to be listed. Does that mean it is not present?

A doctor I spoke with said to me that I should try completely avoiding fluoride for 2 weeks and see if I feel more healthy. He advised that fluoride slows our thinking and removing intake of it for a while will result in much better focus.

We all know that fluoride is in tap water in Ireland and I understand that in some of the United States it is also present. However, many countries have banned fluoride from being added.

There is an argument that fluoride is necessary for dental benefits but also, some say that it is detrimental to our teeth.

So the bottom line is that I want to test this for 2 weeks to see what happens.

Please let me know if you have any information on this.

Kind regards,
Warrior Monk

Get a second opinion ASAP.

Warrior Monk

Thanks guys,

I don't know what he's basing his advice on.

Can I assume you are both skeptical of his information?

Do you think it would be harmful to avoid fluoride?

The only knowledge I have of fluoride is what my doctor told me so if he's wrong, then I'm wrong.

bleg

Warrior Monk wrote: »

Thanks guys,

I don't know what he's basing his advice on.

Can I assume you are both skeptical of his information?

Wondering if he's actually a doctor to be honest...

ballsymchugh

this was the biggest study into water fluoridation, examining all the papers that were published on the subject, apart from the ones that were promoted by self interest groups.

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm

you should ask your doctor if he's heard of it.

Signac

I've seen one bottled water abroad with 10mg/l, 10 times greater than public water limit. Flouride occurs naturally in groundwater sometimes at concentrations much higher than that which is safe, although this is unlikely in Ireland

N8

Signac wrote: »

I've seen one bottled water abroad with 10mg/l, 10 times greater than public water limit. Flouride occurs naturally in groundwater sometimes at concentrations much higher than that which is safe, although this is unlikely in Ireland

I think you'll find its a different naturally occurring form.

Here is a link that I found this on:

Fluoride FACTS

• Fluoride Is A Carcinogen
Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program. Ref. 1
Further studies by the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males. Ref. 2
Earlier studies had found a 5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities. Ref. 3
• Fluoride Increases Hip Fractures
Drinking fluoridated water will double the number of hip fractures for both older men and women. Ref. 4&5
Extremely low levels of water fluoridation 0.1 ppm still produced statistically significant increased hip fractures. (Bordeaux Study JAMA 1994)
• Fluoride Increases Infertility
Infertility in women was found to increase with water fluoridation.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists reported a close correlation between decreasing total fertility rates in women between ages of 10 and 49, and increasing fluoride levels.
They also reported that a review of all the animal studies done to date shows that fluoride adversely affects fertility in most animal species. Ref. 6
• Fluoride Increases Fluorosis
Opaque white spots and brown ugly teeth caused by fluoride is called Fluorosis.
Fluorosis currently affects one out of five or more children in this nation although it is rarely seen in California.
California is the least fluoridated state with less than 16% of the population drinking artificially fluoridated water.
• Fluoride Does NOT Reduce Tooth Decay
Fluoride is not effective in reducing tooth decay.
No correlation was found between the level of fluoride in water and dental caries. Ref. 7,8,9,10&11
There appears to be a genetically related increase in tooth decay for Hispanics, Indians, Native Americans and Asians.
Decay is related to the educational and economic level of the parents. Ref. 12,13&14
• Fluoride Is Unapproved By FDA
The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is no proof of safety or effectiveness.
The FDA does not consider fluoride an essential nutrient.
• Fluoride Is Highly Toxic
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified Fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity.

References
1. Maurer, et. al., Fluoride an equivocal carcinogen J. National Cancer Institute 82, 1118-26, 1990
2. Cohn, Perry D. Ph.D. An Epidemiological Report on Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma in Young Males New Jersey Department of Health, Environmental Health Service, Trenton NJ November 8, 1992
3. Yiamouyiannis, J.A. and Dean Burk, “Fluoridation and Cancer: Age Dependence of Cancer Mortality Related to Artificial Fluoridation,” Fluoride, Vol. 10 #3 (102-123) 1977
4. Hip Fracture rates related to Fluoridated water Journal of the American Medical Association 264(4):500-502 1990
5. J. C. Robins and J. L. Ambrus, “Studies on Osteoporosis IX. Effect of Fluoride on Steroid Induced Osteoporosis,” Research Communications in Chemical Pathology and Pharmacology, Volume 37, No. 3, pp. 453-461 (1982)
6. Freni SC, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 42:109-121, 1994
7. Diesendorf M. Tooth Decay not related to fluoride intake from water Nature Vol. 322 10 July 1986
8. Colquhoun J. Tooth Decay related to economics of family American Laboratory 17:98-109 1985
9. Colquhoun J. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41 1985
10. Dr. John Yiamouyiannis statement both in his book (Fluoride the Aging Factor” pub Health Action Press 2nd ed. 1986 )and during debates has not been challenged by the ADA or others.
11. Ziegelbecker D. Fluoride 14; 123-128 1981
12. Steelink and Jones Fluoride in the Municipal Water of Tucson related to diet and ethnic origin International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology March 95
13. Colquhoun J. Fluoride Vol. 23 #3 July 90
14. Colquhoun J. Community Health Studies 11:85-90 1987

http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=5573

bit conspiracy theory but well referenced re the fluoride.

bleg

N8 wrote: »

bit conspiracy theory but well referenced re the fluoride.

Just googled your first reference:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Maurer,+et.+al.,+Fluoride+an+equivocal+carcinogen+J.+National+Cancer+Institute+82,+1118-26,+1990&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#


Scirus:

http://scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=Maurer,+et.+al.,+Fluoride+an+equivocal+carcinogen+J.+National+Cancer+Institute+82,+1118-26,+1990&t=all&sort=0&g=s


Edit: tried the second one as well, neither papers exist.

• Fluoride Increases Fluorosis
Opaque white spots and brown ugly teeth caused by fluoride is called Fluorosis.
Fluorosis currently affects one out of five or more children in this nation although it is rarely seen in California.
California is the least fluoridated state with less than 16% of the population drinking artificially fluoridated water.

Yes this is true. That's why in areas of high levels of natural fluoride they artificially lower it to a level that prevents fluorosis but still yields the benefits.

• Fluoride Is Unapproved By FDA
The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is no proof of safety or effectiveness.
The FDA does not consider fluoride an essential nutrient.

That's blatant misinformation. The Food and Drug Administration has nothing what so ever to do with municipal water supplies.
This little "fact" is only put in to sound scary. It has no relevance what so ever.

Also for being well "referenced" neither of these claims are backed up with anything.

And "A bit conspiracy theory" from that crank site is a bit of an understatement.

More (and less crazy) information here: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4058

lynnsback

Sorry, but there is a reason pretty much every European country has removed Fluoride form their water supplies. The medical world is so keen to avoid conspiracy theories that they can be blind to real info. There was a time when docs recommended leech treatments etc. What makes everyone think science is infallible all the time?

Fluoride can actually damage people’s teeth and cause fluorosis, as well as doing damage to bone and reducing thyroid function (it used to be used as a treatment for overactive thyroid). Fluoride is actually classified as a poison in Ireland under the Irish Poisons Act 1992.

If fluoride is the issue though; it will take a lot longer than two weeks to get over it.

Rant over....

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

Sorry, but there is a reason pretty much every European country has removed Fluoride form their water supplies.

They fluoridate their salt instead.

There's a reason they don't tell you that on the crank websites.

locum-motion

lynnsback wrote: »

... What makes everyone think science is infallible all the time? ...

Read a bit more of the forum.
None of the regulars thinks science is infallible all the time.

Warrior Monk

Thanks all for this information. It is great to get both sides of the argument.


Much appreciated,
Warrior Monk

bleg

lynnsback wrote: »

Sorry, but there is a reason pretty much every European country has removed Fluoride form their water supplies. The medical world is so keen to avoid conspiracy theories that they can be blind to real info.

Can we have some real info please? I haven't seen any real information against flouridation of our water supply yet.

Fluoride can actually damage people’s teeth and cause fluorosis, as well as doing damage to bone and reducing thyroid function (it used to be used as a treatment for overactive thyroid). Fluoride is actually classified as a poison in Ireland under the Irish Poisons Act 1992.

Most (if not all) substances can have harmful side effects if taken in the wrong strength/formulation, at the wrong time or via the wrong method of administration. They are side effects and these can be minimised by giving the lowest effective dose. Unfortunately at the current low dose in our water supply some people will get fluorosis (a purely superficial whitening of the teeth). However this purely superficial side effect doesn't do any permanent damage to the teeth of a tiny percentage of people and therefore is no reason to stop conferring the beneficial effects on the rest of the population.

I would like to see sources for your claims of damaging bone and reducing thyroid function.



Finally, there is no Irish Poisons Act of 1992.

lynnsback

Just to point out, not all European countries fluoridate their salt. Most don't.

Now, I am well aware of the dosage being the poison yes. Even water can be toxic in large enough doses; as can pretty much every substance on the planet. This is not the issue here. The issue comes when tiny amounts cause harm. Ever look at the back of the toothpaste where it says to contact a doc if you swallow more than a blob? That doesn’t sound very safe.

The Act I was referring to should have read 1982. It was a typo.

I have read about the bone damage in various places, but here is one link: http://www.communicationagents.com/chris/2005/08/17/fluoridecancer_study_cover_up.htm

As for the thyroid: fluoride competes with iodine in the body and thus can reduce thyroid function. This effect is not obvious in Ireland though, as a large percentage of hypothyroid patients are not picked up here anyhow due to our alarmingly high TSH range. The Hunt Study showed that a TSH over 1.4 causes heart and other health issues as I outlined in this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59663812&postcount=29. TSH is not a good measure of thyroid function: http://nahypothyroidism.org/diagnosistreatment/

There is TONS of literature on fluoride and hyperthyrodism out there. It is not even considered remotely controversial as it was the standard treatment for DECREASING thyroid functional and treating hyperthyroidism for years:

http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoridechange.htm

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/10/1102 (Read full study here: http://www.slweb.org/galletti.html)

A brief history: http://www.digitalnaturopath.com/treat/T473193.html

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

Just to point out, not all European countries fluoridate their salt. Most don't.

Gonna back that up at all?

lynnsback wrote: »

The issue comes when tiny amounts cause harm. Ever look at the back of the toothpaste where it says to contact a doc if you swallow more than a blob? That doesn’t sound very safe.

Can you show a single case of anyone ever dying from eating toothpaste?
Can you show a single study showing that toothpaste is in anyway dangerous in use?

lynnsback wrote: »

The Act I was referring to should have read 1982. It was a typo.

There isn't a Poisons act of 1982 either.
There's a POISONS REGULATIONS, 1982.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1982/en/si/0188.html
Fluoride is not listed as a poison.

In fact it is nowhere in the document.

lynnsback wrote: »

I have read about the bone damage in various places, but here is one link: http://www.communicationagents.com/chris/2005/08/17/fluoridecancer_study_cover_up.htm

I wouldn't take anything on that site seriously considering it has a section called "electromedicine".

lynnsback wrote: »

There is TONS of literature on fluoride and hyperthyrodism out there. It is not even considered remotely controversial as it was the standard treatment for DECREASING thyroid functional and treating hyperthyroidism for years:

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/10/1102 (Read full study here: http://www.slweb.org/galletti.html)

That study refers to medical administration of fluoride in amounts far in excess of what's in the water supply.
Can you supply a study referring to water fluoridation?

lynnsback wrote: »

A brief history: http://www.digitalnaturopath.com/treat/T473193.html

Another reliable source alright...

bleg

lynnsback wrote: »

Just to point out, not all European countries fluoridate their salt. Most don't.

Now, I am well aware of the dosage being the poison yes. Even water can be toxic in large enough doses; as can pretty much every substance on the planet. This is not the issue here. The issue comes when tiny amounts cause harm. Ever look at the back of the toothpaste where it says to contact a doc if you swallow more than a blob? That doesn’t sound very safe.

Just need to clarify this part of your post. The rest is nonsense.

I would have thought that was to prevent nausea and stomach upset...

Anyway just going to quote another list of pois.ons

Antibiotics, the following; their salts; their esters; their derivatives; salts of their esters; salts of their derivatives:—
Bacitracin
Cephalosporins
Erythromycin
Neomycins
Penicillins
Spectinomycin
Spiramycin
Streptomycins
Tetracyclines
Tylosin
Virginiamycin

That encompasses pretty much all the common antibiotics that are used today. My point? Just because something is listed as a poison in the statutes doesn't mean it is dangerous at safe dosage levels.



Water fluoridation people have been banging the drum for years and guess what, time after time after time their claims have been proven to be absolute horse****.

lynnsback

I am not well at the moment and forgot how this board works. Since I don't have time to cite every source I have ever read, it seems nobody here will even open their closed minds. Fine. You think fluoride is great. I don't. I just don't have the energy to go and look for more info. If you were interested in opening your mind you would, but it seems you are not. So, no point in me trying to convince you.

There has never been a controlled study examine toothpaste ingestion for obvious ethical reasons! We can't set up studies to see if one group will get ill on a treatment. I am just stating facts about the LABEL on toothpaste.

My point was not to suggest that fluoridation of water is THE SAME as ingesting it in tablet form; my point was to show you the evidence that it has been used as a hyperthyroid treatment since it reduced thyroid function. Speak to any older doctor in his/her 60's or above and they will recall using fluoride in this way.

The brief history I cited was meant to be just that. I wasn’t citing it as a scientific source.

Is there any reason why you are being so sarcastic and derisive towards me?

I wish people would open their minds. I have read both sides of many medical and dietary issues and am still undecided, but I don't dismiss others opinions as quackery just because they are not in line with mine. I also do not think placebo controlled, double blind studies provide all the answers to everything. Not the way science is run now.

We don't put antibitoics in the water do we?

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

I am not well at the moment and forgot how this board works. Since I don't have time to cite every source I have ever read, it seems nobody here will even open their closed minds. Fine. You think fluoride is great. I don't. I just don't have the energy to go and look for more info. If you were interested in opening your mind you would, but it seems you are not. So, no point in me trying to convince you.

There has never been a controlled study examine toothpaste ingestion for obvious ethical reasons! We can't set up studies to see if one group will get ill on a treatment. I am just stating facts about the LABEL on toothpaste.

My point was not to suggest that fluoridation of water is THE SAME as ingesting it in tablet form; my point was to show you the evidence that it has been used as a hyperthyroid treatment since it reduced thyroid function. Speak to any older doctor in his/her 60's or above and they will recall using fluoride in this way.

The brief history I cited was meant to be just that. I wasn’t citing it as a scientific source.

Is there any reason why you are being so sarcastic and derisive towards me?

I wish people would open their minds. I have read both sides of many medical and dietary issues and am still undecided, but I don't dismiss others opinions as quackery just because they are not in line with mine. I also do not think placebo controlled, double blind studies provide all the answers to everything. Not the way science is run now.

We don't put antibitoics in the water do we?

The same "open minded" bull**** you get for daring to ask someone to back up their claims... Yay.

Since you are obviously so open minded, can you please outline what evidence/reasoning would convince you that fluoridation is safe?

bleg

lynnsback wrote: »

We don't put antibitoics in the water do we?

You have completely and utterly missed my point.

I was merely pointing out that just because something is listed as a poison in the statutes book doesn't mean that it cannot be used at a safe dose for a health benefit (in fluoride's case, preventing cavities).

The evidence is clear to me that the beneficial effects of water fluoridation outweigh the side effects, namely the superficial whitening of a small minority of people's teeth.



By the way, we chlorinate our water to kill bacteria .

Chlorine is a poison.

lynnsback

It is not that you asked for sources. It is your derisive tone, dripping with sarcasm. On other boards, people discuss topics back and forth without sarcasm and aggressive language.

The fact that fluoride displaces iodine is enough for me to think twice about it. Then, couple that with the fact that we get fluoride in our water, in our tea, when we eat out etc. that is a heck of a lot of fluoride.

There is pretty much nothing that would convince me that fluoride is safe in water. We shall agree to disagree.

At least you know you are safe in your views and won't be attacked for not having enough sources to back them up. As I said though, I forgot how this board works; in that unless one has multiple published papers one can instantly produce, forget it. I am not well enough to do so.

I will leave you with the comment that all the thyroidologists I have seen as a patient, whose books I have read or listened to at a recent conference are against fluoridation of water.

lynnsback

bleg wrote: »

Chlorine is a poison.

I would rather chlorine was not in the water also.

bleg

I'm a thyroidologist. I'm also a nutritionist. These are unprotected terms in Ireland that anybody can call themselves. Anybody off the street.

Endocrinologist is the protected title.


(Dietitian is the protected title for those dealing with people's diets by the way)

bleg

lynnsback wrote: »

I would rather chlorine was not in the water also.

I wouldn't, I'd prefer tiny concentrations of chlorine than high concentrations of disease causing organisms to be honest. Anyway that's a different topic for a different thread.

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

It is not that you asked for sources. It is your derisive tone, dripping with sarcasm. On other boards, people discuss topics back and forth without sarcasm and aggressive language.

The fact that fluoride displaces iodine is enough for me to think twice about it. Then, couple that with the fact that we get fluoride in our water, in our tea, when we eat out etc. that is a heck of a lot of fluoride.

There is pretty much nothing that would convince me that fluoride is safe in water. We shall agree to disagree.

Then you are by definition, close minded.

lynnsback wrote: »

At least you know you are safe in your views and won't be attacked for not having enough sources to back them up. As I said though, I forgot how this board works; in that unless one has multiple published papers one can instantly produce, forget it. I am not well enough to do so.

I will leave you with the comment that all the thyroidologists I have seen as a patient, whose books I have read or listened to at a recent conference are against fluoridation of water.

Well no, because my view is backed up by good, well reviewed sources.
It's a science forum, so that's expected.

However, unlike you I am open minded. But open minded doesn't mean instantly buying everything I read.
I require something to supported by something other than ill informed, deceptive nonsense posted on a site that promotes quackery like "electromedicine."
Hence why I was asking you for good sources.

But as you've said you've already made up your mind and aren't interested in any discussion that might oppose your worldview...

lynnsback

bleg wrote: »

I'm a thyroidologist. I'm also a nutritionist. These are unprotected terms in Ireland that anybody can call themselves. Anybody off the street.

Endocrinologist is the protected title.


(Dietitian is the protected title for those dealing with people's diets by the way)

I am not talking about Irish doctors. There are no prominent Irish thyroidologists. I know what a dietitian is also. Patronising much.....

lynnsback

King Mob wrote: »

Then you are by definition, close minded.


Well no, because my view is backed up by good, well reviewed sources.
It's a science forum, so that's expected.

However, unlike you I am open minded. But open minded doesn't mean instantly buying everything I read.
I require something to supported by something other than ill informed, deceptive nonsense posted on a site that promotes quackery like "electromedicine."
Hence why I was asking you for good sources.

But as you've said you've already made up your mind and aren't interested in any discussion that might oppose your worldview...

I am not close minded, because I read both sides of the fluoride debate before making up my mind. I get the impression that you have not read much from the anti- fluoride side however.

I was proving an alternative view for the OP because I knew everyone else here would be pro fluoride. Turns out I was right.

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

I am not close minded, because I read both sides of the fluoride debate before making up my mind.

How can you be open minded yet say:

There is pretty much nothing that would convince me that fluoride is safe in water.

That's the very definition of being closed minded.
How do you know that there's no new reasoning or evidence that could convince you?

lynnsback wrote: »

I get the impression that you have not read much from the anti- fluoride side however.

I have.
It's mostly quackery mixed with paranoid conspiracy theory.
And without well verified scientific evidence, completely empty waffle.

lynnsback wrote: »

I was proving an alternative view for the OP because I knew everyone else here would be pro fluoride. Turns out I was right.

Didn't you know we're all paid by the Illuminati and Big Pharma...

bleg

lynnsback wrote: »

I am not talking about Irish doctors. There are no prominent Irish thyroidologists. I know what a dietitian is also. Patronising much.....

Any names of these so called thyroidologists?


Only put the dietitian bit at the end in case anybody was curious. Did not mean to be patronising.

lynnsback

King Mob wrote: »

How can you be open minded yet say:

That's the very definition of being closed minded.
How do you know that there's no new reasoning or evidence that could convince you?


I have.
It's mostly quackery mixed with paranoid conspiracy theory.
And without well verified scientific evidence, completely empty waffle.


Didn't you know we're all paid by the Illuminati and Big Pharma...

Well then, I guess I was wrong and you HAVE read both sides. However, the fact that you did not know the well established effects of fluoride on the thyroid tells me you did not read enough, since it is one of the main objections to fluoride. I concede your point on the dosage of fluoride in water being heck of lot less than in tablets though.

You mention it as being 'empty waffle', but aren't all theories waffle in the theory stage, before they are empirically studied? Sadly, there ain’t much funding available to show the negative side of fluoride. Plus, again, I am not sure such a study would be allowed for ethical reasons.

Big Pharma certainly has corrupted the medical world yes. Nothing wrong with medicines, but Big Pharma is not about healing people; merely about easing symptoms. Thus we now have generations of doctors who look at each symptom in isolation; a pill for this; a pill for that, instead of looking for root causes, environmental influences, diet etc.

I know you were being sarcastic, but I find it sad that researchers are no longer able to have true scientific freedom. I admire researchers that are constantly sceptical, but most will fall prey to confirmation bias even without Big Pharma. Just human nature.

bleg

lynnsback wrote: »

Big Pharma certainly has corrupted the medical world yes. Nothing wrong with medicines, but Big Pharma is not about healing people; merely about easing symptoms. Thus we now have generations of doctors who look at each symptom in isolation; a pill for this; a pill for that, instead of looking for root causes, environmental influences, diet etc.

Complete bollocks actually.

Health professionals are taught the cause of disease incl all known lifestyle factors etc... as well as the non pharmacological and pharmacological interactions that can be taken.

lynnsback

bleg wrote: »

Any names of these so called thyroidologists?


Only put the dietitian bit at the end in case anybody was curious. Did not mean to be patronising.

Well, the doctors I am talking about do not refer to themselves as thyroidologists. I have just seen them referred to by others as this. Good thyroid specialists who are well known to thyroid patients include:

Dr. Kent Holtorf

Dr. Mark Starr

Dr. Broda Barnes (now deceased)

Dr. Barry-Durant Peatfield

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

Well then, I guess I was wrong and you HAVE read both sides. However, the fact that you did not know the well established effects of fluoride on the thyroid tells me you did not read enough, since it is one of the main objections to fluoride. I concede your point on the dosage of fluoride in water being heck of lot less than in tablets though.

Well established effects of fluoride?
That's not the whole truth is it?

People drowning is a well established effect of water, but is it an honest illustration of the effects of normal water drinking?

lynnsback wrote: »

You mention it as being 'empty waffle', but aren't all theories waffle in the theory stage, before they are empirically studied? Sadly, there ain’t much funding available to show the negative side of fluoride. Plus, again, I am not sure such a study would be allowed for ethical reasons.

So then if there's no studies showing negative effect of fluoride, how exactly do you know that there is?

lynnsback wrote: »

Big Pharma certainly has corrupted the medical world yes. Nothing wrong with medicines, but Big Pharma is not about healing people; merely about easing symptoms. Thus we now have generations of doctors who look at each symptom in isolation; a pill for this; a pill for that, instead of looking for root causes, environmental influences, diet etc.

And no body makes money off perpetuating quackery like the "ill effects of fluoride"?

lynnsback wrote: »

I know you were being sarcastic, but I find it sad that researchers are no longer able to have true scientific freedom. I admire researchers that are constantly sceptical, but most will fall prey to confirmation bias even without Big Pharma. Just human nature.

Well isn't ignoring all major studies because of a shadowy evil conspiracy a confirmation bias?

ballsymchugh

as i posted earlier, the york review was a peer reviewed study into all non-agenda based literature published on fluoride and it's effects. it found that the benefits outweighed the harmful effects.
i wouldn't go quoting CT based websites like the sovereign independent to back up a post. next we'll have an article from Alive!

lynnsback

bleg wrote: »

Complete bollocks actually.

Health professionals are taught the cause of disease incl all known lifestyle factors etc... as well as the non pharmacological and pharmacological interactions that can be taken.

Yes they are taught them, but perhaps lack of time or fatigue (a major problem caused by the disgraceful way doctors are treated in the HSE anyway) stops this. I am well aware of the horrific pressure doctors are put under in Ireland by the way.

I am speaking as someone who was ill for years (a lot of my twenties were wasted being ill ) and was sent away with pills upon pills; while my chronic conditions were missed however.

I have been to so many doctors and wasted so much money trying to get well. It wasn’t until I took my health into my own hands and started researching that I got better. I asked for specific tests and only then was the root causes of my 'symptoms' identified.

I have lucked upon an amazing GP now, but no other doctor has ever asked me for names of books I have read or had a mutual discussion with me regarding my treatment.

Docs in general are taught very little about nutrition though. I know this from my best friend's GF who IS a doctor herself.

lynnsback

ballsymchugh wrote: »

as i posted earlier, the york review was a peer reviewed study into all non-agenda based literature published on fluoride and it's effects. it found that the benefits outweighed the harmful effects.
i wouldn't go quoting CT based websites like the sovereign independent to back up a post. next we'll have an article from Alive!

What is a CT based website?

bleg

lynnsback wrote: »

Docs in general are taught very little about nutrition though. I know this from my best friend's GF who IS a doctor herself.

I don't mean to sound condescending and sorry if I do but it's not a doctor's job to know the ins and outs of nutrition, that's a dietitian's job. AFAIK they're taught the basics of a good balanced diet that will keep you healthy. I'm certainly open to correction though.

FISMA

Fact, fluoride is toxic. No scientist disputes this.

Read this
http://www.tldp.com/issue/157-8/157fluor.htm

FISMA

FISMA wrote: »

Fact, fluoride is toxic. No scientist disputes this.

Read this
http://www.tldp.com/issue/157-8/157fluor.htm

Everything ever is toxic.
it depends on the dose.

You can die from water poisoning, but the amount you're need to drink is ridiculous.

bleg

King Mob wrote: »

Everything ever is toxic.
it depends on the dose.

You can die from water poisoning, but the amount you're need to drink is ridiculous.

or inhale:P

lynnsback

bleg wrote: »

I don't mean to sound condescending and sorry if I do but it's not a doctor's job to know the ins and outs of nutrition, that's a dietitian's job. AFAIK they're taught the basics of a good balanced diet that will keep you healthy. I'm certainly open to correction though.

I am merely referring to your point that docs are taught all environmental and lifestyle interventions. They are not; as you confirmed. Only to a small extent. A pity really, as diet makes such a difference to health. Things like fatty acid proportions in the diet, the effect of fat on hormones, protein on mental health etc are never explored in any depth.

bleg

lynnsback wrote: »

I am merely referring to your point that docs are taught all environmental and lifestyle interventions. They are not; as you confirmed. Only to a small extent.

They are taught adequately. The majority of the patients they see will not need to see a dietitian. Those that do will be referred according to the doc's professional opinion.

lynnsback

King Mob wrote: »

Well established effects of fluoride?
That's not the whole truth is it?

People drowning is a well established effect of water, but is it an honest illustration of the effects of normal water drinking?

Well swimming is a different activity to drinking. It is a FACT that fluoride suppresses the thyroid. Seriously. It is not in any way in dispute. It is just not as commonly used as it was.

King Mob wrote: »

So then if there's no studies showing negative effect of fluoride, how exactly do you know that there is?

I believe that anything that messes with the iodine balance of the body is a bad thing. Too much or too little iodine is harmful, which is why I have not jumped on the iodine bandwagon. If I believed everything I read, believe me I would have. I remain sceptical about iodine and its effect on Hashimotos. Many docs rave about it, such as Dr. Brownstein, but I hear individual stories of patients whose symptoms worsened on iodine. I also hear stories of people who feel amazing on it. So, I do not object to others believing in it.

Therefore, why it is an issue for me to believe that fluoride is harmful in our water? At least in countries with fluoridated salt, they can buy foreign salt without it. I have to shower, bathe, wash dishes and drink fluoridated water. I wanted to get a reverse osmosis system but they leech out important minerals such as magnesium. So, I would rather the government not make this choice for me.

King Mob wrote: »

And no body makes money off perpetuating quackery like the "ill effects of fluoride"?

What exactly would the source of this income be? Seriously? The anti fluoride side is not exactly well funded. A few books get sold and that sems to be pretty much it.

King Mob wrote: »

Well isn't ignoring all major studies because of a shadowy evil conspiracy a confirmation bias?

I don't ignore all major studies. I am just saying many scientists are not free to research like they would like to. Not all.

Once again, in my book anything that displace iodine will always be a negative thing.

lynnsback

bleg wrote: »

They are taught adequately. The majority of the patients they see will not need to see a dietitian. Those that do will be referred according to the doc's professional opinion.

You have just confirmed my exact point. Modern medicine thinks nutrition has very little to do with disease, aside from very obvious deficiency diseases such as pellagra or rickets, anaemia, coelaic disease and of course the lipid hypothesis.

Good night all.

You guys have a lot of energy for debating!!!

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

Well swimming is a different activity to drinking.

And medically administering fluoride in high doses is a different activity to drinking fluoridated water....

lynnsback wrote: »

It is a FACT that fluoride suppresses the thyroid.

That's also not the full truth is it?
It's a fact that a study showed that high doses of Fluoride can help treat thyroid problems.

So saying fluoride suppresses the thyroid.
Is no different than saying water causes drowning.

lynnsback wrote: »

Seriously. It is not in any way in dispute. It is just not as commonly used as it was.

My statement is not in dispute. Yours is oversimplification.

lynnsback wrote: »

Therefore, why it is an issue for me to believe that fluoride is harmful in our water?

Because the evidence shows that it is not.

lynnsback wrote: »

At least in countries with fluoridated salt, they can buy foreign salt without it. I have to shower, bathe, wash dishes and drink fluoridated water.

So you're saying that everyone else should have to suffer increased tooth decay because you'd bpught into bad unsupported information?

lynnsback wrote: »

I wanted to get a reverse osmosis system but they leech out important minerals such as magnesium. So, I would rather the government not make this choice for me.

lynnsback wrote: »

What exactly would the source of this income be? Seriously? The anti fluoride side is not exactly well funded. A few books get sold and that sems to be pretty much it.

A reverse osmosis system perhaps?
Books, websites, DVD, "medicines", healings, Lecture tours and so on.

Do you really believe no one has an interest in spread misinformation like this?

lynnsback wrote: »

I don't ignore all major studies. I am just saying many scientists are not free to research like they would like to. Not all.

So what about all the studies that show clearly that fluoridation is both safe and effective?

lynnsback wrote: »

Once again, in my book anything that displace iodine will always be a negative thing.

Bet this is based on good solid medical research alright.

N8

Fluoride Debate on RTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebpJJeiL_E

Also
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/act-on-fluoride-study-now-2070436.html

sorry King's Mob although fluoride now appears to be another one of the Holy Grail grouping where are these studies (to match your assertions) showing

a) what exactly fluoridation of the water with hexafluorosilicic acid is effective for
b) that high doses of fluoride can help treat thyroid problems
c) fluoride is not harmful in our water (despite its banning in other EU countries)
d) decreased dental decay is as a direct result of fluoridation and not an increased attention to dental health and its upkeep.
e) and finally that displacing iodine will have a positive effect.

Otherwise you are badgering someone willing to express an opinion that although in opposition to yours is every bit as valid.

Lynnsback you should realise also that although this forum bears the name 'Health Science' it is not. It functions as a medical science forum related to disease and infirmity. There is neither the knowledge base, nor will to find out about health and wellness here.

If you were to state black is black, many on here would argue that it is white and that you must indeed prove it is black and until you have convinced 'them' the aforementioned black will continue to be white.

And of course 'they' will always know better than you.

GradMed

Sorry, this is a good few posts back.

lynnsback wrote: »

I am not well at the moment and forgot how this board works. Since I don't have time to cite every source I have ever read, it seems nobody here will even open their closed minds. Fine. You think fluoride is great. I don't. I just don't have the energy to go and look for more info. If you were interested in opening your mind you would, but it seems you are not. So, no point in me trying to convince you.

Actually the people you're speaking to on the forum are open minded. If you present compelling evidence that opposes their viewpoint they will re-evaluate their position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

(sorry King Mob, I posted before reading your responses)

N8

N8 wrote: »

sorry King's Mob althought fluoride now appears to be another one of the Holy Grail grouping where are these studies showing

a) that high doses of Fluoride can help treat thyroid problems

This was actually a study posted by lynnsback, whose conclusion they badly overstated.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/10/1102

N8 wrote: »

b) fluoride is not harmful in our water and is effective for what exactly

c) decreased dental decay is as adirect result of fluoridation and not an increased attention to dental health and its upkeep.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415937

CONCLUSIONS: Tooth decay reduction observed in the Blue Mountains corresponds to high rates reported elsewhere and demonstrates the substantial benefits of water fluoridation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406153

CONCLUSION: Fluoridation remains still a very cost-effective measure for reducing dental decay.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20405337

It is concluded that the consumption of fluoridated water from water supply did not affect plasma glucose levels even in cases of animals with renal disease. However, a resistance to insulin action was demonstrated.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19772843

The results of the three reviews showed that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries in children and adults. With the exception of dental fluorosis, no association between adverse effects and water fluoridation has been established. Water fluoridation reduces caries for all social classes, and there is some evidence that it may reduce the oral health gap between social classes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27492/

Conclusions
The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415910

CONCLUSIONS: Community water fluoridation remains a cost-effective preventive measure in Australia.

And it's even safe for the environment.
http://cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/pdf/pollick.pdf

CONCLUSION
Scientific evidence supports the fluoridation of public water supplies as safe for the environment and beneficial to people.

And these are just from wikipeida and the first few pages of a Pubmed search, I'd post a lot more, but it's pretty tedious.
If you want even more you can see just how extensive it is.

However since you qualified your request so specifically I am sure that you'll be able to show exactly how that this invalidates all of those studies.
I mean you surely wouldn't use that a lame excuse to dismiss these studies without actually reading them.

N8 wrote: »

d) and finally that displacing iodine will have a positive effect.

Never said it did.
I would like to see some studies showing that 1) fluoride has any effect on Iodine in your body and 2) that such an effect is in anyway harmful.

N8 wrote: »

Otherwise you are badgering someone willing to express an opinion that although in opposition to yours is every bit as valid.

Lynnsback you should realise also that although this forum bears the name 'Health Science' it is not. It functions as a medical science forum related to disease and infirmity. There is neither the knowledge base, nor will to find out out about health and wellness here.

If you were to state black is black, many on here would argue that it is white and theat you must indeed prove it is black and until you have convinced 'them' the aforementioned black will continue to be white.

And of course 'they' will always know better than you.

Listen, the suppressed underdog schtick is a tired fallacy, pull the other one.

If you make a positive claim, what the problem with backing it up?

And I also find this silly little rant of yours very hypocritical when Lynnsback has categorically shown that they are the definition of close minded.

But suppose only those that disagree with you can be close minded.

N8

N8 wrote: »

Also
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/act-on-fluoride-study-now-2070436.html

I just realised that this is a letter to the independant, not an article by them.
What was it Charlie Brooker said?
"We're turning on the idiot magnet now...."

Also this gem of stupidity:

Fluoride in drinking water is not safe for bottle-fed babies and fluoridation should therefore stop.

Whole fat milk is not safe for bottle-fed babies and fluoridation should therefore stop.
7-up is not safe for bottle-fed babies and fluoridation should therefore stop.

And so on...

N8

King Mob wrote: »

And these are just from wikipeida and the first few pages of a Pubmed search, I'd post a lot more, but it's pretty tedious.

perhaps you should have read a little wider on wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

King Mob wrote: »

I mean you surely wouldn't use that a lame excuse to dismiss these studies without actually reading them.

Have you read them? It's hard to imagine so given their depth and time spread across this thread.

King Mob wrote: »

Listen, the suppressed underdog schtick is a tired fallacy, pull the other one.

I love it when a skepdick returns to this...

King Mob wrote: »

And I also find this silly little rant of yours very hypocritical

... and statement of position is described as such...

King Mob wrote: »

What was it Charlie Brooker said?
"We're turning on the idiot magnet now...."

Also this gem of stupidity:

Whole fat milk is not safe for bottle-fed babies and fluoridation should therefore stop.
7-up is not safe for bottle-fed babies and fluoridation should therefore stop.

And so on...

... and then we have the classic turn of discussion and invalid comparision.

And you have to love the mutual back clappings (thanks to posts) and ego masturbation...