Fluoride update re IQ

jimeryan22 · 01-07-2014 05:18PM

King Mob wrote: »

I still don't understand why you think they might have done it at all.
You can't say 100% they didn't use space laser beams to kill people during the holocaust either...

There needs to be a reason to think it's a possibility but so far you've said there's no evidence for it.

So what specifically is flawed or manipulated in the paper?

Why is the Harvard study trustworthy when it too comes from an American association?

To be honest there's so much bull in this field it's hard to know.. But here's the first 2 articles that came up with regards to CDC and AMA... We'd be here all day If we're to discuss their efficacy..
I don't trust none of them and that's it...

http://www.sntp.net/fda/ama_lynes.htm

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/tag/cdc/

02-07-2014 12:46AM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

To be honest there's so much bull in this field it's hard to know.. But here's the first 2 articles that came up with regards to CDC and AMA... We'd be here all day If we're to discuss their efficacy..
I don't trust none of them and that's it...

You have actually explained why you don't trust them beyond that conspiracy sites told you not to trust them.
You trusted a conspiracy site enough to declare a total fabrication a "undisputed fact".
You seem to trust a Harvard study because you think it shows that fluoridation is dangerous (it doesn't).

So don't you think it's unfair to reject studies out of hand for no reason other than you don't agree with them?
Don't you think it's a little silly to reject studies because they are untrustworthy while then accepting total lies from other sources?

09-07-2014 09:48PM

Here is a link to some background on GAF's mentor, scary stuff

http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.ie/2008/11/be-aware-of-who-you-believe-and-what.html?m=1

Some accusations on twitter that she receives a commission on water filters also.

Personally don't think she is in it for the money given the company she keeps. Think she genuinely believes in this sort of nonsense.

weisses · 10-07-2014 08:58AM

jh79 wrote: »

Here is a link to some background on GAF's mentor, scary stuff

http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.ie/2008/11/be-aware-of-who-you-believe-and-what.html?m=1

Some accusations on twitter that she receives a commission on water filters also.

Personally don't think she is in it for the money given the company she keeps. Think she genuinely believes in this sort of nonsense.

Asked it earlier on the other thread.

What is it with your obsession with GAF ?

10-07-2014 11:33AM

It is a thread about fluoridation in Ireland and she is the most vocal opponent of fluoridation.

She is the source, in conjunction with Waugh, for all the nonsense spouted about fluoride by the anti-fluoridation campaigners.

If GAF and Waugh didn't start this campaign would there even be an anti-fluoridation movement in Ireland? Personally doubt it.

weisses · 10-07-2014 11:47AM

jh79 wrote: »

It is a thread about fluoridation in Ireland and she is the most vocal opponent of fluoridation.

She is the source, in conjunction with Waugh, for all the nonsense spouted about fluoride by the anti-fluoridation campaigners.

If GAF and Waugh didn't start this campaign would there even be an anti-fluoridation movement in Ireland? Personally doubt it.

No this thread about "fluoride update re IQ"

I know about your issues/obsession with both Waugh and GAF

There was plenty of talk about Waugh and GAF in the other thread

All you did here in the new thread is posting links to skeptic waffle with reference to a study done in a small town in NZ.

I made my case without the use of both

Bringing up Waugh and GAF is getting boring tbh and adds nothing to the debate imo

10-07-2014 12:09PM

Fair enough, i'll leave them out of it.

To bring it back on topic so,

Harvard paper shows a small loss in IQ across various poor quality studies from China. Critics of this study point out that a number of other factors are just of as likely to have contributed to this loss in IQ given pollution issues in China. The lack of any background on diet, socio-economic factors, parental IQ etc are other glaring holes in the Chinese studies.

Grandjean recognises these flaws but choses to ignore their impact without any rational. Probably bearing these flaws in mind , he only says fluoride may be a neurotoxin at high levels and later adds that no judgement can be made on water fluoridation with his research.

The New Zealand study doesn't suffer from the flaws above and shows no loss in IQ.

It would be a fair assumption to make that the IQ loss seen in China was not due to fluoride but other contaminants or poor experimental design regarding sampling.

Grandjean has some criticism of the NZ paper on his website, but unfortunately does not address any of the criticisms, made by the authour of the NZ paper, of his meta-analysis paper.

07-10-2014 09:57AM

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/water-fluoridation-1.1951487

Letter today in the Irish Times for a change it is pro-fluoridation.

weisses · 07-10-2014 10:38AM

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/water-fluoridation-1.1951487

Letter today in the Irish Times for a change it is pro-fluoridation.

Still strange that Ireland is the only country in Europe that mass fluoridate.

And Tooth decay in other non mass fluoridating western European countries are equal or less as research shows.

Anyway its a Nice pro mass fluoridation piece ... Wonder if they had to pay for this ... Its almost an advertisement

Time for the considerable advantages in terms of improvements in oral health to be demonstrated and, in parallel, time during which there has been no documented medical side-effects of water fluoridation.

Would be nice if the would have mentioned the equal improvements in non mass fluoridating countries ... Wouldn't suit them probably, would expose their own shortcomings in properly promoting dental health in the past 50 years.

07-10-2014 10:59AM

weisses wrote: »

Still strange that Ireland is the only country in Europe that mass fluoridate.

And Tooth decay in other non mass fluoridating western European countries are equal or less as research shows.

Anyway its a Nice pro mass fluoridation piece ... Wonder if they had to pay for this ... Its almost an advertisement

Would be nice if the would have mentioned the equal improvements in non mass fluoridating countries ... Wouldn't suit them probably, would expose their own shortcomings in properly promoting dental health in the past 50 years.

Fluoride levels are not uniform across Europe (San Pellingrino bottled water has practically the same fluoride as us), some countries don't drink tap water , other have different fluoridation programs eg salt and politicians don't always make the right decisions considering what the scientific consensus is.

And in some countries decay is worse. No reflection on its effectiveness.

Who would pay for the piece, all civil servants in protected posts , no reason for them to support anything they didn't believe in.

Broadly in agreement with your last point except again this has no bearing on whether fluoridation is effective. It only questions its necessity.

weisses · 07-10-2014 11:27AM

jh79 wrote: »

Broadly in agreement with your last point except again this has no bearing on whether fluoridation is effective. It only questions its necessity.

I don't think we where ever in disagreement about the benefits of fluoride

Its more the delivery system I still have major issues with and the failure of politics to address this issue ...

If you drink your Tea, Brush your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, drink fluoridated water Its easy to get a overexposure to fluoride.

Safe levels are being brought down over the years and not up

Its not a one size fits all solution ... (something most European counties recognized and acted upon accordingly)

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/now-were-paying-for-water-let-us-choose-if-it-has-fluoride-30628453.html

She raises some valid point in Fairness

07-10-2014 01:18PM

weisses wrote: »

I don't think we where ever in disagreement about the benefits of fluoride

Its more the delivery system I still have major issues with and the failure of politics to address this issue ...

If you drink your Tea, Brush your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, drink fluoridated water Its easy to get a overexposure to fluoride.

Safe levels are being brought down over the years and not up

Its not a one size fits all solution ... (something most European counties recognized and acted upon accordingly)

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/now-were-paying-for-water-let-us-choose-if-it-has-fluoride-30628453.html

She raises some valid point in Fairness

Not interested in the delivery system myself just the lie that there is evidence of fluoride toxicity at low levels (Harvard study isn't evidence , the author says so himself).

That article is terrible , just a regurgitation of Declan Waugh's lies when it comes to toxicity.

weisses · 07-10-2014 01:28PM

jh79 wrote: »

Not interested in the delivery system myself just the lie that there is evidence of fluoride toxicity at low levels (Harvard study isn't evidence , the author says so himself).

That article is terrible , just a regurgitation of Declan Waugh's lies when it comes to toxicity.

So why is the EPA recommending lower levels when there is according to you no adverse effect at current levels

07-10-2014 02:14PM

weisses wrote: »

So why is the EPA recommending lower levels when there is according to you no adverse effect at current levels

Why ask such a question when the obvious response would be to show research that shows toxicity at less than 1ppm?

EPA in the US? They recommend <4ppm and a lower non enforceable <2.0ppm (to prevent cosmetic damage)

If it is the EPA in Ireland thy are following the recommendations of the Forum for Fluoridation who say cosmetic fluorosis is a possibility at > 1.2ppm.

You are aware of this already??
Did the EPA recommend a lowering of the 0.7ppm limit recently?

weisses · 07-10-2014 02:39PM

My point is that what was considered a safe level years ago is lowered every time

If we would have had this discussion in the seventies you would have argued that 4 ppm is perfectly safe as there are no studies saying otherwise

07-10-2014 06:06PM

weisses wrote: »

My point is that what was considered a safe level years ago is lowered every time

If we would have had this discussion in the seventies you would have argued that 4 ppm is perfectly safe as there are no studies saying otherwise

True but we can only go on the research available to us.

But the levels we have are relatively low and can be found in nature at even higher rates. Do we take all the fluoride out at great expense?

If you believe 0.7 ppm to be toxic then what should we do about mineral water like San Pellegrino (0.6ppm) or tea (up to 3ppm), should they be classed as "medicine" or removed from sale or restricted like alcohol ?

cdoherty86 · 07-10-2014 06:41PM

I would just like to say that Fluride is helthy and nutritios and I know because I'm consumd alot of water.
fluride is what you need to increse your IQ and debunk all those conspircy therists who are just out there and dont know about the reel world.

i'm tyred of all the feer monguring going on about fluride.

weisses · 07-10-2014 07:56PM

cdoherty86 wrote: »

I would just like to say that Fluride is helthy and nutritios and I know because I'm consumd alot of water.
fluride is what you need to increse your IQ and debunk all those conspircy therists who are just out there and dont know about the reel world.

i'm tyred of all the feer monguring going on about fluride.

Or ........ Your keyboard is fecked :P

cdoherty86 · 07-10-2014 08:52PM

I drank Irish tap water my whole life which may or may not have been low in fluoride, you be the judge of that

. I'm no intellectual but I disbelieve in the arguments made by some people that fluoridation is necessary...that's bull**** to me.

I really don't see any logical justification for fluoridation of water.

There are people in parts of South America who have full set of teeth into their 40s/50s yet never seen a dentist or had a tooth decay in their lives. They don't use toothpaste or mouthwash yet still manage to have teeth.

Why? Because of their diet. They don't eat crap that rots their teeth so they don't need dentistry or toothpaste, mouthwash. There's no conspiracy really, I think it's just down to diet mostly.

There are acidic foods which will rot your teeth, even if you brush 2 times a day.

In any case, Fluoridation of water is nonsense..what did humans do for millions of years prior to it? We need to stop being bamboozled by misinformed people.

07-10-2014 09:03PM

Fluoride has always been present in water.

cdoherty86 · 07-10-2014 09:14PM

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoride has always been present in water.

It does occur naturally but not in the quantities justified through water fluoridation and it's not the same. It's also added to food for example and there's really no justification for it.

If people in remote parts of South America can live well into their 40s/50s with a full set of teeth, there's no reason why we can't do the same.

It basically comes down to what you eat. In western societies, we have a diet that's almost unnatural. We're drinking cans of sugar like coca cola and sprite, then thinking diet sodas are the solution ignoring the fact it's full of acidic chemicals which the body needs to replace with calcium.

Alcohol, coffee, bread for example are highly acidic and unnecessary foods humans in the west consume. Chocolate...you name it, our diet is not what our bodies were evolved for.

We should be eating green vegetables and fruits which do indeed contain sugars but NOT sugars found in every day garbage we're forced to consume. Fructose is released much slower.

cdoherty86 · 07-10-2014 09:25PM

I would add the practice is almost Neanderthal.

If we're not smart enough by now to know certain foods/drinks will rot our teeth, we're clearly not indoctrinating people properly.

If you don't like a good diet, you can buy toothpaste and mouthwash, eat your wagon wheels and mars bars, then visit your dentist for fillings.

It's not justification to punish everyone else with fluoridated water, it's absolutely ridiculous.

Chimpanzees wouldn't drink fluoridated water, they know better.

weisses · 11-10-2014 01:04PM

Step in the right direction,

Maybe fluoride is not lowering IQ after all ...

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-vote-fluoride-1710194-Oct2014/

enno99 · 11-10-2014 01:34PM

Something I was pondering recently
if fluoride is a medication
Would Irish Water need a license to dispense a medication ?
And if It was found that it causes problems would they be liable ?

11-10-2014 03:08PM

weisses wrote: »

Step in the right direction,

Maybe fluoride is not lowering IQ after all ...

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-vote-fluoride-1710194-Oct2014/

None of the mainstream parties voted against it so looks like it is here to stay for a while yet.

11-10-2014 03:11PM

enno99 wrote: »

Something I was pondering recently
if fluoride is a medication
Would Irish Water need a license to dispense a medication ?
And if It was found that it causes problems would they be liable ?

Tea has fluoride too and bottled water such as San Pellegrino , does tea on prescription only seem a reasonable action?

weisses · 11-10-2014 03:13PM

jh79 wrote: »

None of the mainstream parties voted against it so looks like it is here to stay for a while yet.

Like I said ...... its a step, they will get there eventually and follow the rest of the civilised countries

11-10-2014 03:16PM

weisses wrote: »

Like I said ...... its a step, they will get there eventually and follow the rest of the civilised countries

I always thought that government intervention to improve society was the mark of a civilized country.

11-10-2014 03:19PM

weisses wrote: »

Step in the right direction,

Maybe fluoride is not lowering IQ after all ...

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-vote-fluoride-1710194-Oct2014/

Did it make any of the papers, I only heard about it on here.

enno99 · 11-10-2014 05:14PM

jh79 wrote: »

Tea has fluoride too and bottled water such as San Pellegrino , does tea on prescription only seem a reasonable action?

Off hand can you tell me how much fluoride PG Tips and Barrys /Nestle add to their products ?
Do they claim that their products are beneficial to dental health ?

Fluoride update re IQ

Comments