Water Fluoridation

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

King Mob

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

King Mob

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!!!

King Mob

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)

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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...

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

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

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

I have read that as a matter of fact.
None of the health concerns are supported by science.
Even the moral concerns are based on suspect reasoning.

N8 wrote: »

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

I read the abstracts, specifically the conclusions.
These are illustrative of the body of evidence supporting both effectiveness and safety of fluoridation.

Remember how you asked me for the studies that show this?
Well there they are.

Are you just going to dismiss them out of hand then?
Or are you going to at least pretend to have a proper discussion?

N8 wrote: »

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

Pretending to be a suppressed underdog to hide the lack of evidence is a fallacy...
So I'd imagine us skepdicks return to this alot with you...

N8 wrote: »

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

You give out to us for not being willing to discuss or consider new evidence, yet lynnsback was the one who said "Nothing can convince me".

Now are they words "Nothing can convince me" something an open-minded person would say?

N8 wrote: »

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

If you think a letter to the editor is a valid source of information then you've a problem.

Can yo demonstrate why my comparisions are false exactly?
Both whole fat milk and 7-up aren't good for babies, should we discontinue them?

N8 wrote: »

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

Yup they're the only way I can judge my self worth.

I don't know where I'd be without my precious thanks.....
But you're clearly just jealous cause you only have 3.

N8

King Mob wrote: »

I have read that as a matter of fact.
None of the health concerns are supported by science.
Even the moral concerns are based on suspect reasoning.

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

Well good to know all that crap about us not "wanting to discuss" was indeed hypocritical hot air.

Suppose it's easier than having a informed and supported opinion....

N8

N8 wrote: »

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.

King Mob wrote: »

I have read that as a matter of fact.
None of the health concerns are supported by science.
Even the moral concerns are based on suspect reasoning.

sorry King's mob you're right of course - its just hard for the cynicism not to rise to the top when you self illustrate the point I made early with the retort 'my evidence is better than your evidence...' type thing...

I wish we had some real skepticism in science today instead of ego blowing skepdicks...

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

sorry King's mob you're right of course - its just hard for the cynicism not to rise to the top when you self illustrate the point I made early with the retort 'my evidence is better than your evidence...' type thing...

My evidence are well researched scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals.
Your evidence is... what exactly?
Uninformed, unsupported conspiracy theories?

I've supplied several studies showing both the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation like you asked for. But your reply is a Lolcat?
So yea, my evidence is better than you evidence.
Can you show otherwise?

N8 wrote: »

I wish we had some real skepticism in science today instead of ego blowing skepdicks...

So then since you are a "real skeptic" and all, can you please explain what evidence or reasoning would convince that fluoridation is safe and effective.

N8

King Mob wrote: »

My evidence are well researched scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals.

indeed and this is why many scandinavian countries stopped fluoridation and the mass medication of their citizens - sure they should have been listening to you and continued a practice introduced by the soviets and nazis.

King Mob wrote: »

So then since you are a "real skeptic" and all, can you please explain what evidence or reasoning would convince that fluoridation is safe and effective.

surely this is your job my skep-dick friend?

N8 wrote: »

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

King Mob wrote: »

Yup they're the only way I can judge my self worth.

says alot about you bud...

Have a good one

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

indeed and this is why many scandinavian countries stopped fluoridation and the mass medication of their citizens

So then you should have no problem providing the evidence they used to determine it was harmful, right?
That was why they stopped, right?

N8 wrote: »

- sure they should have been listening to you and continued a practice introduced by the soviets and nazis.

Oh no if it was introduced by the Nazi's it must mean it was bad, no need for well supported evidence!
Like smoking bans and autobahns.....
We should get rid of these things as well right?

N8 wrote: »

surely this is your job my skep-dick friend?

Oh are we throwing random baseless accusations around now?
Great, in that case I will accuse you of being in the imploy of the dentist who want people to have more cavities so they have more trips to the dentist.

N8 wrote: »

says alot about you bud...

Have a good one

So you can't identify sarcasm then... Interesting...

I love it when folk harp on about "Open and fair discussions" but then totally ignore any points that are made against them.
Especially when they prove them to be a hypocrite.

So then since you are a "real skeptic" and all, can you please explain what evidence or reasoning would convince that fluoridation is safe and effective.

Dr Galen

Hey all

I'm going to say this once in this thread and once only

Either people take the debate seriously, and argue their case properly, or they can stop posting here. It is simply not sufficient for anyone, on any side of any argument to randomly post things, and expect others to see their view.

This is a discussion forum, the standards expected of those posting are high. If you want to post in a rambling and repetitive manner, without backing up assertions, simply to further an agenda, then as the old boards.ie saying goes "get a blog".

If your actually interested in debate, in changing others opinions and making your case, you are totally welcome here, no matter what side of the hypothetical fence you find yourself on.

This is all I will say on the matter. If anyone disagrees with this stance, then you can follow the dispute resolution procedure of boards.ie

Do not take matters into your own hands and question on thread, as per the chater. If you feel that you cannot continue to post here, while keeping the above in mind, then you can remove yourself from the debate, or you may find your access to the forum revoked.

Cheers

DrG

RDM_83 again

I know the debate is about the potential adverse health affects, and the published literature clearly supports the non-health risk view, however since it is a bioactive material it may be best to be catious in its use after all look at TRICLOSAN it was in use for 30 years before being recalled. The reaason I use this argument is that the removal of vast majority of dental cover from medical card holders illustrates that dental issues are not of importance in the states duty of care to its citizens.

King Mob

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know the debate is about the potential adverse health affects, and the published literature clearly supports the non-health risk view, however since it is a bioactive material it may be best to be catious in its use after all look at TRICLOSAN it was in use for 30 years before being recalled. The reaason I use this argument is that the removal of vast majority of dental cover from medical card holders illustrates that dental issues are not of importance in the states duty of care to its citizens.

Again it has to be pointed out that fluoridation also involves the lowering of natural levels of fluoride in water supplies to a more beneficial level.