Fluoride, Makes us Docile and Passive? Thoughts??

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yes and ? ..... It only means we are on opposite sides ... does that makes you paranoid ?

What about the people who claimed water fluoridation was effective ? Despite the lack of high grade evidence for that ?

That research suggests it is effective in adults it just doesn't prove it. The logisitic of a study to prove this are prohibitive.

To say otherwise puts you in the Waugh corner.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Weissess when you ask for proof there are no adverse effects then you belong in the Waugh corner it is nonsensical pseudoscience.

Why ? ... Is it not normal practice that if you add a chemical into the public water domain you can guarantee its safety based on research ?

what happened to the Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards ?

Recommended Research
As noted above, gaps in the information on
fluoride prevented the committee from making
some judgments about the safety or the risks of
fluoride at concentrations between 2 and 4 mg/L
and below. The report makes several recommendations
for future research to fill those gaps, as well
as recommendations to pursue lines of evidence on
other potential health risk (e.g., endocrine effects
and brain function). Recommendations include
exposure assessment at the individual level rather
than the community level; population studies of
moderate and severe enamel fluorosis in relation
to tooth decay and to psychological, behavioral,
or social effects; studies designed to clarify the
relationship between fluoride ingestion, fluoride
concentration in bone, and clinical symptoms of
skeletal fluorosis; and more studies of bone fracture
rates in people exposed to high concentrations of
fluoride in drinking water.

So no ... Its not nonsensical

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

That research suggests it is effective in adults it just doesn't prove it.

That comment is just hilarious sorry

Specially from someone having so much issues with the likes of Waugh and GAF ...

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Yes and ? ..... It only means we are on opposite sides ... does that makes you paranoid ?

Again, if you actually read and address what I write...

You are paranoid because you are concerned about adverse effects for which there is zero evidence for, nor any scientific reason to suggest their possibility.
You are paranoid because you are concerned about these imaginary effects so seriously you are willing to disregard the benefit of fluoridation.
You are paranoid because the only source for the idea of the possibility of side effects comes from invented conspiracy theories.

weisses wrote: »

What about the people who claimed water fluoridation was effective ? Despite the lack of high grade evidence for that ?

The best evidence available agrees with them.
But as jh has gone blue in the face explaining to you, your understanding of what Cochrane says is very different from reality.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, if you actually read and address what I write...

You are paranoid because you are concerned about adverse effects for which there is zero evidence for, nor any scientific reason to suggest their possibility.
You are paranoid because you are concerned about these imaginary effects so seriously you are willing to disregard the benefit of fluoridation.
You are paranoid because the only source for the idea of the possibility of side effects comes from invented conspiracy theories.

That is a no you are wrong x3

King Mob wrote: »

The best evidence available agrees with them.
But as jh has gone blue in the face explaining to you, your understanding of what Cochrane says is very different from reality.

No I understand what he is saying

jh79 wrote: »

That research suggests it is effective in adults it just doesn't prove it.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

That is a no you are wrong x3

Unfortunately just saying so doesn't make it so.

What leads you to believe that side effects are concerning enough to forgo the benefit of fluoride?

Is there any evidence of serious side effects?
Is there any evidence of the possibility of side effects?
How do you explain the complete lack of any signs of said side effects? Are you suggesting their occurrence is very low? Or that perhaps there's a conspiracy to hide it?
Do any of the anti-fluoridationists who are also worried about side effects refrain from making unsupported claims about fluoridation (for example, that it lowers IQ)?
Do you have any other source for your concerns about imaginary side-effects beyond anti-science claims?

Or is it just a general, nebulous distrust with no solid backing?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Why ? ... Is it not normal practice that if you add a chemical into the public water domain you can guarantee its safety based on research ?

what happened to the Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards ?



So no ... Its not nonsensical

We are discussing 0.7mg not 2-4 mg.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

That comment is just hilarious sorry

Specially from someone having so much issues with the likes of Waugh and GAF ...

Sorry if you don't understand these studies but that's what they say.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Sorry if you don't understand these studies but that's what they say.

I believe you when you say "they don't prove anything"

Crazy really ... Pro fluoridation supporters claiming its effectiveness with studies not proving it

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunately just saying so doesn't make it so

I can safely say I'm not paranoid x3

For the concern in regards to safety I refer to EPA above in one of my posts yesterday

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

We are discussing 0.7mg not 2-4 mg.

What does it say after 2 to 4 mg in my quote ?

And again ... Concerns raised by people far away from the likes of GAF etc..
I know it's easier to just label people on the opposite side as loonies ... But it Doesn't fly I'm afraid

jh79

weisses wrote: »

What does it say after 2 to 4 mg in my quote ?

And again ... Concerns raised by people far away from the likes of GAF etc..
I know it's easier to just label people on the opposite side as loonies ... But it Doesn't fly I'm afraid

It is referring to severe fluorosis which is not possible at 0.7mg/L

GAF is a loon she believes she can talk to angels , she believes castor oil mixed with urine cures cancer and that homosexuality is an illness caused by excess hormones excreted in womens urine when on the pill.

Ticks all the looney boxes for me.

Grandjeans says nothing looney as far as i know. He wants our levels of fluoride in the US last interview i read from him

Mullinex is a strange case such inconsequential studies yet she gets very excited over them. Have you read her last one? Impurities in the chemicals used? Basically theybare 99.99% pure and she tries to spin it as a bad thing!

Still waiting on a valid reason from you though.

Proven efficacious in 25% of the Irish population and cosmetic flecking the only downside.

Fluorosis being a marker means unless there is a sharp spike in "severe" fluorosis then there will be no adverse effects.

GreenFolder2

The issue I see with it is that it's turning water into a delivery system for a supplement that some people clearly don't want to take but can't avoid.

The science behind it isn't showing much in the way of risk but with universal use of fluoride toothpaste and massively improved dental hygiene, I just don't see the point in continuing putting public money into a service of dubious use that's feeding a conspiracy theory far more than its protecting tooth enamel.

jh79

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

The issue I see with it is that it's turning water into a delivery system for a supplement that some people clearly don't want to take but can't avoid.

The science behind it isn't showing much in the way of risk but with universal use of fluoride toothpaste and massively improved dental hygiene, I just don't see the point in continuing putting public money into a service of dubious use that's feeding a conspiracy theory far more than its protecting tooth enamel.

If we end it because of a conspiracy theory rather than sound science it is a bad reflection on us as a society.

It should end if it is shown not to be effective anymore or if there is a genuine risk of adverse effects. That argument will be settled in 2021. At the moment all we can say is it is effective and safe.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

If we end it because of a conspiracy theory rather than sound science it is a bad reflection on us as a society.

It should end if it is shown not to be effective anymore or if there is a genuine risk of adverse effects. That argument will be settled in 2021. At the moment all we can say is it is effective and safe.

Adding it into the water supply when lacking proper research is a bad reflection on society

You approach it the wrong way around

Before you add something into the food chain you must be absolutely sure its safe and its effective through research .... Did that happen? ... No

Is it proven to be effective ? ... No

No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.

Plus your own reply

jh79 wrote: »

That research suggests it is effective in adults it just doesn't prove it.

Does it have possible adverse effects ? ... yes

http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second%20Thoughts%20About%20Fluoride,%20Scientific%20American%20Jan-08.pdf

So can you say its safe? .... No

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Adding it into the water supply when lacking proper research is a bad reflection on society

You approach it the wrong way around

Before you add something into the food chain you must be absolutely sure its safe and its effective through research .... Did that happen? ... No

Is it proven to be effective ? ... No



Plus your own reply



Does it have possible adverse effects ? ... yes

http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second%20Thoughts%20About%20Fluoride,%20Scientific%20American%20Jan-08.pdf

So can you say its safe? .... No

Oh I agree but that was before my time and we got lucky as it has since been proven as effective in children and no evidence of adverse effects.

Numerous reviews have failed to find any adverse effects.

If you disagree then name an adverse effect and link to the research that supports your claim.

Unless you can do this it's safe , you do realise you can't measure "safe"?

And it is effective you agreed with me on that as it is what Cochrane concluded.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Is it proven to be effective ? ... No

Are you now saying that it's not effective in children?
Cause I think this would be the 3rd or 4th time that you've flipped on this...

weisses wrote: »

Does it have possible adverse effects ? ... yes

http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second%20Thoughts%20About%20Fluoride,%20Scientific%20American%20Jan-08.pdf

What possible adverse effects are you concerned about?
Cause according to the above article, the only tangible possible risk occurs at levels of fluoride that do no exist in Ireland.

Although those studies are still somewhat controversial,
nine of the 12 members of the NRC panel concluded that a lifetime of exposure to drinking water fluoridated at 4 mg/L or higher does indeed raise the risk of fracture.

Also, where does this study land on the Grade frame work?
High, I would assume given how you are putting stock in it?

weisses wrote: »

So can you say its safe? .... No

Can you point to a single health intervention that you can say to your satisfaction is completely and perfectly safe?
What is the level of surety you'd actually accept?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Are you now saying that it's not effective in children?
Cause I think this would be the 3rd or 4th time that you've flipped on this...

Nope I'm not saying that ... The quote I used states Adults
You know my stance in regards to kids ...

King Mob wrote: »

What possible adverse effects are you concerned about?
Cause according to the above article, the only tangible possible risk occurs at levels of fluoride that do no exist in Ireland.

Read the link ...Please

King Mob wrote: »

Also, where does this study land on the Grade frame work?
High, I would assume given how you are putting stock in it?

I dont know ...

But That approach applies to both sides of the argument, With the pro fluoridation side having much more to loose

King Mob wrote: »

Can you point to a single health intervention that you can say to your satisfaction is completely and perfectly safe?
What is the level of surety you'd actually accept?

That is not the point.

It is the total lack of research before it was implemented, With what we know today I doubt water fluoridation would get the green light

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Oh I agree but that was before my time and we got lucky as it has since been proven as effective in children and no evidence of adverse effects.

Numerous reviews have failed to find any adverse effects.

If you disagree then name an adverse effect and link to the research that supports your claim.

Unless you can do this it's safe , you do realise you can't measure "safe"?

And it is effective you agreed with me on that as it is what Cochrane concluded.

Effective for children yes ...But based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.

Several studies did research into adverse effects .... the party line touted by pro fluoradists in regards to this is that it dealt with higher fluoride levels only and thus is safe at the levels adopted here ... Which is both ridiculous and disappointing specially from a science POV ....

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Nope I'm not saying that ... The quote I used states Adults
You know my stance in regards to kids ...



Read the link ...Please



I dont know ...

But That approach applies to both sides of the argument, With the pro fluoridation side having much more to loose



That is not the point.

It is the total lack of research before it was implemented, With what we know today I doubt water fluoridation would get the green light

It has got the green light hence the study in the uk that will be published in 2021.

Plenty of studies have been done on adverse effects none of them have highlighted anything that requires further research .

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It has got the green light hence the study in the uk that will be published in 2021.

Plenty of studies have been done on adverse effects none of them have highlighted anything that requires further research .

Didn't read the link I assume ?

The report released by the NRC in 2006 is just BS then ?

And no I don't think fluoridation would get the go ahead in this day and age with all the alternatives available and the ongoing controversy surrounding it

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Nope I'm not saying that ... The quote I used states Adults
You know my stance in regards to kids ...

So it is effective. Why do you say that it's not effective?

weisses wrote: »

Read the link ...Please

I did. It does not mention the possibility of any adverse effects at the levels present in Ireland.
And none of the studies mentioned in it would reach the high grade you are demanding, so you should be rejecting them out of hand.

weisses wrote: »

I dont know ...

But That approach applies to both sides of the argument, With the pro fluoridation side having much more to loose

Not really, as jh79 has been pointing out and you have been ignoring.
If we stick to your interpretation of high standards, then there is a benefit and there is zero evidence that it is harmful

If we lower standards, like you now want to do with the above link, then there is even more evidence for it's effectiveness and safety.

Those are the only two options you can pick.

weisses wrote: »

That is not the point.

It is the total lack of research before it was implemented, With what we know today I doubt water fluoridation would get the green light

But again, what we know now is
1. There is a benefit.
2. there is no evidence of harm.

So yea, there's no reason to not give it the green light. There's no reason why we should stop it now that it has started.
Aside from baseless paranoia and buying into conspiracy theories that is...

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

The report released by the NRC in 2006 is just BS then ?

Why do you trust this report when you don't know if it would pass the standard set by Cochrane?

Are you now saying that studies and reports below that level are still valid?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Didn't read the link I assume ?

The report released by the NRC in 2006 is just BS then ?

And no I don't think fluoridation would get the go ahead in this day and age with all the alternatives available and the ongoing controversy surrounding it

It has got the go ahead in the uk a few years ago it is the only reason we will have a high grade study.

High on the grade framework requires fluoridation to be introduced. That study is about half way through.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Effective for children yes ...But based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.

Several studies did research into adverse effects .... the party line touted by pro fluoradists in regards to this is that it dealt with higher fluoride levels only and thus is safe at the levels adopted here ... Which is both ridiculous and disappointing specially from a science POV ....

Are you saying toxicity isn't dose dependent?

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

I don't want the stuff in my drinking water .... with no definite conclusion in regards to adverse effects. ....

Specially with the wide variety of products available ... If 97% of Europe can manage their DMFT without water fluoridation Im sure Ireland can do the same

GreenFolder2 wrote:

The issue I see with it is that it's turning water into a delivery system for a supplement that some people clearly don't want to take but can't avoid.

You can install a reverse osmosis or a de-ionizer system in your tap to remove it.

Weisses wrote:

Before you add something into the food chain you must be absolutely sure its safe and its effective through research .... Did that happen? ... No

That - that hasn't happened for most food. I mean, nobody has determined the lethal dose for Arugula for example. Or Quinoa, which has been consumed for thousands of years, far longer than any regulatory body. As for additives there is no point at which there is 'absolute certainty' in the safety of something. And at a certain point when you can't prove the harm then that uncertainty is not much of an obstacle to introducing it. As I believe was already discussed previously fluoridation has occurred in numerous regions often for decades and there hasn't been any indication or indeed evidence that it makes consumers docile or passive. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence to demonstrate that populations certainly aren't passive and docile, depending on how you wish to define that. Violent crime still occurs, for example.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

You can install a reverse osmosis or a de-ionizer system in your tap to remove it.

As far as I see, a lot of these devices aren't being sold by the most reputable people. I wouldn't put any stock in them actually working as advertised given how the people who generally are selling them are exploiting the fearmongering around fluoride.

I would be genuinely shocked if someone could post an example of one of these devices being advertised without at least implying the dangers of fluoride.

jh79

Fluoridated water predates the human race , ours is less than some countries in Europe even now eg Italy , parts of france and eastern europe. Sure volvic is the same as us.

jh79

King Mob wrote: »

As far as I see, a lot of these devices aren't being sold by the most reputable people. I wouldn't put any stock in them actually working as advertised given how the people who generally are selling them are exploiting the fearmongering around fluoride.

I would be genuinely shocked if someone could post an example of one of these devices being advertised without at least implying the dangers of fluoride.

I suspect that Waugh is in it for the money. He has a science degree so can make his arguments sound good, well to the "natural" , "organic" holistic / alt fake medicine types.

People need to remember that impurities in water are good for you.

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

As far as I see, a lot of these devices aren't being sold by the most reputable people. I wouldn't put any stock in them actually working as advertised given how the people who generally are selling them are exploiting the fearmongering around fluoride.

I would be genuinely shocked if someone could post an example of one of these devices being advertised without at least implying the dangers of fluoride.

?

Reverse Osmosis is a pretty straightforward filtration system that's been around in principle for a few hundred years. Actually the university im at operates a decently sized one in a village down in Haiti to supply clean water from a river. It's basic principle is just a system of progressively finer filters.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis