|
United States43758 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:38 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:23 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 10:13 Yurebis wrote:On May 11 2009 10:08 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel. If this were your argument about Asbestos use in early day construction, you'd actually have a point. Abestosis cases are numerous, and the harm is self-evident . Where are these cases of fluorosis that we should be worried about? You know...considering the exposure we all receive... It doesn't matter whether there are/were clear consequences or not, it's the attitude and the audacity of people to just say that it's ok to poison the water supplies for such allegorical reasons. I don't care if it's 1ppm or 10, the whole thing is unscientific and stinks of underlying agendas involved. Yet they say it's safe like they know for sure. They don't. Oral health / dental hygiene is an allegorical reason? You make some outlandish claims there my friend: harm, underlying agendas... I'm almost lost for words. How does your tin foil hat fit you? Yes it is allegorical. If you want healthy teeth, you brush your teeth. Not even dentists say, "oh, and make sure to drink that tap water!". It's a joke. If you believe that, I'm sorry, I'm not going to argue. I don't believe in putting any amount of poison, any substance in fact, in the water for this excuse of a reason.
It's not poisonous in the amount they use. I feel we've been very clear on this.
|
On May 11 2009 10:38 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:23 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 10:13 Yurebis wrote:On May 11 2009 10:08 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel. If this were your argument about Asbestos use in early day construction, you'd actually have a point. Abestosis cases are numerous, and the harm is self-evident . Where are these cases of fluorosis that we should be worried about? You know...considering the exposure we all receive... It doesn't matter whether there are/were clear consequences or not, it's the attitude and the audacity of people to just say that it's ok to poison the water supplies for such allegorical reasons. I don't care if it's 1ppm or 10, the whole thing is unscientific and stinks of underlying agendas involved. Yet they say it's safe like they know for sure. They don't. Oral health / dental hygiene is an allegorical reason? You make some outlandish claims there my friend: harm, underlying agendas... I'm almost lost for words. How does your tin foil hat fit you? Yes it is allegorical. If you want healthy teeth, you brush your teeth. Not even dentists say, "oh, and make sure to drink that tap water!". It's a joke. If you believe that, I'm sorry, I'm not going to argue. I don't believe in putting any amount of poison, any substance in fact, in the water for this excuse of a reason.
Of course I brush my teeth for oral health. Some people don't and they're a strain on public health. Fluoride improves their oral health and it doesn't harm me. Win/Win for everybody.
Dentists don't say "... make sure to drink that tap water!", but they do say:
" Water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure for reducing dental caries across the population,"
http://www.ada.org.au/oralhealth/fln/flinaust.aspx
So we're basically back to your tin foil hat position that we're being poisoned for an underlying agenda and practically every large health organisation in the world is in on it! DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:37 Kwark wrote: Please elaborate on exactly what the negative health consequences of a glass of fluoridized water (safe dose ofc) , compared to for example, the risk posed by a bar of chocolate. If you can't be bothered to look it up urself, even after the plethora of links given in this thread, that would have raised in the very least some hesitation in anyone with a little curiosity, then I ain't wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. Keep drinking water with added fluoride. Sheep will be sheep.
|
On May 11 2009 10:37 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:09 Yurebis wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's injected really, your body has no issues absorbing fluoride orally. It can even absorb it through the skin to an extent.
I'm sorry for being so presumptious TheFoReveRwaR. May I ask you then, why do you defend smearing a little taste of poison in the public water supply? [snip]
I'm still reading it, but apparently it's yet another retrospective study. From Australia. I could just ignore it but I'll read it a bit and try to explain again.
Retrospective studies don't prove anything, they can be evidence so you can carry out experiments with, but they prove nothing at all. You need controllable experiments where there isn't a plethora of external factors that can screw up your data. To prove any theory.
This one especially can be shaky since they're able to pick and choose from the regions they get the people from, for the "randomized controlled trials". The people may very well be random, but the regions aren't... so.. why call it random, lol. It's not that random if you're picking where they're from... inevitably so, too. Such a half assed effort. Is there even a prospective study somewhere? They're 10x better than this. Have 50 random people drink fluoride water for 5 years, another 50 without. Check differences. Jesus, is it that hard? No. Perhaps some scientists already got this kind of study together but didn't get any cheese because it didn't give the results they wanted. It's a semi-experiment in the sense that you got more control over the subjects but can still be screwed up since it takes so long..
At one point this thing says:
In the case of measuring the harms associated with fluoride use, a wider range of studies will be
included. Many potential harms of fluoride occur over a longer time-frame and as such, it is not
feasible or ethical to assess these outcomes using RCTs. Therefore, other comparative study types,
including cross-sectional and ecological studies, will be included in this review.
So yeah they already say they aren't going to randomize anything when it comes to long term effects, they're just charting cavities vs. fluorosis cases. The (really) really non-random studies are worthless to see, if I can even find them...cuz I'm not sure where they are here. Can't find it...
At the end of the cavities result table there's this little snippet of truth:
The results suggest that introduction of water fluoridation is strongly associated with an
improvement in dmft/DMFT scores. However, it should be noted that the analyses did not take into account the use of other sources of fluoride, including topical agents.
Basically, yeah there's an association, but we simply chose to ignore any outside variables...
I need a break from reading this. Sorry, I'm not going to read it all...
To put it in simple terms for you.
Retrospective study -> zzz.
Prospective study -> not that good, but better than the above. yet there ain't any...
Experiment (of any type) -> good. please find one.
Just because it's a "paper" doesn't mean it answers crap. It's a start, but not enough to prove a theory...
There are TONS of papers like this about anything you can imagine. If you read through, you start recognizing the charlatan tactics employed by these pseudo-scientists with an agenda.
|
On May 11 2009 10:52 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:38 Yurebis wrote:On May 11 2009 10:23 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 10:13 Yurebis wrote:On May 11 2009 10:08 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel. If this were your argument about Asbestos use in early day construction, you'd actually have a point. Abestosis cases are numerous, and the harm is self-evident . Where are these cases of fluorosis that we should be worried about? You know...considering the exposure we all receive... It doesn't matter whether there are/were clear consequences or not, it's the attitude and the audacity of people to just say that it's ok to poison the water supplies for such allegorical reasons. I don't care if it's 1ppm or 10, the whole thing is unscientific and stinks of underlying agendas involved. Yet they say it's safe like they know for sure. They don't. Oral health / dental hygiene is an allegorical reason? You make some outlandish claims there my friend: harm, underlying agendas... I'm almost lost for words. How does your tin foil hat fit you? Yes it is allegorical. If you want healthy teeth, you brush your teeth. Not even dentists say, "oh, and make sure to drink that tap water!". It's a joke. If you believe that, I'm sorry, I'm not going to argue. I don't believe in putting any amount of poison, any substance in fact, in the water for this excuse of a reason. So we're basically back to your tin foil hat position that we're being poisoned for an underlying agenda and practically every large health organisation in the world is in on it! DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN
I haven't said anything of the sort. I said there IS an underlying agenda, which I do not know nor pretend to know what it exactly is.
To be honest I haven't even looked too deep into the subject until I read this thread. I just gave it for granted that fluoride is toxic (it is) and it's purpose in the water is useless. The second assumption may be wrong, but I really don't care, even if it does help with cavities, even if we've got concerned people in government with our best interest at heart (which we do not), it's not enough of a reason to put it in the water.
I wouldn't care evem if everyone in the world gets cavities because they don't brush their teeth. Don't put toxins in the water supply, period. That was and still is my reasoning on this subject. People who push it certainly have an agenda besides the well-care of children's teeth, because not enough research (ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS OH PLEASE GOD STOP WITH THE RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES) has been made on the long term side effects.
They just put it there and assured it was fine, when they didn't know, still don't know, and maybe won't EVER know how bad it is. Because, again, people accept it, and enthusiastically pass on the baton defending this lie. People who push this sort of thing profit over the well-meaning folks that think it's for their own good, and just go along. Thank you, cognitive dissonance, you.
|
On May 11 2009 11:31 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:37 Kwark wrote:Please elaborate on exactly what the negative health consequences of a glass of fluoridized water (safe dose ofc) , compared to for example, the risk posed by a bar of chocolate. If you can't be bothered to look it up urself, even after the plethora of links given in this thread, that would have raised in the very least some hesitation in anyone with a little curiosity, then I ain't wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. Keep drinking fluoridated water. Sheep will be sheep.
It's pretty clear that scientific studies are inconclusive, as general consensus within the peer-reviewed medical community shifts towards ambivalence to favor of fluordiated water. Does this mean it couldn't be bad for you? No, of course it could. But it would be just as safe as taking the next over-the-counter drug (effects of fluoridation are far more well-documented than the effects of most over-the-counter medications). Also, what links do you refer to? I went through maybe 6 pages of the thread, and it only refers to one non-peer-reviewed-website (fluoride-alert.com or whatever), which has already been refuted multiple times (as the site itself mentions that it applies mostly for only high-end fluoride exposure)
The fluoride compounds placed in water are water soluble (they have to be to make it travel through water effectively), not lipid soluble, which should indicate that they don't accumulate and build up in the body like heavy metals do. Unlike most neurotoxins, fluorine can't mimic any enzymatic cofactors in biochemical reaction pathways (fluoride as a non-metal can pretty much only have a -1 charge on i), and the effects on the rest of your far more observable body haven't been well documented. Unlike its chemical-brother chlorine, water fluoride is locked inside a covalently bonded compound that precludes the formation of fluoric acid.
The notable effects that have been well tested of fluorides are via fluorosis (affecting the skeletal systems), and it's well-known that this only occurs under high doses of fluoride. And fluorosis is about as endemic in the United States as Ebola.
Could it be bad for you? Yes. Would you probably not want to drink lots of fluoridated water? Better safe than sorry. But its effects would be mild at worst. Fluoride has been in toothepaste for as
They just put it there and assured it was fine, when they didn't know, still don't know, and maybe won't EVER know how bad it is. Because, again, people accept it, and enthusiastically pass on the baton defending this lie. People who push this sort of thing profit over the well-meaning folks that think it's for their own good, and just go along. Thank you, cognitive dissonance, you.
Surprise surprise, fluoride toothepastes have been out there for years, and testing has been done on them. There could still be reason to doubt fluoride yes, but much less reason than to doubt glue or lightbulbs or sofas (which contain petroleum distillates, mercury, and known neurotoxins respectively)
|
holy crap this is just scary
i can't believe they would do this
fuck that
|
On May 11 2009 12:07 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 11:31 Physician wrote:On May 11 2009 10:37 Kwark wrote:Please elaborate on exactly what the negative health consequences of a glass of fluoridized water (safe dose ofc) , compared to for example, the risk posed by a bar of chocolate. If you can't be bothered to look it up urself, even after the plethora of links given in this thread, that would have raised in the very least some hesitation in anyone with a little curiosity, then I ain't wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. Keep drinking fluoridated water. Sheep will be sheep. Could it be bad for you? Yes. Would you probably not want to drink lots of fluoridated water? Better safe than sorry. But its effects would be mild at worst.
That's one honest post I have no problems with.
Certainly they would be mild effects. No one has died directly due to water fluoridation as of yet. However that's not the reasoning we should go about when debating what should be put int the water or not. It's something you drink throughout your lifetime. I'd want it to be as free of artificial substances as possible. I don't care if it's just a little, we get so much crap from elsewhere. I just want to minimize my intake of dangerous chemicals, get it? No matter how little. That's what I think.
|
To put it in simple terms for you.
Retrospective study -> zzz.
Prospective study -> not that good, but better than the above. yet there ain't any...
Experiment (of any type) -> good. please find one.
Just because it's a "paper" doesn't mean it answers crap. It's a start, but not enough to prove a theory...
There are TONS of papers like this about anything you can imagine. If you read through, you start recognizing the charlatan tactics employed by these pseudo-scientists with an agenda.
1) As I already said, the onus is ON YOU to prove that fluoridation is bad for you. You keep complaining because we show you these studies that don't agree with your hypothesis, but you still haven't given any proof on the damaging effects of fluoridation. Complain all you want about the methodology, but there still aren't any conclusive results linking fluoridation with any major health issues. Unlike Physician, who has actually linked to studies showing possible links between fluoridation and health issues, all you have done is come in here with this preconceived notion that fluoridation is unhealthy and some unknown force with unknown goals is pushing this on us.
2) Retrospective studies are not stupid. No, they don't show a direct causation due to their nature but they are pretty good at picking out correlations and it is safe to say that without a correlation you can assume that the two are unrelated. If you actually want to prove something then you would want an actual experiment, but since these studies are just testing whether or not there is a correlation, it is fine.
As for your qualms with the paper I linked to it is important to note that the publishers of the paper did not actually do any data collection of their own, it is a review. It is not a single result but a review of the current published data on the issue, so its great for people who aren't well versed on the issue or need a general overview. So its not just a few people doing one study but a few people writing a writeup of the current published knowledge on a subject.
Regarding randomization, you can claim that covariates messed up the data, but when you have a large enough sample you marginalize the covariates. Still, it is possible that a study can be rendered useless by an unintended variable. To decrease the probability of this, the authors of the review excluded multiple papers because of various reasons such as bad control groups or old data. In addition, they use the results of multiple studies to further reduce the probability that one variable affects the results. I can buy that one study could be messed up because of flawed methodology but when you get 3 or 4 studies all saying there is no correlation, well maybe there just isn't a correlation.
I didn't link to that review to show that fluoridation is good for your teeth, I did it to show that given the current research there is no link between fluoridation and cancer or bone fracturing. Given that its multiple studies across multiple locations, I feel pretty safe in saying that fluoridated water isn't going to give me cancer or make my bones weak and brittle. Granted, fluoridation could have other health effects but you still haven't provided anything.
We all know that fluorine is toxic at a high enough dosage. Now show us that fluorine at the levels we drink in water is toxic or shut the fuck up.
|
United States22883 Posts
Can we all just make a pact that we're going to ignore Yurebis and hope he dies of thirst because every water source in the world is poisonous?
This thread got exponentially worse after page 13, and it was already a shit hole before then.
EDIT: Yes, this is not an argument for or against fluoride. This post is purely an ad hominem attack, because you are a dumb motherfucker. SerpentFlame just completely took apart your claim that there's fluoride build up in our bodies and you ignored all of it except for one sentence that was agnostic towards whether it's good or bad.
Your entire argument is proving that something is bad by showing that the proof that it's good isn't adequate. At the very least you could make a case for liberty or something else, but you're sticking to a health argument that includes zero logic.
How many long term controlled studies are there that prove breathing oxygen is good? Because it seems like those are the only conditions under which you consider something admissible, and even then you consider the results invalid unless they agree with your preconceived notion from what a Youtube video or a .us website taught you. Seriously, just crawl back into the internet hole from whence you came.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
Are you guys still arguing about... yup.
|
|
|
|
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
bot or troll? nasty, makes new accounts, spams, shits on the forum, gets thread closed...
|
"People don't require a scientific proof of facts. They just need an information from the media that a scientific proof exists."
- Dogbert
^^
|
|
|
I'm just going to say one more thing then I'll just stop because it's pointless to argue with some of you people.
Fluoride can be lethal at dosages of 5milligrams per kilogram of body mass.
5mg/kg
Meaning if an adult weighting 170lb ~ 80kg takes a dose of 400mg, he may die. Not just get sick of feel a little something in his tummy, you get detoxified right now or you will drop dead.
Fluoride in the water is being introduced at about 1ppm, or 1mg/liter. A liter of water is almost exactly 1kg save for other substances in it.
I know the body gets rid of it over time, but potentially, an adult would only have to drink 400 liters of water to die. I can drink that in a year no problem. It's even worse for children.
Question is, how much can you build up in a lifetime drinking this? Obviously, people do not get to build up that much because no one has dropped dead from it. This isn't fear mongering. What I'm saying is that the people who put up this crap in the water did not know the answer either, not even now, not when they first put it. They don't give a fuck about your health, much less your teeth. Fine, no one died, there's vague and unscientific evidence of any harm being done, but it's the attitude, the ATTITUDE of these people to just poison the population with a bullshit reason of helping the children's dental health when it could very well be harming them. Can still be harming them.
I don't have to prove it's bad because we know it's bad.
This isn't OXYGEN. This is a poison which is lethal at 5mg/kg. Quit hammering that relativist garbage and admit this thing is BAD, and there's no reason to give everyone a daily "safe dosage" of POISON for the rest of their lives.
Now I'll shut up and you can go about how you don't give a shit either because you're not dropping dead and you trust all the stupid retrospective studies.
|
Calgary25996 Posts
On May 11 2009 11:39 Yurebis wrote:
If you read through, you start recognizing the charlatan tactics employed by these pseudo-scientists with an agenda.
Indeed, I have.
|
Yurebris, have you any idea of how many things which are essential for your survival that will you in doses of 5 mg/kg? It's a horrible argument and no grounds for calling something a poison.
Hell I have read studies in nature linking the slightly elevated manganese levels in the soil of Slovenia (I think it was) to the fact that CJD is slightly more common there.
Everybody stop taking your vitamins!!! OMG!!!. (Poisoning due to excess vitamin intake is actually a fairly real problem though as opposed to flouride poisoning =p )
And seriously, if you drink 400 liters of water just like that you will have much, much larger problems than flouride poisoning on your hands. (Hint: you will be dead from water poisoning =p)
Flouride doesn't "build up" in your body, and the people who recomended that it be administrated to the entire population knew this. The chemistry is pretty straight forward, flouride forms HF in your stomach and is then distributed throughout your blood system. At high doses it will dissolve you from the inside, at low doses it will simply insert flouride into the crystal lattice of your teeth/bones. (mostly teeth for whatever reason.)
If you have read an article (published somewhere that matters) where it has been shown to do something else then feel free to link it, I would be interested.
|
United States1008 Posts
On May 11 2009 12:07 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 11:31 Physician wrote:On May 11 2009 10:37 Kwark wrote:Please elaborate on exactly what the negative health consequences of a glass of fluoridized water (safe dose ofc) , compared to for example, the risk posed by a bar of chocolate. If you can't be bothered to look it up urself, even after the plethora of links given in this thread, that would have raised in the very least some hesitation in anyone with a little curiosity, then I ain't wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. Keep drinking fluoridated water. Sheep will be sheep. It's pretty clear that scientific studies are inconclusive, as general consensus within the peer-reviewed medical community shifts towards ambivalence to favor of fluordiated water. Does this mean it couldn't be bad for you? No, of course it could. But it would be just as safe as taking the next over-the-counter drug (effects of fluoridation are far more well-documented than the effects of most over-the-counter medications). Also, what links do you refer to? I went through maybe 6 pages of the thread, and it only refers to one non-peer-reviewed-website (fluoride-alert.com or whatever), which has already been refuted multiple times (as the site itself mentions that it applies mostly for only high-end fluoride exposure) The fluoride compounds placed in water are water soluble (they have to be to make it travel through water effectively), not lipid soluble, which should indicate that they don't accumulate and build up in the body like heavy metals do. Unlike most neurotoxins, fluorine can't mimic any enzymatic cofactors in biochemical reaction pathways (fluoride as a non-metal can pretty much only have a -1 charge on i), and the effects on the rest of your far more observable body haven't been well documented. Unlike its chemical-brother chlorine, water fluoride is locked inside a covalently bonded compound that precludes the formation of fluoric acid. The notable effects that have been well tested of fluorides are via fluorosis (affecting the skeletal systems), and it's well-known that this only occurs under high doses of fluoride. And fluorosis is about as endemic in the United States as Ebola. Could it be bad for you? Yes. Would you probably not want to drink lots of fluoridated water? Better safe than sorry. But its effects would be mild at worst. Fluoride has been in toothepaste for as Show nested quote +They just put it there and assured it was fine, when they didn't know, still don't know, and maybe won't EVER know how bad it is. Because, again, people accept it, and enthusiastically pass on the baton defending this lie. People who push this sort of thing profit over the well-meaning folks that think it's for their own good, and just go along. Thank you, cognitive dissonance, you. Surprise surprise, fluoride toothepastes have been out there for years, and testing has been done on them. There could still be reason to doubt fluoride yes, but much less reason than to doubt glue or lightbulbs or sofas (which contain petroleum distillates, mercury, and known neurotoxins respectively)
Why do good posts like this get ignored?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
