View Full Version : Fluoride’s Impact On The Brain
rowdeyreddog
08-06-08, 23:31
Fluoride’s Impact On The Brain
Sally Stride
Scientific Blogging
August 4, 2008
New science indicating fluoride’s dangers to the brain and other organs will be presented by prominent fluoride research scientists during back-to-back conferences of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) in Toronto August 7-11, 2008.
Fluoride, added to water supplies to prevent tooth decay, is also in virtually all non-organic foods and beverages. Fluoride’s brain effects were never examined prior to water fluoridation.
Recently, because of health concerns, Health Canada recommended that fluoride levels be lowered in Canadian water supplies (0.7 mg/L) , children’s toothpaste and infant formula but claims that “the weight of evidence does not support a link between fluoride and intelligence quotient deficit.”
“It is hard to believe that any “weight of evidence” analysis could possibly dismiss fluoride’s neurological impacts. There have now been over 40 animal studies which show that fluoride can damage the brain, and no less than 18 studies which show that fluoride lowers IQ in children, and only 2 that don’t. I look forward to reading the full report when it is made available,” says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director.
According to ISFR conference organizer, Dr. Hardy Limeback, “Our conference features experts who researched the dangers that fluoride poses to human health. Our keynote speaker, Dr. A.K. Susheela, (Executive Director, Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation, India) probably knows more about fluoride’s toxic effects to the body than any other living scientist. It is important that officials who promote water fluoridation hear what she and others have to say,” says Limeback.
Susheela can also explain to Medical Doctors, often untrained in fluoride toxicology, how to diagnose, treat and reverse early symptoms of fluoride toxicity which mimic arthritis and irritable bowel syndrome.
The latest issue of ISFR’s journal, Fluoride, published 12 newly-translated Chinese studies, which report fluoride’s effects on the brain, including the lowering of IQ in children. These and other brain studies will be reviewed at both conferences.
Coupled with these conferences, the Toronto-based Citizens for a Safe Environment (CSE) will host two public meetings with FAN in downtown Toronto on Monday August 11.
According to CSE director Karen Buck, “These meetings will give the public information they don’t get from our government or dental organizations. In the afternoon, a panel will address the question of whether Toronto should stop fluoridating its water. In the evening experts will explain fluoride’s dangers to health.”
After receiving an invitation to attend these meetings, the Ontario Dental Association sent out a news release urging legislators and communities to stand up in support of fluoridation; but they won’t do so, themselves.
“The best way that the ODA can get communities and politicians to stand up for water fluoridation is to provide, in person, a cogent and scientifically-referenced defense of fluoridation at the afternoon forum,” says CSE President Karen Buck.
At all three events, Dr. Vyvyan Howard, an infant and fetal pathologist, and president of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, will be presenting a major review of studies on fluoride’s brain effects, including the translated Chinese studies.
“The best way to lower children’s fluoride intake, as Health Canada suggests, is to stop fluoridation,” says Connett. “It makes no sense to prescribe fluoride drugs to children via the water supply at levels which are between 150 and 250 times higher than the level in mothers’ milk.”
For details on both conferences go to http://www.FluorideAlert.org
For the CSE/FAN public events go to http://fluoridealert.org/august.11.html
SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net
http://a0.vox.com/6a00c2251f58b7549d00fad68b63100005-320pi
K.L. Davis
08-06-08, 23:49
The Fluoride Action Network... Man I bet those guys are a hoot :(
Lucky that I was able to spend a lot of my younger years in distant lands where they don't use fluoride and the water is... well... it has no fluoride...
...but odds are within an hour of drinking it, you can shit through a screen door and not hit a wire.
rowdeyreddog
08-06-08, 23:55
http://a0.vox.com/6a00c2251f58b7549d00fad68b63100005-320pi
This is proof that fluoride is doing its job:D
After reading a ton on fluoride (and the fact that most of the rest of the Western world except the USA, UK, and Canada, and maybe some other small players has eliminated the fluoridation of water) I cam to the conclusion that I did not want my kids to drink fluoridated water.
For a while we drank distilled water but we moved and now have a Berkey filter with the extra heavy metals/fluoride filters.
I grew up on well water so did not have fluoride as kid after age 10 myself. (It may have had small amounts of naturally occurring fluoride, which is usually calcium fluoride and not sodium fluoride (or something like that) and which seems to not have as many bad side effects)
There is no good reason to fluoridate water. It does not help with tooth decay. In fact, some studies in the UK show that tooth decay is greater in those regions that fluoridate than in those that do not.
Anyway, I do not know who these people are giving these papers, but just say no to fluoridated water. It is a backward non-scientific practice and has been ditched all over Europe (except the UK) for precisely the reasons that it does not work and may have the opposite effect as well as other health issues.
Just say no.
Chad
From the most illuminating work of fiction that I have ever encountered:
Ripper: Mandrake?
Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have.
Ripper: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that
seventy percent of you is water?
Mandrake: Uh, uh, Good Lord!
Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol?
Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
Mandrake: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.
Just say no.
Not so easy to say no when your water is from the same source as Dr. Frederick McKay's, the researcher who in 1909 realized that children from the Pikes Peak Region have stronger teeth and fewer cavities. I live just a few hundred meters from where Dr. McKay once lived and my water comes from the same underground mountain spring that provided his water.
The fluoridation levels are rather high in my water, but I am honestly not too concerned. Fluoridation in water has always been controversial and has even been considered a communist plot back in the 1950's.
At least my water isn't treated with chlorine or contains mercury and other pollutants. I can't imagine a lifetime of chlorine consumption can be all that good for you. Maybe when they have better proof that fluoride is bad, then I might look more into filters.
Gutshot John
08-07-08, 07:15
This is just silly. The amount of toxins that one consumes in his daily life, in food, in water, in the air, have far more significant health effects. If you grew up drinking well water, the amount of heavy metals and other toxins you likely consumed makes fluoride insignificant.
Vaccinations and now fluoride, I'm beginning to spot a trend.
Is there a point to all this? Because America is at its highest life expectancy. This kind of flies in the face of 'the government is poisoning you deliberately' theme.
How about a REAL medical study, published by a REAL medical journal?
LOL SethB, you beat me to it.
This is proof that fluoride is doing its job:D
Plus +1
The voices in the water tell me that the fluoride is just fine for the voice in my head.
Todd, just as long as the voices don't start arguing with each other, that's when the problems start.:cool:
Not so easy to say no when your water is from the same source as Dr. Frederick McKay's, the researcher who in 1909 realized that children from the Pikes Peak Region have stronger teeth and fewer cavities. I live just a few hundred meters from where Dr. McKay once lived and my water comes from the same underground mountain spring that provided his water.
The fluoridation levels are rather high in my water, but I am honestly not too concerned. Fluoridation in water has always been controversial and has even been considered a communist plot back in the 1950's.
At least my water isn't treated with chlorine or contains mercury and other pollutants. I can't imagine a lifetime of chlorine consumption can be all that good for you. Maybe when they have better proof that fluoride is bad, then I might look more into filters.
Natural fluoride is a different compound than that which is added by water municipalities. Off the top of my head I think it is calcium fluoride, while sodium fluoride is what is added to water. Could very well work differently.
Most European countries have done away with fluoride due to health concerns and lack of efficacy. Meta-studies of fluoride studies done in the US have shown many problems with the studies supporting fluoridation. Looking at the same data they cannot support the conclusions. And studies in the UK show worse teeth in fluoridation areas than in non-fluoridation areas.
Chad
Gutshot John
08-07-08, 14:16
Meta-studies of fluoride studies done in the US have shown many problems with the studies supporting fluoridation. Looking at the same data they cannot support the conclusions. And studies in the UK show worse teeth in fluoridation areas than in non-fluoridation areas.
Chad
Can you provide some links to this research.
This is just silly. The amount of toxins that one consumes in his daily life, in food, in water, in the air, have far more significant health effects. If you grew up drinking well water, the amount of heavy metals and other toxins you likely consumed makes fluoride insignificant.
Vaccinations and now fluoride, I'm beginning to spot a trend.
False trend. There is a lot of evidence that sodium fluoride added to water does not help your teeth much and can lead to adverse health reactions. Enough evidence that most European countries have done away with it.
I am in no way connecting vaccinations and fluoride. We give our kids most of the vaccinations (we just avoid a couple with high rates of adverse reaction reports that have risk factors that do not intersect with a child's life [IV drug use and sex] and we space them out on a slower schedule).
Is there a point to all this? Because America is at its highest life expectancy. This kind of flies in the face of 'the government is poisoning you deliberately' theme.
I have never claimed the government is poisoning us deliberately and to try and mix on tinfoil hat conspiracy with real concerns that many governments share is disingenuous.
Most of these things are legitimate attempts at public health that have unintended consequences or that are rushed into without fully understanding the interactions involved.
How about a REAL medical study, published by a REAL medical journal?
Google is your friend. You can at least find references to said studies or summaries of them.
Can you provide some links to this research.
I could of last year when I did some research on it myself. I no longer have them and do not care to take the time to do it again. Google is your friend. You will at least find references to some of the info or executive summaries.
Gutshot John
08-07-08, 14:21
Google is your friend. You can at least find references to said studies or summaries of them.
I'm sorry but that's insufficient.
You made a claim that there is ample evidence showing problems with fluoride, but have not provided any.
The burden of proof is on you to back up your claims.
I'm not here to do your research.
If you're unable, or unwilling to do this, than your argument loses credibility.
Sorry but that's pretty standard, I'd have thought a researcher would know this.
I'm sorry but that's insufficient.
You made a claim that there is ample evidence showing problems with fluoride, but have not provided any.
The burden of proof is on you to back up your claims.
I'm not here to do your research.
I am not the OP. I merely was providing some support to the idea.
I am not here to do YOUR research. You are the one that is making claims against the OP. The one on the attack has to provide support for his attack.
The info is there. If you really care you can go find it. I did it last year when it interested me and I had the time. I no longer have the time.
If you're unable, or unwilling to do this, than your argument loses credibility.
Sorry but that's pretty standard, I'd have thought a researcher would know this.
I am not publishing a paper on this. There is no burden on me.
I have read synopses of studies (I did not have access to the actual studies which are generally in journals that you have to pay to get access to) as well as commentary on the studies. I am merely saying that such info is out there. If you are interested, you can do the work. If you won't do it, you are not really interested. No skin off my back.
Again, I am not making these claims for myself nor publishing a paper nor attacking any one elses claims. There is no burden of proof on me right now. I am making comments in M4Carbine based on information I had access to last summer when I did do the legwork. At that time I had the time and interest to research it further. I found enough credible information that I was satisfied. I am merely now passing on that experience and if it piques your interest you will satisfy that interest yourself. Now I do not have that time and I have no responsibility to you to do it for you.
You are attacking those claims so if any burden of proof exists it is on the attacker. If the thoughts expressed interest you enough you will go do some of your own research. If it does not interest you, then you won't.
Chad
Gutshot John
08-07-08, 14:37
I am not the OP. I merely was providing some support to the idea.
You said there were studies that back up his position, I asked for reputable studies, neither you nor he have provided any.
I am not here to do YOUR research. You are the one that is making claims against the OP. The one on the attack has to provide support for his attack.
The OP didn't prove his case, I don't have to disprove it. Moreover it's impossible to prove a negative.
The info is there. If you really care you can go find it. I did it last year when it interested me and I had the time. I no longer have the time.
I don't care, but a study means evidence, if you won't provide evidence than your claim is uninformed.
You are attacking those claims so if any burden of proof exists it is on the attacker. If the thoughts expressed interest you enough you will go do some of your own research. If it does not interest you, then you won't.
Chad
Utter nonsense. I'm not attacking anything other than a lack of proof.
PROVIDE SOME.
If someone wants to make the claim that the earth is flat, the burden is not on me to prove it's round. :rolleyes:
I don't care, but a study means evidence, if you won't provide evidence than your claim is uninformed.
I passed on my observations. I am not making claims of my own but rather passing on observations of the claims of others. Those observations are based on evidence. Whether or not I have that evidence easily at hand does not invalidate that the evidence exists. If it interests you, you can do the research. I did not keep my lists and do not have the time to do it all again.
This is an informal discussion. If something interests you, piques your interest, follow up on it. If you do not believe it, fine, you do not have to. If you have no interest, fine.
You can start at Wikipedia. I do NOT mean the text in the articles, but the extensive footnote sections to the articles.
Water Fluoridation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation
Water Fluoridation Opposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_opposition
--
Also, btw, when I said that meta-studies did not show the same effect of fluoridation as claimed by fluoride supporters, that does not mean that they showed no effect. Just that the effect was small and probably not worth the effect that we go to in order to achieve. In other words, fluoride supporters claim that an X% reduction occurs, where X is some large number. Looking at the studies again in a rigorous fashion shows that really it is Y% reduction occurs where Y is a small number.
Gutshot John
08-07-08, 15:09
Those observations are based on evidence. Whether or not I have that evidence easily at hand does not invalidate that the evidence exists. If it interests you, you can do the research. I did not keep my lists and do not have the time to do it all again.
The studies have methodological data, footnotes and other pieces of evidence that allow the reader to evaluate those claims.
If you're claiming that some study that you read at sometime provides evidence that it's harmful, I'd reply that I've read some study sometime that provided evidence that it's not. That doesn't give any indication of the reality.
This is an informal discussion. If something interests you, piques your interest, follow up on it. If you do not believe it, fine, you do not have to. If you have no interest, fine.
I might have interest, if some of the claims here gave some baseline of information from which I can start.
You can start at Wikipedia. I do NOT mean the text in the articles, but the extensive footnote sections to the articles.
Water Fluoridation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation
Water Fluoridation Opposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_opposition
Well you could have provided at least some of that before, but I'll say that wiki is something of a joke and if I tried to use it as a source in my research I'd get laughed at. Those articles could have been written by a lot of people, some with an axe to grind.
But since you did provide them, I will review them.
--
Also, btw, when I said that meta-studies did not show the same effect of fluoridation as claimed by fluoride supporters, that does not mean that they showed no effect. Just that the effect was small and probably not worth the effect that we go to in order to achieve. In other words, fluoride supporters claim that an X% reduction occurs, where X is some large number. Looking at the studies again in a rigorous fashion shows that really it is Y% reduction occurs where Y is a small number.
Fair enough, fluoride doesn't yield the cavity protection some claim. I can accept that conclusion, but the implication that it results in low IQs and other health effects made here require a significantly higher standard.
People consume toxins everyday. Unless you distill your water, it's unavoidable.
Wait a sec, am I on Arfcom? ...checks URL... nope, well then WTF? :confused:
The studies have methodological data, footnotes and other pieces of evidence that allow the reader to evaluate those claims.
If you're claiming that some study that you read at sometime provides evidence that it's harmful, I'd reply that I've read some study sometime that provided evidence that it's not. That doesn't give any indication of the reality.
that is fine. I am not trying to win a debate in M4C. If someones interest is piqued then they have some ideas to help them find the info they want.
Well you could have provided at least some of that before, but I'll say that wiki is something of a joke and if I tried to use it as a source in my research I'd get laughed at. Those articles could have been written by a lot of people, some with an axe to grind.
But since you did provide them, I will review them.
I explicitly said to ignore the article itself. Just start with the footnotes as possible sources for fluoridation info, both pro and con.
I have not reviewed them all but did find it a long list that goes into various journals etc. Thought it might be handy.
Fair enough, fluoride doesn't yield the cavity protection some claim. I can accept that conclusion, but the implication that it results in low IQs and other health effects made here require a significantly higher standard.
There is a wide range of information including some evidence that it affects the brain, bones, etc. It is widely known that it discolors and can cause other cosmetic problems to teeth. My statement about the meta-studies was specifically about the purported good effects and not related to the "IQ" and other ill effects. I was clarifying a point I had said earlier so that it would not be misunderstood.
People consume toxins everyday. Unless you distill your water, it's unavoidable.
True. So why add more? I understand the chlorine benefit, I am talking about the fluoride and its purported benefits. While some good studies show a reduction in dental caries, the reduction is quite a small one compared to non fluoridated populations.
Btw, I have a Berkey Light filter system with the optional heavy metal/arsenic/fluoride filter on it (ie, both the black and optional filter) and all our water for consumption goes through that, so hopefully we consume a lot less toxins than normal, at least through water. We used to drink distilled water when we were living in an apartment connected to my folks' house. Distilling makes the water acidic and taste a little funny...
RogerinTPA
08-07-08, 15:47
This cracks my ass up! You ever been to the UK? They need to be forced fed fluoride with a fire hose! I think this is a feeble attempt to defend thier right for their fellow countrymen to continue to "Traditionally" have bad teeth/Yuk mouth!:p
There is no good reason to fluoridate water. It does not help with tooth decay. In fact, some studies in the UK show that tooth decay is greater in those regions that fluoridate than in those that do not.
John,
You should get a second job as a mind reader. You sure as hell stole my thoughts out of my head. :D
This is just silly. The amount of toxins that one consumes in his daily life, in food, in water, in the air, have far more significant health effects. If you grew up drinking well water, the amount of heavy metals and other toxins you likely consumed makes fluoride insignificant.
Vaccinations and now fluoride, I'm beginning to spot a trend.
Is there a point to all this? Because America is at its highest life expectancy. This kind of flies in the face of 'the government is poisoning you deliberately' theme.
How about a REAL medical study, published by a REAL medical journal?
Gutshot John
08-07-08, 16:16
John,
You should get a second job as a mind reader. You sure as hell stole my thoughts out of my head. :D
Those aren't the droids you're looking for. :D
TackleBerry
08-07-08, 23:21
First of all it is SODIUM FLUORIDE a toxic by product of manufacturing aluminum and fertilizers.
It was used by the Nazi's cause in the right dosage it made the prisoners docile and also can sterilize.
Fluoride in your water does nothing for your teeth since it really only works in a topical application such as tooth paste.
Ever think about why tooth paste is toxic if you swallow it? Look on the side of the tube.
I am posting links to articles and research instead of spending 2 hours typing what I know about it. But to make it simple for those who do give a shit and those who don't, Fluoride is NOT good for you or your children.
http://www.preferrednetwork.com/FLUORIDE_STUPIDITY.htm
http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm
http://gjne.com/fluoride/fluoride%20apathy.htm
Contains videos about Fluoride.
http://www.tuberose.com/Fluoride.html
There's much more but I think this may wake up some of you, hell some of you may even start to give a shit.
The Youtube vid's were worth watching.
We don't flouridate our water around here.
Kamloops This Week
08/12/2001
Nobel laureate opposes fluoride
by Bob Shipley
BRITISH COLUMBIA: As Kamloops prepares for a referendum on fluoridation, a world-famous doctor has expressed strong opposition to water fluoridation.
"I would advise against fluoridation. Individual prophylaxis (treatment) is preferable on principle grounds and is as equally effective," says Dr. Arvid Carlsson of Sweden, co-winner of last year's Nobel Prize for medicine.
Carlsson was awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery of how brain cells transmit signals to each other, laying the groundwork for improved treatments for neurological and psychiatric disorders.
He says fluoridation will harm some people and is not considered a proper health-care measure in his home country.
"Fluoridation of water supplies would also treat people who may not benefit from the treatment. Side-effects cannot be excluded and, thus, some people might only have negative effects without any benefit."
"In Sweden, water fluoridation, to my knowledge, is no longer advocated by anybody. In Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances."
Carlsson's concern regarding the dangers of fluoridation echo the worries of University of Toronto dental professor Dr. Hardy Limeback.
Previously a supporter of fluoridation, he is now Canada's most highly regarded opponent of fluoridation.
Dr. Limeback says he believes ingested fluoride is not greatly effective, fluoridation leads to dental fluorosis from excessive fluoride levels and personal treatment is a safer way to administer fluoride.
Kamloops voters will register their opinion on the controversial issue during the Oct. 13 municipal election.
Dr. Carlsson was the one who discovered how dopamine receptors work in the brain, which opened the door to the development of all kinds of new medications
to target the dopamine system, both in the field of Neurology in Psychiatry. He's hardly some type of quack.
Arvid Carlsson
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2000
Curriculum Vitae
Born in Uppsala, Sweden, Jan. 25, 1923. Entered the University of Lund, Sweden, in 1941. "M.L." (corresponding to American M.D.), 1951, "M.D." (corresponding to American Ph.D.), 1951, Univ. of Lund. Assistant of the Department of Pharmacology, Univ. of Lund from 1944, Assistant Professor 1951, Associate Professor 1956. 1959 Professor of Pharmacology, Univ. of Gothenburg, Sweden (Chairman 1959-1976). Emeritus 1989. Visiting Scientist at the Laboratory of Chemical Pharmacology, National Heart Institute, Bethesda, Md., USA, 1955-1956.
Address: Department of Pharmacology, Göteborg University, Medicinaregatan 7,
Box 431, SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden
Awards and Distinguished Lectures
1947 Magnus Blix' Prize, Univ. of Lund, Sweden.
1970 "First Annual James Parkinson Lecture and Award", Parkinson's Disease Foundation, New York.
"Pehr Dubb's Gold Medal, for research in neurochemistry, The Medical Society of Gothenburg.
1973 "Second Annual Grass Foundation Lecture", Society for Neuroscience in San Diego, California.
1974 "Anders Jahre's Medical Prize" University of Oslo, Norway.
1975 "Stanley R. Dean Lecture and Award, American College of Psychiatrists, Phoenix, Arizona.
"Anna-Monika Stiftung, 1st Prize", Munich, for research on antidepressants and neuroleptics.
1978 His Majesty, The King's of Sweden Medal.
1979 "Wolf Prize in Medicine", Jerusalem, Israel (together with R.W. Sperry and O. Hornykiewicz).
1981 "Björkénska Priset", Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden.
"The Thomas William Salmon Lectures and Medal", New York.
1982 "Gairdner Foundation Award", Toronto, Canada.
1985 "Hilda and Alfred Eriksson's Prize", The Royal Swedish Academy of Science.
"Senator Dr. Franz Burda Stiftung", Vienna, Austria, for Research on Parkinson's Disease.
1986 The Medal of Helsinki University, Finland.
1988 "Annual Neurobiology Lectureship Award, Univ. of Lund, Sweden. The "Jubileumspris" of the Swedish Medical Association.
1989 "Distinguished Lecture Series", Irvine Neuroscience Association, Irvine, California.
"The Second Annual Bristol-Myers Award for Distinguished Achievement in Neuroscience Research", New York (together with J. Axelrod and P. Greengard).
"Varro E. Tyler Distinguished Lectureship", Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
1990 "The Paul Hoch Prize", American Psychopathological Association, New York.
"The Fred Springer Award", American Parkinson Disease Association, Miami, Florida.
1991 "William K. Warren Schizophrenia Research Award, Tucson, Arizona.
1992 The "Open Mind Award in Psychiatry", Janssen Research Foundation, Paris, France, together with H. Hippius and H. van Praag.
The "Julius Axelrod Medal", The Catecholamine Club, Anaheim, California.
1993 Lilly Lecture, Indianapolis, Indiana.
1994 Albert Barrett Memorial Lecture, Univ. of Michigan.
The Japan Prize, in Psychology and Psychiatry, The Science and Technology Foundation of Japan.
The "Lieber Prize" for research in schizophrenia, given by the Scientific Council of The National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Depression, USA.
1995 The Research Prize of the Lundbeck Foundation, Roskilde, Denmark. The Robert J and Claire Pasarow Foundation Award for Neuropsychiatric Research. L.A., USA.
Synthelabo Lecture, VIII ECNP Congress, Venice.
1996 Plaque for "Lifetime Achievement". American Society of Biological Psychiatry.
Gold Medal and Honorary Diploma, The Swedish Parkinson Association.
1997 Kraepelin-Medaille in Gold. Max-Planck-Institut får Psychiatrie, München, Germany.
1998 Gold Medal, Soc. of Biol. Psychiatry, Toronto, Canada.
1999 Gold Medal, Distinguished Lecture and Award, Univ. of Bari, Italy.
Antonio Feltrinelli International Award, Accademia dei Lincei, Rome.
2000 Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology.
Honorary Degrees
1976 M.D. Honoris Causa, Univ. of Cagliary, Italy.
1977 Doctor of Pharmacy Honoris Causa, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden.
1990 Ph.D. Honoris Causa, Univ. of Helsinki, Finland.
1991 Dr. rer. physiol. honoris causa, Univ. of Marburg, Germany.
Memberships
1962 Member of the Collegium Internationale Neuro-Psychopharmacologicum (President 1978-1980).
1968 Member of the Royal Society for Science and Arts in Gothenburg.
1972 Foreign Member of the Japanese Pharmacological Society.
1974 Foreign Member of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
1974 1974 Corresponding Member of the German Pharmacological Society.
1975 Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
1983 1983 Honorary Fellow of The Medical Society of Gothenburg.
1989 Member of the Academia Europaea.
1991 Honorary Fellow of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry.
1992 Honorary Fellow of the Collegium Internationale Neuro-Psychopharmacologicum.
1992 Honorary Fellow of Academia Medicinae & Psychiatriae.
1996 Foreign Associate Member of The Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
1997 Honorary Fellow of the Swedish Society of Biological Psychiatry.
1998 Honorary Member of the German Society of Biological Psychiatry.
1999 Honorary Member of the Scandinavian Society for Psychopharmacology.
2000 Honorary Member of "Parkinsonföreningen i Västra Sverige".
From Les Prix Nobel. The Nobel Prizes 2000, Editor Tore Frängsmyr, [Nobel Foundation], Stockholm, 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvid_Carlsson
Arvid Carlsson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arvid Carlsson (b. January 25, 1923) is a Swedish scientist who is best known for his work with the neurotransmitter dopamine and its effects in Parkinson's disease. For his work on dopamine, Carlsson won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2000[1], along with co-recipients Eric Kandel and Paul Greengard.
Carlsson was born in Uppsala, Sweden, son of Gottfrid Carlsson, historian and later professor of history at the Lund University, where he began his medical education in 1941. In 1944 he was participating in the task of examining prisoners of Nazi concentration camps, who Folke Bernadotte, a member of the royal Swedish family, had managed to bring to Sweden. Although Sweden was neutral during World War II, Carlsson's education was interrupted by several years of service in the Swedish Armed Forces. In 1951, he received his M.L. degree (the equivalent of the American M.D.) and his M.D. (the equivalent of the American Ph.D.). He then became a professor at the University of Lund. In 1959 he became a professor at the Göteborg University.
In 1957 Carlsson demonstrated that dopamine was a neurotransmitter in the brain and not just a precursor for norepinephrine, as had been previously believed.[2][3]
While working at Astra AB, Carlsson and his colleagues were able to derive the first marketed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, zimelidine, from brompheniramine.[1]
Carlsson developed a method for measuring the amount of dopamine in brain tissues. He found that dopamine levels in the basal ganglia, a brain area important for movement, were particularly high. He then showed that giving animals the drug reserpine caused a decrease in dopamine levels and a loss of movement control. These effects were similar to the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. By administering to these animals L-Dopa, which is the precursor of dopamine, he could alleviate the symptoms. These findings led other doctors to try using L-Dopa on patients with Parkinson's disease, and found it to alleviate some of the symptoms in the early stages of the disease. L-Dopa is still the basis for most commonly used means of treating Parkinson's disease. [1]
O, and he came up with the first SSRI. ;)
I'd rather drink BRAWNDO, it's got ELECTROLYTES....plants crave them......
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pmullenix.htm
DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D. is a pharmacologist and toxicologist by training... In the 1980s, Dr. Mullenix was Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Center, a world renowned dental research institution affiliated with the Harvard Medical School. She was invited to start Forsyth's Toxicology Department because of her expertise in neurotoxicology. She is presently a Research Associate in Psychiatry at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Mullenix's academic appointments, professional positions held, teaching experience, awards, honors and many published scientific research articles to her name are numerous.
The first test Dr. Mullenix was asked to perform at the Forsyth Dental Center was a test related to neurotoxicity of fluoride. The person who asked her to perform this test was Dr. Harold C. Hodge, one of the founders of the Society of Toxicology. Since that time, Dr. Mullenix has conducted additional research related to fluoride including one study which is about to be published. She is considered one of the foremost experts on the neurotoxicity of fluoride compounds..
Please join me in welcoming Dr. Mullenix to the ADD-Holistic list! Don't forget to post your questions after Dr. Mullenix' first post on Monday.
Best Wishes,
- Mark
mgold@tiac.net
September 14, 1998
Statement from Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D.
It was 1982 when fluoride was first brought to my attention as a substance in need of investigation. At that time, I was in the Departments of Psychiatry at Boston's Children's Hospital and Neuropathology at the Harvard Medical School. My studies focused on detection procedures for neurotoxicity, and they typically considered a variety of environmental and therapeutic agents, i.e., radiation, lead, amphetamine, phenytoin, nitrous oxide. Dr. John Hein, then Director of Forsyth's Dental Infirmary for Children in Boston, was interested in neurotoxicity studies and invited me to continue this research at Forsyth and to apply it to substances used in dentistry. Fluoride was prominent on his list.
Five years lapsed before our investigations of fluoride began. The delay was due to time spent on technological improvements, specifically development of a computer pattern recognition system for the objective quantification of behavior in an animal model. In early June of 1986, the Forsyth Dental Center was noted for this achievement in the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Herald, and applications of our research grew. The new technology enabled us to study the clinically recognized neurotoxicity associated with the treatment for childhood leukemia. Simultaneously, we started investigations of fluoride, the "safe and effective" treatment for dental caries.
Initially, the fluoride study sparked little interest, and in fact we were quite anxious to move on to something academically more exciting. Using an animal model developed for the study of dental fluorosis, we expected rats drinking fluoride-treated water would behave the same as matching controls. They did not. The scientific literature led us to believe that rats would easily tolerate 175 ppm fluoride in their drinking water. They did not. Reports in the literature indicated that fluoride would not cross the blood brain barrier. But it did. Prenatal exposure to fluoride was not supposed to permanently alter behavioral outcome. It did. Like walking into quicksand, our confidence that brain function was impervious to fluoride was sinking.
Our 1995 paper in Neurotoxicology and Teratology was the first laboratory study to demonstrate in vivo that central nervous system (CNS) function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues. The behavioral changes common to weanling and adult exposures were different from those after prenatal exposure. Whereas prenatal exposure dispersed many behaviors as seen in drug-induced hyperactivity, weanling and adult exposures led to behavior-specific changes more related to cognitive deficits. Brain histology was not examined in this study, but we suggested that the effects on behavior were consistent with interrupted hippocampal development (a brain region generally linked with memory).
Establishing a threshold dose for effects on the CNS, in rats or humans, was not the intent of this initial investigation. Yet, one fact relevant to human exposure emerged quite clear. When rats consumed 75-125 ppm and humans 5-10 ppm fluoride in their respective drinking waters, the result was equivalent ranges of plasma fluoride levels. This range is observed with some treatments for osteoporosis, and it is exceeded ten times over, one hour after children receive topical applications of some dental fluoride gels. Thus, humans are being exposed to levels of fluoride we know alters behavior in rats.
We concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans. Confident as we were, the data were only one piece of the puzzle, the overall picture was still emerging. Soon thereafter we learned of two epidemiological studies (Fluoride, 1995-1996) from China showing IQ deficits in children over-exposed to fluoride via drinking water or soot from burning coal. A recent review (International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 1994) listed case reports of CNS effects in humans excessively exposed to fluoride, information that spans almost 60 years. A common theme appeared in the reported effects: impaired memory and concentration, lethargy, headache, depression and confusion. The same theme was echoed in once classified reports about workers from the Manhatten Project. In all, our rat data seem to fit a consistent picture.
Information linking fluoride and CNS dysfunction continues in 1998.
1) A recent study in Brain Research demonstrated that chronic exposure to fluoride in drinking water of rats compromised neuronal (hippocampal) and cerebrovascular integrity (blood brain barrier) and increased aluminum concentrations in brain tissues.
2) Masters and Coplan have reported (International Journal of Environmental Studies, in press) that silicofluorides in fluoridated drinking water increased levels of lead in children's blood, a risk factor that predicts higher crime rates, ADD and learning disabilities.
3) Luke at the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) meeting in August reported that fluoride accumulated in the human pineal gland, as much or more so than in bones and teeth, and the pineal gland's melatonin biosynthesis pathway is affected by fluoride.
4) Also at the ISFR meeting, I reported that the fluorinated steroid (dexamethasone) disrupts behavior in rats to a greater degree than does the nonfluorinated steroid (prednisolone). This finding matched results just completed in a study of children receiving steroids as a part of their treatment for childhood leukemia. Dexamethasone, compared to prednisolone, further reduced IQ, specifically impairing reading comprehension, arithmetic calculation and short-term working memory.
Exposure to fluoride goes well beyond that in our drinking water, toothpastes and mouth rinses. Fluoridation of water dictates that it is in food and processed beverages. Pesticides such as cryolite also increase fluoride content of foods. The trend toward fluorinating pharmaceuticals increases fluoride exposure via medication. Fluoride, in various compounds, plays a heavy role in occupational exposures and for people living in close proximity to industry, i.e., aluminum, steel, brick, glass, petroleum, etc. With exposure so common, we can no longer afford to ignore potential CNS consequences of fluoride.
I would be happy to answer questions about any of the above material.
Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.
The following are responses from Dr. Mullenix to questions asked by Mark Gold.
September 17, 1998
Response to Questions from Mark Gold
Hi Mark,
Thank you for the questions and interest in our work. The following are responses to your questions.
1) You have the dose for the Brain Research paper correct. It was essentially 1 ppm fluoride in the drinking water for 52 weeks (not an equivalent dose). This was indeed a very low dose, but one close (or even lower) to that consumed by humans. Note that our study in rats included higher doses, but for shorter periods of time (6 or 20 weeks duration). We realized at the time that the duration of exposure was just as critical as the dose. We proposed studies looking at much lower doses with longer durations, but that was where our research was cut off. Hmmm, indeed.
2) There is no question that fluoride crosses the blood brain barrier, and it is also likely that some neurological effects can be reversed. The key variables to reversibility may involve: 1) the age at exposure- the earlier in brain development when exposed, the more likely changes will not be reversible. 2) the dose and duration of exposure. There are more than one mechanism by which fluoride could be causing problems for the brain. Repeated peak exposures to fluoride for a short duration of time may be a problem if the peaks occur during critical periods of brain development. The mechanism to be suspicious of here is fluoride's ability to interfere with the G2 phase of the cell cycle. In other words, it can interfere with brain development the same way that x-irradiation does. In contrast, low steady doses of long duration can still be a problem for the brain, even if the brain is well developed. However, the mechanism to be suspicious of here is the accumulation of fluoride. This situation is more likely to be reversible, but the problem is stopping the exposure to allow the body time to rid itself of the deposits so that the brain can recoup. Remember, there are major storage sites for fluoride in the body (bones, teeth and the pineal gland). Every time bones remodel, they kick out fluoride which can then be recirculated and go back into other soft tissues, including the brain. Ridding the body of fluoride can take years, even if you accomplished the difficult task of stopping all sources of fluoride exposure.
3) There are ways to restrict fluoride exposure:
a) drink distilled water or bottled water with known low fluoride content (i.e., Evian)
b) avoid drinking processed beverages made with fluoridated water- colas, etc.
c) avoid drinking tea
d) avoid foods sprayed with cryolite- used often on potatoes (outer peel may have as much as 20 ppm fluoride)
e) avoid foods that labs have confirmed as being high in fluoride- some cereals (fruit loops, wheaties), vegetables grown next to industries- spinach, celery
f) whenever possible, switch from fluorinated to nonfluorinated medications. Besides steroids, antibiotics, anesthetics (methoxyflurane) and antidepressants (prosac and paxil) contain fluorine in chemical structure. When metabolized, they may contribute to fluoride levels in blood.
g) get plenty of calcium in diet (magnesium can help some too).
4) The link of fluoride with fibromyalgia has not been explored in any depth. The new data showing fluoride's impact on melatonin biosynthesis, and the high concentrations in the human pineal gland, should be a real eye opener for many. I am ill at ease with this enzyme poison (fluoride) being that close to the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis functions in the body. Research is needed immediately, but will it happen for this politically sensitive subject?
I'm sorry if these answers are long, but there is much to say and learn.
Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.
The hits keep on coming:
http://www.citizenshealth.org/limeback.htm
Prominent researcher apologizes for pushing fluoride
by Barry Forbes, The Tribune, Mesa, AZ Sunday, December 5, 1999
(Reproduced With Permission)
"Why'd you do it, Doc? Why'd you toss the fluoride folks overboard?"
I had just tracked down Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D in Biochemistry, D.D.S., head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto, and president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research. (Whew.)
Dr. Limeback is Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until recently, the country's primary promoter of the controversial additive. In a surprising newsmaker interview this past April, Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic change of heart. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste," he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never."
Why, I wondered? What could have caused such a powerful paradigm shift?
"It's been building up for a couple of years," Limeback told me during a recent telephone interview. "But certainly the crowning blow was the realization that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half a century. The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry."
"Tragically," he continued, "that means we're not just dumping toxic fluoride into our drinking water. We're also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to deadly elements of lead, arsenic and radium, all of them carcinogenic. Because of the cumulative properties of toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are catastrophic." A recent study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback's worst fears. "Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride In their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones."
Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. The earliest symptoms?
"Mottled and brittle teeth," Dr. Limeback told me. "In Canada we are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That includes my own practice."
One of the most obvious living experiments today, Dr. Limeback believes, is a proof-positive comparison between any two Canadian cities. "Here in Toronto we've been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver – which has never fluoridated – has a cavity rate lower than Toronto's."
And, he pointed out, cavity rates are low all across the industrialized world including Europe, which is 98% fluoride free. Low because of improved standards of living, less refined sugar, regular dental checkups, flossing and frequent brushing. Now less than 2 cavities per child Canada-wide, he said.
"I don't get it, Doc. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) ran a puff piece all across America saying the stuff was better than sliced bread. What's the story?"
"Unfortunately," he replied, "the CDC is basing its position on data that is 50 years old, and questionable at best. Absolutely no one has done research on fluorosilicates, which is the junk they're dumping into the drinking water."
"On the other hand," he added, "the evidence against systemic fluoride in-take continues to pour in."
"But Doc, the dentists."
"I have absolutely no training in toxicity," he stated firmly. "Your well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50 years of misinformation from public health and the dental association. Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong."
Last week, Dr. Hardy Limeback addressed his faculty and students at the University of Toronto, Department of Dentistry. In a poignant, memorable meeting, he apologized to those gathered before him.
"Speaking as the head of preventive dentistry, I told them that I had unintentionally mislead my colleagues and my students. For the past 15 years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind."
"The truth," he confessed to me, "was a bitter pill to swallow. But swallow it I did."
South of the border, the paradigm shift has yet to dawn. After half a century of delusion, the CDC, American Dental Association and Public Health stubbornly and skillfully continue to manipulate public opinion in favor of fluoridation.
Meantime, study after study is delivering the death knell of the deadly toxin. Sure, fluoridation will be around for a long time yet, but ultimately its supporters need to ready the life rafts. The poisonous waters of doubt and confusion are bound to get choppier.
"Are lawsuits inevitable?" I asked the good doctor. "Remember tobacco," was his short, succinct reply.
Welcome, Dr. Hardy Limeback, to the far side of the fluoride equation.
It's lonely over here, but in our society loneliness and truth frequently travel hand in hand.
Thank you for the undeniable courage of your convictions.
Gutshot John
08-08-08, 06:53
http://www.preferrednetwork.com/FLUORIDE_STUPIDITY.htm
http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm
http://gjne.com/fluoride/fluoride%20apathy.htm
I'm sorry but these aren't reputable studies/sources.
These are articles from people/organizations that overtly oppose fluoridation. I don't go to Sarah Brady for reliable statistics on handgun use either.
I was thinking more along the lines of:
New England Journal of Medicine
American Medical Association
American Dental Association
In the wiki links that eguns provided there is a link to a study summary done by York University in the UK. I suggest everyone here read it.
The conclusion was that fluoridation does produce measurable benefits in SMALL doses. If too much is used, especially in children, then there are side effects (fluorosis a la Dr. McKay). If we were "dumping contaminated fluoride" into our water supplies, fluorosis would be rampant and we'd look like Brits.
Anyone here suffer from fluorosis?
It definitely said that there is a need for more SCIENTIFIC data to produce greater accuracy (Dr's opinions are not scientific), which hasn't been done yet. The true cost-benefit cannot be determined until then.
They pretty much scotch the idea of government poisoning/mind control, fluoride as a significant health threat.
I wonder how many people who oppose fluoridation, also smoke cigarettes. :rolleyes:
I'm sure you can get any doctor to say anything, but the overall concensus of the medical/dental community is that fluoride in water is PROBABLY a good thing.
I understand not wanting to be a "crash-test dummy" but make that decision based on REAL scientific data, not on tin-foil conspiracy theories.
From the most illuminating work of fiction that I have ever encountered:
beat me to it!
TackleBerry
08-08-08, 11:38
I'm sure you can get any doctor to say anything, but the overall concensus of the medical/dental community is that fluoride in water is PROBABLY a good thing.
Got Info?
K.L. Davis
08-08-08, 11:51
First of all it is SODIUM FLUORIDE a toxic by product of manufacturing aluminum and fertilizers
And of course you know that the U.S. has not used Sodium Fluoride to floridate water for a long time... right?
ETA: I don't know shit.0 about floridation of water. I just Googled Sodium Fluoride and read the first couple of things, which told me that it used to be used to fluoridate water, but has not been used in the U.S. for many years (due in part, to health concerns) -- I simply ask because I am one of those people that like to see issues argued with facts... sure they *used* to use it... but then, we used to drill holes in people heads to let the evil spirits out.
Gutshot John
08-08-08, 11:51
Got Info?
Yep...read the York Study I pointed out. It's one of the footnotes in the links eguns provided.
And of course you know that the U.S. has not used Sodium Fluoride to floridate water for a long time... right?
ETA: I don't know shit.0 about floridation of water. I just Googled Sodium Fluoride and read the first couple of things, which told me that it used to be used to fluoridate water, but has not been used in the U.S. for many years (due in part, to health concerns) -- I simply ask because I am one of those people that like to see issues argued with facts... sure they *used* to use it... but then, we used to drill holes in people heads to let the evil spirits out.
Actually, it seems (not definitive yet) that about 9-10% of the US does use Sodium Fluoride for fluoridation and the rest uses "fluosilicic acid" which many people consider to be much worse. Most of the studies on the effects of fluoride have used Sodium Fluoride while fluosilicic acid has not been extensively studied. It was just used as a kind of drop in replacement. Fluosilicic acid is not a laboratory grade chemical like the Sodium Fluoride used in toothpaste but is an industrial grade chemical and has been linked to greater lead and other heavy metal levels in children.
See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W81-4N5CX5D-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2d5172be1cdc4bd5893328b0801c905e for an abstract on a study published in March 2001 journal NeuroToxicology
First of all it is SODIUM FLUORIDE a toxic by product of manufacturing aluminum and fertilizers.
It was used by the Nazi's cause in the right dosage it made the prisoners docile and also can sterilize.
The shitheads I interact with on a daily basis don't seem very docile or sterile.
Ahh, the life of a trailer park manager. :D
I'm sorry but these aren't reputable studies/sources.
These are articles from people/organizations that overtly oppose fluoridation. I don't go to Sarah Brady for reliable statistics on handgun use either.
I was thinking more along the lines of:
New England Journal of Medicine
American Medical Association
American Dental Association
Errr, by the same token why would you get your statistics from organizations that have actively supported adding flouride to water? I would think
Arvid Carrlson, Dr. Mullenix, and Dr. Limeback (who actually used to be PRO) would be a little more neutral but.
http://www.2spare.com/_media/imgs/articles/a171_c2.jpg
:D
Oh ya that ADA thing wait wait wait:
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp
ADA Positions & Statements
Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children
Recent studies cited in the report of the National Research Council (NRC), “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” have raised the possibility that infants could receive a greater than optimal amount of fluoride through liquid concentrate or powdered baby formula that has been mixed with water containing fluoride during a time that their developing teeth may be susceptible to enamel fluorosis.
The appropriate amount of fluoride is essential to prevent tooth decay. But fluoride intake above optimal amounts can create a risk for enamel fluorosis in teeth during their development before eruption through the gums.
Enamel fluorosis is not a disease but rather affects the way that teeth look. Most cases of fluorosis result in faint white lines or streaks on tooth enamel that are not readily apparent to the affected individual or the casual observer.
While more research is needed before definitive recommendations can be made on fluoride intake by bottle-fed infants, the American Dental Association (ADA) issues this interim guidance because we know that parents and other caregivers are understandably cautious about what is best for their children.
ADA Interim Guidance: Infant Formula
The ADA offers these recommendations so parents, caregivers and health care professionals who are concerned have some simple and effective ways to reduce fluoride intake from reconstituted infant formula.
* Breast milk is widely acknowledged as the most complete form of nutrition for infants. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends human milk for all infants (except for the few for whom breastfeeding is determined to be harmful).
* For infants who get most of their nutrition from formula during the first 12 months, ready-to-feed formula is preferred to help ensure that infants do not exceed the optimal amount of fluoride intake.
* If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis. Examples are water that is labeled purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water. Many grocery stores sell these types of drinking water for less than $1 per gallon.
* The occasional use of water containing optimal levels of fluoride should not appreciably increase a child’s risk for fluorosis.
Parents and caregivers should consult with their pediatrician, family physician or dentist on the most appropriate water to use in their area to reconstitute infant formula. Ask your pediatrician or family physician whether water used in infant formula should be sterilized first (sterilization, however, will not remove fluoride).
John, you can get down with the AMA and your guns if you like:
http://www.troynovant.com/Farrell/Comments/AMA-Gun-Policy.html
variablebinary
08-08-08, 14:31
I'm convinced. Where can I get organic water to go with my organic chicken and lettuce? Then again...I like the way my teeth look. You ever see the teeth in China?
Gutshot John
08-08-08, 14:39
Oh ya that ADA thing wait wait wait:
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp
John, you can get down with the AMA and your guns if you like:
http://www.troynovant.com/Farrell/Comments/AMA-Gun-Policy.html
Nothing in the ADA said that fluoride doesn't work in fact it only said that elevated doses may be harmful (fluorosis) in small children/infants. Duh. Mostly fluorosis results in discolored teeth.
Just because the AMA doesn't know jack about Gun laws, doesn't mean they are ignorant about medicine. :rolleyes:
Is the benefit worth the cost? Maybe, maybe not. Does it mean the government is deliberately poisoning you...probably not.
Just because the AMA doesn't know jack about Gun laws, doesn't mean they are ignorant about medicine.
Actually they consider guns to be a 'public health problem', so are you sure about that? :cool:
Tis funny, the countries that do NOT put fluoride in the water, are showing declines in tooth decay.
“Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.”
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.
"In most European countries, where community water fluoridation has never been adopted, a substantial decline in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades, with reductions in lifetime caries experience exceeding 75%."
SOURCE: Pizzo G, et al. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.
"Graphs of tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in 24 countries, prepared using the most recent World Health Organization data, show that the decline in dental decay in recent decades has been comparable in 16 nonfluoridated countries and 8 fluoridated countries which met the inclusion criteria of having (i) a mean annual per capita income in the year 2000 of US$10,000 or more, (ii) a population in the year 2000 of greater than 3 million, and (iii) suitable WHO caries data available. The WHO data do not support fluoridation as being a reason for the decline in dental decay in 12 year olds that has been occurring in recent decades."
SOURCE: Neurath C. (2005). Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated and fluoridated countries. Fluoride 38:324-325.
"It is remarkable... that the dramatic decline in dental caries which we have witnessed in many different parts of the world has occurred without the dental profession being fully able to explain the relative role of fluoride in this intriguing process. It is a common belief that the wide distribution of fluoride from toothpastes may be a major explanation, but serious attempts to assess the role of fluoridated toothpastes have been able to attribute, at best, about 40-50% of the caries reduction to these fluoride products. This is not surprising, if one takes into account the fact that dental caries is not the result of fluoride deficiency."
SOURCE: Aoba T, Fejerskov O. (2002). Dental fluorosis: chemistry and biology. Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine 13: 155-70.
"A very marked decline in caries prevalence [in Europe] was seen in children and adolescents...The number of edentulous adults in Europe has also been declining considerably."
SOURCE: Reich E. (2001). Trends in caries and periodontal health epidemiology in Europe. International Dentistry Journal 51(6 Suppl 1):392-8.
"The caries attack rate in industrialized countries, including the United States and Canada, has decreased dramatically over the past 40 years."
SOURCE: Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.
"Since the 1960s and 70s, however, a continuous reduction (in tooth decay) has taken place in most 'westernized' countries, it is no longer unusual to be caries-free... During the decades of caries decline, a number of actions have been taken to control the disease, and the literature describes numerous studies where one or several factors have been evaluated for their impact. Still, it is difficult to get a full picture of what has happened, as the background is so complex and because so many factors may have been involved both directly and indirectly. In fact, no single experimental study has addressed the issue of the relative impact of all possible factors, and it is unlikely that such a study can ever be performed."
SOURCE: Bratthall D, Hansel-Petersson G, Sundberg H. (1996). Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe? European Journal of Oral Science 104:416-22.
"Caries prevalence data from recent studies in all European countries showed a general trend towards a further decline for children and adolescents...The available data on the use of toothbrushes, fluorides and other pertinent items provided few clues as to the causes of the decline in caries prevalence."
SOURCE: Marthaler TM, O'Mullane DM, Vrbic V. (1996). The prevalence of dental caries in Europe 1990-1995. ORCA Saturday afternoon symposium 1995. Caries Research 30: 237-55
"The aim of this paper is to review publications discussing the declining prevalence of dental caries in the industrialized countries during the past decades...[T]here is a general agreement that a marked reduction in caries prevalence has occurred among children in most of the developed countries in recent decades."
SOURCE: Petersson GH, Bratthall D. (1996). The caries decline: a review of reviews. European Journal of Oral Science 104: 436-43.
"The regular use of fluoridated toothpastes has been ascribed a major role in the observed decline in caries prevalence in industrialized countries during the last 20 to 25 years, but only indirect evidence supports this claim."
SOURCE: Haugejorden O. (1996). Using the DMF gender difference to assess the "major" role of fluoride toothpastes in the caries decline in industrialized countries: a meta-analysis. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 24: 369-75.
"The marked caries reduction in many countries over the last two decades is thought to be mainly the result of the widespread and frequent use of fluoride-containing toothpaste... There seem to be no other factors which can explain the decline in dental caries, which has occurred worldwide during the same period, in geographic regions as far apart as the Scandinavian countries and Australia/New Zealand."
SOURCE: Rolla G, Ekstrand J. (1996). Fluoride in Oral Fluids and Dental Plaque. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. p 215.
"Although difficult to prove, it is reasonable to assume that a good part of the decline in dental caries over recent years in most industrialized countries, notably those Northern European countries without water fluoridation, can be explained by the widespread use of fluoride toothpastes. This reduction in caries has not been paralleled by a reduction in sugar intake..."
SOURCE: Clarkson BH, Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt BA. (1996). Rational Use of Fluoride in Caries Control. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. p 354.
"During the past 40 years dental caries h as been declining in the US, as well as in most other developed nations of the world... The decline in dental caries has occurred both in fluoride and in fluoride-deficient communities, lending further credence to the notion that modes other than water fluoridation, especially dentrifices, have made a major contribution."
SOURCE: Leverett DH. (1991). Appropriate uses of systemic fluoride: considerations for the '90s. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 51: 42-7.
"In most European countries, the 12-year-old DMFT index is now relatively low as compared with figures from 1970-1974. WHO (World Health Organization) data relating to availability of fluoride in water and toothpaste appear reliable. However, these data did not explain differences between countries with respect to the DMFT index of 12-year-olds."
SOURCE: Kalsbeek H, Verrips GH. (1990). Dental caries prevalence and the use of fluorides in different European countries. Journal of Dental Research 69(Spec Iss): 728-32.
"The most striking feature of some industrialized countries is a dramatic reduction of the prevalence of dental caries among school-aged children."
SOURCE: Binus W, Lowinger K, Walther G. (1989). [Caries decline and changing pattern of dental therapy] [Article in German] Stomatol DDR 39: 322-6.
"The current reported decline in caries tooth decay in the US and other Western industrialized countries has been observed in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, with percentage reductions in each community apparently about the same."
SOURCE: Heifetz SB, et al. (1988). Prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with optimal and above-optimal water-fluoride concentrations: a 5-year follow-up survey. Journal of the American Dental Association 116: 490-5.
"[D]uring the period 1979-81, especially in western Europe where there is little fluoridation, a number of dental examinations were made and compared with surveys carried out a decade or so before. It soon became clear that large reductions in caries had been occurring in unfluoridated areas. The magnitudes of these reductions are generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods of time."
SOURCE: Diesendorf, D. (1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature 322: 125-129.
"Even the most cursory review of the dental literature since 1978 reveals a wealth of data documenting a secular, or long term, generalized decline in dental caries throughout the Western, industrialized world. Reports indicate that this decline has occurred in both fluoridated and fluoride-deficient areas, and in the presence and absence of organized preventive programs."
SOURCE: Bohannan HM, et al. (1985). Effect of secular decline on the evaluation of preventive dentistry demonstrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 45: 83-89.
"The decline in caries prevalence in communities without fluoridated water in various countries is well documented. The cause or causes are, at this time, a matter of speculation."
SOURCE: Leverett DH. (1982). Fluorides and the changing prevalence of dental caries. Science 217: 26-30.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.gif
Gutshot John
08-08-08, 14:45
Actually they consider guns to be a 'public health problem', so are you sure about that? :cool:
Yeah...right.
I'm pretty sure you can see the distinction.
John, to me its pretty simple. Given that there are serious questions about the safety of ingested fluoride, and very little evidence to support its efficacy (see graph above and citations) why would you want to continue ingesting it?
You decry the lack of studies. So, what type of study would you like to see? You are never going to get an Institutional Review Board to approve HUMAN toxicology studies, because well, that's unethical.
It's a bit like saying "I'm going to keep smoking until I see a study that PROVES smoking causes cancer" as opposed to examining the risk/benefit ratio.
Benefits of water fluoridation: little to none
Risks: serious questions raised by reputable scientists.
Just brush your teeth with Crest 2x a day, don't swallow the shit, and drive on. Your teeth aren't going to fall out if they don't put fluoride in your water.
Gutshot John
08-08-08, 15:09
John, to me its pretty simple. Given that there are serious questions about the safety of ingested fluoride, and very little evidence to support its efficacy (see graph above and citations) why would you want to continue ingesting it?
1. You're presuming I want to do anything. I'm only a skeptic...as I would be about any extreme claims made without proof.
2. Quite the contrary to "serious questions about safety" are only being raised by those that oppose its use. EVERY reputable study says that there is far too little information to draw any conclusion. AT WORST they say that the benefit may not be worth the cost but that there IS a benefit.
3. The studies I would like to see are credible medical studies, done by reputable organizations that show a clear result one way or the other. "ihatefluoridation.com" doesn't qualify.
4. I never said they would fall out of your head if they stop fluoridation, I said that claims that even small amounts of fluoride in water is HARMFUL has yet to be proven.
5. If all of these American cities put fluoride in their water, why don't we see epidemics of fluorosis?
6. We are at our longest life expectancy EVER, yet we smoke (there is Polonium in cigarettes), eat bacon, drink poison (guess what alcohol is) and do lots of other things. So concerns about fluoride I think are a bit misplaced.
I'm open to stopping fluoridation if that's the decision, but tin-foil hat (it affects the brain) stuff isn't really convincing.
Credible? Like the BMJ?
“Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.”
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.
Arvid Carlsson=not credible? All those cites above are from peer reviewed journals, not heresyourtinfoil.com.
ETA=I don't buy the 'they/them/and the 'others' are trying to poison us all' deal either dude.
Gutshot John
08-08-08, 17:02
Credible? Like the BMJ?
Arvid Carlsson=not credible? All those cites above are from peer reviewed journals, not heresyourtinfoil.com.
I'm sure you can cherry pick a source that says cavity rates may be going down with or without fluoridated water due to increased dental health. The broad scientific consensus is that more information is needed, no one study therefore gives a definitive answer. THAT'S THE POINT.
There are also studies, cited in York, that come to the opposite conclusion. I said repeatedly that the benefit may not be worth the cost, but that there is a benefit.
Which study to choose? Probably the one that agrees with your own preconceptions which is what people usually do.
I'm sorry but I also missed where this has anything to do with Fluoride's impact on the brain per the OP.
If people choose to not fluoridate their water, I could give a rip, but others choose to do so.
I remain a skeptic of the "dangers" of fluoride especially when our physical, medical and dental health have never been higher.
You are of course free to believe whatever you choose.
rowdeyreddog
08-09-08, 05:25
This is just silly. The amount of toxins that one consumes in his daily life, in food, in water, in the air, have far more significant health effects. If you grew up drinking well water, the amount of heavy metals and other toxins you likely consumed makes fluoride insignificant.
Vaccinations and now fluoride, I'm beginning to spot a trend.
Is there a point to all this? Because America is at its highest life expectancy. This kind of flies in the face of 'the government is poisoning you deliberately' theme.
How about a REAL medical study, published by a REAL medical journal?
When I first saw this article on water fluoridation it freaked me out a bit as did the video on vaccines.Weather they are true or not I don't know ,but I would like to.My main reasons for wanting to know are my children,and I thought maby there might be some moms and dads on here that might want to know to.So to your statement that you are beginning to spot a trend, I hope you are.Just as long as you see it for what it is, concern.
Oh and one more thing.While looking into vaccines it was astonishing to see how many doctors (not me) are suggesting a link between autism and vaccines.Again I am not saying this is true,but to me it is well worth looking into.
TackleBerry
08-09-08, 17:30
When I first saw this article on water fluoridation it freaked me out a bit as did the video on vaccines.Weather they are true or not I don't know ,but I would like to.My main reasons for wanting to know are my children,and I thought maby there might be some moms and dads on here that might want to know to.So to your statement that you are beginning to spot a trend, I hope you are.Just as long as you see it for what it is, concern.
Oh and one more thing.While looking into vaccines it was astonishing to see how many doctors (not me) are suggesting a link between autism and vaccines.Again I am not saying this is true,but to me it is well worth looking into.
There is a connection between vaccines and Autism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html
fluorides is very bad ,read the hazmat handling specs ,it also accumulates in your system too,also in the more concentrated form is nerve gas ....it has a nick name of the ''devil's poison'' .........some crazy meds use it , said does a lob job to the brain !MMM maybe this is why this nation is kissing doom so well?
fluorides is very bad ,read the hazmat handling specs ,it also accumulates in your system too,also in the more concentrated form is nerve gas ....it has a nick name of the ''devil's poison'' .........some crazy meds use it , said does a lob job to the brain !MMM maybe this is why this nation is kissing doom so well?
Please translate...
Please translate...
Colgate is good on hot dogs, however Aquafresh with baking soda seems to be my prefered condiment. It should be noted that the ADA and the FDA advise against licking corrosives such as battery acid and drano.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.