- Joined
- 8 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 0
Since you mention bias... please list all your peer reviewed articles that don't have a bias, more particularly a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry or rely heavily on material produced by those with such conflict of interest.
"I think it's worth highlighting the notion of cause and effect"
So you previously highlighted something now that you disregard?
Typical of your efforts in distorting reality isn't it.
And it STILL only takes ONE study to make fluoridation go away.
Where is this study?
Since you mention bias... please list all your peer reviewed articles that don't have a bias, more particularly a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry[/B] or rely heavily on material produced by those with such conflict of interest.
In time fluoridation will likely be shown to be a worse than Asbestos, DDT, global warming and pink bats combined.
Chapter 7
Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects
This chapter evaluates the effects of fluoride on the nervous system and behavior, with particular emphasis on studies conducted since the earlier NRC (1993) review. The human data include epidemiologic studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride and individual case studies. In addition, laboratory studies of behavioral, biochemical, and neuroanatomical changes induced by fluoride have been reviewed and summarized. At the end of the chapter, conclusions and recommendations for future research are presented.
HUMAN STUDIES
Cognitive Effects
Several studies from China have reported the effects of fluoride in drinking water on cognitive capacities (X. Li et al. 1995; Zhao et al. 1996; Lu et al. 2000; Xiang et al. 2003a,b). Among the studies, the one by Xiang et al. (2003a) had the strongest design. This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water. The IQ test was administered in a double-blind manner. The high-fluoride area (Wamiao) had a mean water concentration of 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50 milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and the low-fluoride area (Xinhuai) had a mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L). The populations studied had comparable iodine and creatinine concentrations, family incomes, family educational levels, and other factors. The populations were not exposed to other significant sources of fluoride, such as smoke from coal fires, industrial pollution, or consumption of brick tea. Thus, the difference in fluoride exposure was attributed to the amount in the drinking water. Mean urinary fluoride1 concentrations were found to be 3.47 ± 1.95 mg/L in Wamiao and 1.11 ± 0.39 mg/L in Xinhuai. Using the combined Raven’s Test for Rural China, the average intelligence quotient (IQ) of the children in Wamiao was found to be significantly lower (92.2 ± 13.00; range, 54-126) than that in Xinhuai (100.41 ± 13.21; range, 60-128).
The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure. The distribution of IQ scores from the females in the two villages is shown in Figure 7-1. A comparable illustration of the IQ scores of males is shown in Figure 7-2. The number of children in Wamiao with scores in the higher IQ ranges was less than that in Xinhuai. There were corresponding increases in the number of children in the lower IQ range. Modal scores of the IQ distributions in the two villages were approximately the same. A follow-up study to determine whether the lower IQ scores of the children in Wamiao might be related to differences in lead exposure disclosed no significant difference in blood lead concentrations in the two groups of children (Xiang et al. 2003b).
A study conducted by Lu et al. (2000) in a different area of China also compared the IQs of 118 children (ages 10-12) living in two areas with different fluoride concentrations in the water (3.15 ± 0.61 mg/L in one area and 0.37 ± 0.04 mg/L in the other). The children were lifelong residents of the villages and had similar social and educational levels. Urinary fluoride concentrations were measured at 4.99 ± 2.57 mg/L in the high-fluoride area and 1.43 ± 0.64 mg/L in the low-fluoride area. IQ measurements using the Chinese Combined Raven’s Test, Copyright 2 (see Wang and Qian 1989), showed significantly lower mean IQ scores among children in the high-fluoride area (92.27 ± 20.45) than in children in the low-fluoride area (103.05 ± 13.86). Of special importance, 21.6% of the children in the high-fluoride village scored 70 or below on the IQ scale. For the children in the low-fluoride village, only 3.4% had such low scores. Urinary fluoride concentrations were inversely correlated with mental performance in the IQ test. Qin and Cui (1990) observed similar negative correlation between IQ and fluoride intake through drinking water.
Zhao et al. (1996) also compared the IQs of 160 children (ages 7-14)
1
In the following sections of the chapter, the word “fluoride” is used frequently to indicate what is being measured in blood or urine of people or animals after some treatment with a fluoride. According to medical dictionaries, the word fluoride refers to any binary compound containing fluorine. In many studies, the amount of fluoride reported in urine, blood, or tissue of subjects is the amount of fluorine in the specimen(s). The measurements are frequently referred to as the amount of fluoride present. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between the species of fluoride measured.
FIGURE 7-1 Distribution of IQ scores from females in Wamiao and Xinuai. SOURCE: data from Xiang et al. 2003a.
The investigators also reported that enamel fluorosis was present in 86% of the children in the high-exposure group and in 14% of the children in the low-exposure group and that skeletal fluorosis was found only in the high-exposure group at 9%.
Another Chinese study evaluated fluoride exposure due to inhalation of soot and smoke from domestic coal fires used for cooking, heating, and drying grain (Li et al. 1995). Many of the children exhibited moderate to severe enamel fluorosis. The average IQ of 900 children (ages 8-13) from an area with severe enamel fluorosis was 9-15 points lower than the average IQ of children from an area with low or no enamel fluorosis. Urinary fluoride concentrations were found to be inversely correlated with IQ, as measured by the China Rui Wen Scale for Rural Areas, and were monotonically related to the degree of enamel fluorosis. Studies based on fluoride exposure from the inhalation of smoke from coal fires are difficult to interpret because of exposure to many other contaminants in smoke.
The significance of these Chinese studies is uncertain. Most of the papers were brief reports and omitted important procedural details. For example, some studies used a modification of the Raven Progressive Matrix test but did not specify what the modifications were or describe how the test was administered. Most of the studies did not indicate whether the IQ tests were administered in a blinded manner. Some of the effects noted in the studies could have been due to stress induced by the testing conditions. Without detailed information about the testing conditions and the tests themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the studies. Despite this, the consistency of the collective results warrants additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence in populations that share similar languages, backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, and other commonalities.
It should be noted that many factors outside of native intelligence influence performance on IQ tests. One factor that might be of relevance to fluoride is impairment of thyroid gland function (see Chapter 8). For example, hypothyroidism produces tiredness, depression, difficulties in concentration, memory impairments, and impaired hearing. In addition, there is some evidence that impaired thyroid function in pregnant women can lead to children with lower IQ scores (Klein et al. 2001).
Mental and Physiological Changes
There are numerous reports of mental and physiological changes after exposure to fluoride from various routes (air, food, and water) and for various time periods (Waldbott et al. 1978). A number of the reports are, in fact, experimental studies of one or more individuals who underwent withdrawal from their source of fluoride exposure and subsequent re-exposures under “blind” conditions. In most cases, the symptoms disappeared with the elimination of exposure to fluoride and returned when exposure was reinstated. In some instances, when the fluoride was given in water, this procedure was repeated several times under conditions in which neither the patient nor the provider of the fluoride knew whether the water contained fluoride. Also reported are instances when fluoride-produced symptoms occurred when people moved into a community with fluoridated water but disappeared when the individuals moved to a nonfluoridated community.
Again, l will get shot down by Medico and Billy.
Again, l will get shot down by Medico and Billy.
Billy and Medi can spout whatever they want on this forum - since they are not the ones responsible for anyone's health here and nor do they accept any liability for the use or misuse of fluoride. Or perhaps I am wrong and fluoride is perfectly safe, hence Billy and Medi will you accept full commercial liability should fluoride be proven to affect the health of those that you spouted your propaganda on this forum? I didn't think so.
Poor grammar or maybe in particuar poor morphology has meas to what you mean.
One example only to keep it succinct
Do you think the authors of the article I posted earlier (see abstract below) have a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry? I see no evidence to suggest this. You cannot honestly accuse these authors of having that kind of conflict of interest without a reason to do so other than "that's just what I think".
These guys went out to a bunch of clinics, charted the teeth, collected the data, provided the data in the article, and produced the results. How can you accuse them of manipulating that data.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415937)
You reached this conclusion using a lot of different sources (websites, news articles etc) but none of them were good sound scientific studies.
'In time' should have elapsed by now. Fluoridation has been around for a while in some areas.
Poor spelling in there.
You can't understand that your stance is something that you ridiculed prior IN THE SAME POST? lol
You cannot try to say something about cause and effect and then later in the post try to relate something to another without any reference to causation.
In time fluoridation will likely be shown to be a worse than Asbestos, DDT, global warming and pink bats combined.
Wow, what about adding the Chernobyl disaster??
Who would have though, Colgate push fluoridation because they make the stuff and supply it in trace quantities to governments and put it in their toothpaste as well. And the whole dental industry is in on the deal even though they know fluoridation is akin to asbestos. Wow! I want your mind, imagine the dreams you have.
There may be a case, but it is subtle.
Saying it comapres with DDT and Asbestos is just hysteria.
Knobby, this doesn't constitute a scientific study. I spent one month in an area where there is fluoride in the water. My teeth at the end of that time were so brown with fluorosis that they looked rotten. Not just a "faint, almost indiscernible mottling" as the pro fluoride lobby suggests, but dark, solid brown. Had to get them all veneered.
I had no idea what had happened until I went to the dentist on arriving home and he immediately deduced that I had been drinking fluoridated water.
This only affects a small proportion of the population, but it is a very real concern to those who are affected.
OK, I appreciate your moderate and reasonable attitude. I later realised that at the time I was consuming a very large quantity of the wonderful citrus fruit (grapefruit and tangelos) that were available there, and biting into segments, sucking out the juice from between the front teeth. Perhaps the unusual amount of acidity could have etched into the tooth enamel?
I have no idea, but you may have an opinion?
Btw, the problem was dealt with via veneers but that was quite an expense for teeth that had previously been white and quite OK.
do you accept responsibility for lack of fluoridation on the negative health outcomes of people with poor dental health?
I didn't think so.
Personally OWG, I prefer to side with the WHO instead of you, or perhaps you would like to provide a cost-benefit study which shows fluoridation is ineffective.
I don't think you will.
So, you didn't know that the University of Sydney, School of Dentistry received a donation from Colgate and (at least) $25,OOO per year from Colgate.
I can only repeat what I said to you once before Billy, there is none so blind as those who do not want to see.
he didn't address the issue that she could have been an unknowing victim of fluoride/fluorosis as a contaminate in some food or other enviornmental exposure as a baby/child.
Also, that grapefruit juice is well known to suck minerals out of tooth enamel making the enamel thiner and sometimes the teeth sensitive, but your teeth tend to restore mineralisation naturally. If Julia had some degree of pre existing fluorosis that was not particularly noticable, the grapefruit juice likely eroded the enamel enough to make such fluorosis more pronounced.
.
The older Dean index of fluorosis didn't clean and dry teeth before inspecting for fluorosis, but some later indicies require cleaning and drying of teeth to properly see fluorosis. Plenty of grapefruit juice would certainly have cleaned off the surface enamel to expose whatever was underneath.
Gotta love your spin.
What I stated was that further investigation is needed, hence a suspension of fluoride use is required until more Independent and complete studies be conducted.
But that doesn't mean that Colgate are paying them to do 'dodgy-under-the table' stuff with their research. That doesn't mean there's a cover up going on at the University of Sydney, Whiskers. It's just a way for Colgate to get their name out to the dentists and patients at the dental school. Like advertising. And it's an oopurtunity for the Uni to get funds.
There's NO evidence to suggest what you are suggesting is going on.
Few points, I list them by dot points so they are easy to understand
1. If she has severe fluorosis like she described (brown mottled etc), it would have shown immediately as a child. Enamel is very thin, if there is any darkness deep in the enamel I am sure it will still have shown as a child.
2. Buccal enamel does not become 'thinner or stripped away', because there is no attrition. It simply demineralises, and then becomes cavitated at a later stage
3. And If the enamel demineralises it becomes more opaque, therefore any underlying discoloration is probably going to show less not more!!
They don't clean off the surface enamel, they just clean of plaque/calculus etc which may be hindering visibility. Obviously this will lead to higher findings of mild fluorosis. Severe fluorosis stands out without any cleaning/drying required.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?