I was about to post this snark, but you beat me to it.
Working in food manufacturing, I’ve come to learn that “banned in Europe” means approximately diddly squat (see TiO2 in candy). For the same reasons I also don’t believe fluoride not being tested by itself or in conjunction with potable water.
Funny; the FDA permitted glyphosate (Roundup) onto the market back in ’73, and never bothered to follow up with any testing. It was only after most of Europe banned its use that Americans polled the FDA for its data, only to find there was none. Even if found harmless, to allow Roundup to be used in the quantities it is in ag, and not keeping track of its potential effects on consumers of that ag, is CRIMINAL.
Most people don’t know that “Genetically-Modified” (GMO) Agricultural Products are in themselves Not “Toxic”. The Modification of Plants is done so they will survive High Levels of glyphosate Herbicide, so that a Field can be Poisoned to eliminate Weeds, before the Corn or whatever is Planted. There was No ‘testing’ for what High Levels of residual Herbicide might be Hazardous in the resulting “Food”.
It’s just terrible, I tell y’ it’s terrible. Gotta get thta rat poison out of the municipal water supply.
N’ yer dentist ‘ll love y’.
Go ahead, send his kids through college. While yer at it, check t’ see what he’s got in his garage n’ go down to the shore t’ check out his new 37′ Bertram; that’s your dollar he’s fillin’ it with at the pump.
N’ all because y’ didn’t want to prevent yer kids’ cavities with a microscopic bit of fluoride, but y’ll spend the money to straighten yer kids’ teeth, woncha?
Betcha dollars to donuts it was a dentist who started this “rat poison” Bravo Sierra n’ the simpleton sheep jumped right on the bandwagon.
Now THAT’s a conspiracy theory!
I think that’s deceptive as all get out. They’re not saying they put “hydrofluorisilicic acid” in water, they’re saying it “comes from” that. So what?
If you get one chemical out of a compound, it’s not that compound. If you split water into hydrogen and oxygen it’s not water anymore and the molecules you get out of it are just as pure hydrogen and oxygen as any in universe.
Whether fluoride is good or bad, safe or not, has no bearing at all on it coming from that acid.
Thank you Sig
If I may (this is not my blog – nor do I have one):
most recently, this first arose yesterday on “90 Miles From Tyranny” where I made a comment “pro-fluoridation”
it’s now reared its ugly head again today where I’m attempting to be “cutely” sarcarstic (you should pardon the expression)
if I may, I’d like to add a *.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/Fluorosilicic%20Acid%20Supply%20Chain%20Profile.pdf
yes, I know, there are many arguments, pro and con, but, on the whole, in many years of secondary research, I have not been able to locate any valid evidence that, when applied/added to the (drinking) water supply in the proper amounts, fluoride has been shown to have any deleterious effects and several beneficial effects:
1. strengthens bones
2. reduces the destruction of enamel due to caries; fluorapatite provides a stronger barrer to the acids produced by (underneath) plaque (in other words, caries)
IMHO, water supply fluoridation is only valuable during gestation (while the fetus is developing within the womb). IMHO, fluoride treatments after birth (by the dentist or in toothpastes) are of minimal value since the hydroxyapatite (tooth enamel) is typically impervious and, should a chemical reaction (to change hydroxyapatite to the far less reactive fluorapatite) occur, it would only occur within a micron or less of the enamel surface
** and then we have the question of the government’s role and the addition of fluoride to the general water supply
being somewhat to the right of the Hun, I am firmly opposed to government intervention “for the public weal”; if pregnant women (or their obstetricians wish to add a fluoride suppliment to their diet to reduce their child’s vulnerabilty to caries, I am in perfect agreement but see no reason to subject the rest of the population to a chemical that will make little or no difference to the general population’s health and welfare
I sincerely beg the pardon of the owner of this blog for being extremely long-winded, but you managed to hit one of my very “sore points”.
As a retired dental hygienist, I agree. Toothpaste does nothing but freshen your breath. Total marketing scheme.
What about the tooth brush?
Indeed. One of my dentists down through the years told me “If you want better teeth, pick better parents.” So much of dental durability is due to heredity! That being said, people who don’t brush are generally shown the door…
I’m not a scientist, but when hundreds of professionals find links between low IQ and flouride, I’ll take a pass on the compound until I know the truth.
the sample size, the “cohort” as I’ve been told it’s called, is extremely small:
“…data on maternal fluoride intake and children’s IQ were available for 400 of 601 mother-child pairs.”
I’m a dentist (retired), not a guru of medical statistics; I’m not an M.D. (or foreign equivalent) and I don’t have a Ph.D. in statistical analysis.
In order to make any comment about the relationship between fluoride ion intake and any part of general human health, I think I’d like to have a population size of well over 10k (pregnancy is not an uncommon condition, my wife’s been there three times) over a period of 25 years from a wide geographical area.
I’d call this analysis invalid due to cohort size, as well as the inability of the researchers to exclude/account for many other external factors
But they predict elections with samples that small!
no question about it, Gov Dewey
🙂
> I’m not an M.D. (or foreign equivalent) and I don’t have a Ph.D. in statistical analysis
Mostly good/valid points you’ve made, boron. I’ll add a bit more below. So by way of presenting “creds” regarding medical and population health research:
I AM an MD (US school, US residency and fellowships), and have been involved in (and publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, plus a peer reviewer, and the occasional grant reviewer as well) in cardiology and cardiovascular epidemiology for decades. With that pompous intro, all I can say is the following:
1. At best, think of the paper (N=400 or so) as hypothesis generating. Meaning: maybe we’ll find something. If it looks like there’s something, then much more work needs to be done to confirm (or definitely refute) it.
2. Yes, 10k is better than 400, but this kind of work is EXPENSIVE. So you start moderate-sized (if you can afford even that much) then work up to the big numbers. Even big pharma can’t afford many 10k studies. Smaller study doesn’t necessarily mean bullshit or even untrustworthy.
3. Science (and medicine) is increasingly POLITICAL. JAMA (and the associated “JAMA family” journals) is owned by the American Medical Association. The AMA is avowedly leftist, and also the worst sort of gun-banning assholes you could ever meet. They are NOT apolitical. They have an agenda on all kinds of stuff. When it comes to most of these, it’s “Do NOT trust, AND be damned sure to verify.”
As far as fluoride in the water goes, I haven’t a fucking clue. Not my areas of specialty.
TNX Mike
As I understand the paper, it’s all 2° research out of sources that cry out to be verified
There are so many other reasons for decreased IQ (neural development): nurture, nature, ingestion of heavy metals, etc, ad inf, ad nauseam
BTW. for those interested, another site I find invaluable (it provides both a shovel and loader) is:
retractionwatch.com
it announces various scientific research, papers, and journals that have been retracted in a great many fields due to invalid results, techniques, and improper influence
Does it include the papers this story refers to, or just the ones saying it doesn’t turn people into retarrds?
“…229 pregnant women and their children…”
not to belabor (please excuse my sense of humor) the point again, this is not a terribly large cohort number.
if we’re looking these six countries: Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico, I’d want the cohort approaching 10-15 thousand.
This is not to say there may not be side effects due to effective levels of fluoride in the drinking water, but I still feel far more reseach is needed (as well as the levels of lead in lake and pond water affecting the IQ of ducks and geese, heh!).
additionally, I can still see the doctors dancing for the clot shot; when I requested an RX for Ivermectin from my GP, he looked at me as though I needed electroshock therapy,
plus I can remember my cousin’s telling me right after he graduated from American University School of Communication in D.C. that “a journalist’s job was to make the news, not to report it”
that one statement has colored my thinking when I read “medical research” reports like these in AP, UPI, Reuters…
If your not on well water what does it matter
ps some locales add chloromine have no idea why
We have a 400 foot deep private well as the water supply for our house. When our sons went off to college they quickly discovered that the city water in their dorms and apartments was undrinkable and came back and got supplies from the well.
We had a well with Sulphur and iron and imported as many jugs of Detroit city water as we could.
Burping Kool aid with a Sulphur after taste was horrible.
Fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on Earth. I understand that it may help against tooth decay, but it was NEVER intended to be INGESTED. Both fluoride rinses and toothpastes are SPIT OUT; not swallowed. My locale doesn’t fluoridate the water, but given what’s “permissible” in “city” water, I only drink reverse osmosis filtered water. Tap water is used for washing and flushing only.
And again, this wraps back around to the original arguments against fluoride in the water; “If you can add this to the municipal water supply, WHAT ELSE might “they” add? Interesting too, how the FDA took Berkey’s “black” water filter elements off the market, deeming the miniscule amount of silver in them a “pesticide.” Meanwhile, colloidal silver is still widely available on the open market as a “supplement.” What doesn’t Uncle Sam want you to be able to filter out of your water? Fortunately, Berkey’s fluoride filters are still on the market…
Flouride is used to ‘calm’ down a hyperactive thyroid. By poisioning it.
Now, in America, what’s one of the big issues many women have? Hypothyroidism. Where their thyroid is less active than it should.
Hmmm… nationwide flouridated water rolls out and a decade later hypothyroidism becomes a national issue. No connections there (sarc.)
And to treat hypothyroidism, doctors prescribe one synthetic thyroid hormone. One. Just one, T4. T4 turns into T3 in a functioning thyroid, so docs will grudgingly prescribe T3 also, because, you know a partially functioning thyroid might not be able to turn T4 into T3.
Now, of course, there is no synthetic T1 and T2 because docs don’t know what those two do, so in someone with decreased or no thyroid function, there’s no T1 and T2.
People with decreased thyroid are very subject to autoimmune disorders like diabetes, allergies, cancer and so forth.
But docs don’t know what the T1 and T2 do.
Now, there is a drug, used widespread back in the days before the synthetic T4 and T3 were introduced. Armour Thyroid. Yeah, ground up pig thyroid. Which produces all the thyroid hormones and has been clinically shown to work much better than the synthetics.
But insurance companies won’t cover it. Most doctors won’t prescribe it. It’s not that expensive, like $75 for a month’s supply, but if you are on a fixed income, that’s a lot of cash. And if you are taking it and paying out of pocket, a lot of doctors will drop you as a patient. Good luck finding an endocrinologist to see you for any issues if you’re on Armour Thyroid.
(And 100% makes you an Infidel according to the Religion of Pieces.)
When did fluoride appear on the scene? Prolly the same time sugar was added in processed foods. Both are poisonous.
Sugar was used as a preservative starting about the time of canned and processed foods.
Flouride appeared in the late 40’s early 50’s. Testing was started, but the three municipalities stopped the testing before it was halfway through, so no real research exists on the safety of flouridated water.
Anybody remember getting given the little red fluoride pulls in grade school and having a massive rod-knock the rest of the day?
“Banned in 98% of Europe.” Must be OK then.
I was about to post this snark, but you beat me to it.
Working in food manufacturing, I’ve come to learn that “banned in Europe” means approximately diddly squat (see TiO2 in candy). For the same reasons I also don’t believe fluoride not being tested by itself or in conjunction with potable water.
Funny; the FDA permitted glyphosate (Roundup) onto the market back in ’73, and never bothered to follow up with any testing. It was only after most of Europe banned its use that Americans polled the FDA for its data, only to find there was none. Even if found harmless, to allow Roundup to be used in the quantities it is in ag, and not keeping track of its potential effects on consumers of that ag, is CRIMINAL.
Most people don’t know that “Genetically-Modified” (GMO) Agricultural Products are in themselves Not “Toxic”. The Modification of Plants is done so they will survive High Levels of glyphosate Herbicide, so that a Field can be Poisoned to eliminate Weeds, before the Corn or whatever is Planted. There was No ‘testing’ for what High Levels of residual Herbicide might be Hazardous in the resulting “Food”.
It’s just terrible, I tell y’ it’s terrible. Gotta get thta rat poison out of the municipal water supply.
N’ yer dentist ‘ll love y’.
Go ahead, send his kids through college. While yer at it, check t’ see what he’s got in his garage n’ go down to the shore t’ check out his new 37′ Bertram; that’s your dollar he’s fillin’ it with at the pump.
N’ all because y’ didn’t want to prevent yer kids’ cavities with a microscopic bit of fluoride, but y’ll spend the money to straighten yer kids’ teeth, woncha?
Betcha dollars to donuts it was a dentist who started this “rat poison” Bravo Sierra n’ the simpleton sheep jumped right on the bandwagon.
Now THAT’s a conspiracy theory!
I think that’s deceptive as all get out. They’re not saying they put “hydrofluorisilicic acid” in water, they’re saying it “comes from” that. So what?
If you get one chemical out of a compound, it’s not that compound. If you split water into hydrogen and oxygen it’s not water anymore and the molecules you get out of it are just as pure hydrogen and oxygen as any in universe.
Whether fluoride is good or bad, safe or not, has no bearing at all on it coming from that acid.
Thank you Sig
If I may (this is not my blog – nor do I have one):
most recently, this first arose yesterday on “90 Miles From Tyranny” where I made a comment “pro-fluoridation”
it’s now reared its ugly head again today where I’m attempting to be “cutely” sarcarstic (you should pardon the expression)
if I may, I’d like to add a *.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/Fluorosilicic%20Acid%20Supply%20Chain%20Profile.pdf
yes, I know, there are many arguments, pro and con, but, on the whole, in many years of secondary research, I have not been able to locate any valid evidence that, when applied/added to the (drinking) water supply in the proper amounts, fluoride has been shown to have any deleterious effects and several beneficial effects:
1. strengthens bones
2. reduces the destruction of enamel due to caries; fluorapatite provides a stronger barrer to the acids produced by (underneath) plaque (in other words, caries)
IMHO, water supply fluoridation is only valuable during gestation (while the fetus is developing within the womb). IMHO, fluoride treatments after birth (by the dentist or in toothpastes) are of minimal value since the hydroxyapatite (tooth enamel) is typically impervious and, should a chemical reaction (to change hydroxyapatite to the far less reactive fluorapatite) occur, it would only occur within a micron or less of the enamel surface
** and then we have the question of the government’s role and the addition of fluoride to the general water supply
being somewhat to the right of the Hun, I am firmly opposed to government intervention “for the public weal”; if pregnant women (or their obstetricians wish to add a fluoride suppliment to their diet to reduce their child’s vulnerabilty to caries, I am in perfect agreement but see no reason to subject the rest of the population to a chemical that will make little or no difference to the general population’s health and welfare
I sincerely beg the pardon of the owner of this blog for being extremely long-winded, but you managed to hit one of my very “sore points”.
As a retired dental hygienist, I agree. Toothpaste does nothing but freshen your breath. Total marketing scheme.
What about the tooth brush?
Indeed. One of my dentists down through the years told me “If you want better teeth, pick better parents.” So much of dental durability is due to heredity! That being said, people who don’t brush are generally shown the door…
One of many studies:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2019/08/20/fluoride-and-iq-what-is-the-link-what-this-study-says/
I’m not a scientist, but when hundreds of professionals find links between low IQ and flouride, I’ll take a pass on the compound until I know the truth.
the sample size, the “cohort” as I’ve been told it’s called, is extremely small:
“…data on maternal fluoride intake and children’s IQ were available for 400 of 601 mother-child pairs.”
I’m a dentist (retired), not a guru of medical statistics; I’m not an M.D. (or foreign equivalent) and I don’t have a Ph.D. in statistical analysis.
In order to make any comment about the relationship between fluoride ion intake and any part of general human health, I think I’d like to have a population size of well over 10k (pregnancy is not an uncommon condition, my wife’s been there three times) over a period of 25 years from a wide geographical area.
I’d call this analysis invalid due to cohort size, as well as the inability of the researchers to exclude/account for many other external factors
But they predict elections with samples that small!
no question about it, Gov Dewey
🙂
> I’m not an M.D. (or foreign equivalent) and I don’t have a Ph.D. in statistical analysis
Mostly good/valid points you’ve made, boron. I’ll add a bit more below. So by way of presenting “creds” regarding medical and population health research:
I AM an MD (US school, US residency and fellowships), and have been involved in (and publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, plus a peer reviewer, and the occasional grant reviewer as well) in cardiology and cardiovascular epidemiology for decades. With that pompous intro, all I can say is the following:
1. At best, think of the paper (N=400 or so) as hypothesis generating. Meaning: maybe we’ll find something. If it looks like there’s something, then much more work needs to be done to confirm (or definitely refute) it.
2. Yes, 10k is better than 400, but this kind of work is EXPENSIVE. So you start moderate-sized (if you can afford even that much) then work up to the big numbers. Even big pharma can’t afford many 10k studies. Smaller study doesn’t necessarily mean bullshit or even untrustworthy.
3. Science (and medicine) is increasingly POLITICAL. JAMA (and the associated “JAMA family” journals) is owned by the American Medical Association. The AMA is avowedly leftist, and also the worst sort of gun-banning assholes you could ever meet. They are NOT apolitical. They have an agenda on all kinds of stuff. When it comes to most of these, it’s “Do NOT trust, AND be damned sure to verify.”
As far as fluoride in the water goes, I haven’t a fucking clue. Not my areas of specialty.
TNX Mike
As I understand the paper, it’s all 2° research out of sources that cry out to be verified
There are so many other reasons for decreased IQ (neural development): nurture, nature, ingestion of heavy metals, etc, ad inf, ad nauseam
BTW. for those interested, another site I find invaluable (it provides both a shovel and loader) is:
retractionwatch.com
it announces various scientific research, papers, and journals that have been retracted in a great many fields due to invalid results, techniques, and improper influence
Does it include the papers this story refers to, or just the ones saying it doesn’t turn people into retarrds?
https://apnews.com/article/fluoride-water-brain-neurology-iq-0a671d2de3b386947e2bd5a661f437a5
“…229 pregnant women and their children…”
not to belabor (please excuse my sense of humor) the point again, this is not a terribly large cohort number.
if we’re looking these six countries: Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico, I’d want the cohort approaching 10-15 thousand.
This is not to say there may not be side effects due to effective levels of fluoride in the drinking water, but I still feel far more reseach is needed (as well as the levels of lead in lake and pond water affecting the IQ of ducks and geese, heh!).
additionally, I can still see the doctors dancing for the clot shot; when I requested an RX for Ivermectin from my GP, he looked at me as though I needed electroshock therapy,
plus I can remember my cousin’s telling me right after he graduated from American University School of Communication in D.C. that “a journalist’s job was to make the news, not to report it”
that one statement has colored my thinking when I read “medical research” reports like these in AP, UPI, Reuters…
If your not on well water what does it matter
ps some locales add chloromine have no idea why
We have a 400 foot deep private well as the water supply for our house. When our sons went off to college they quickly discovered that the city water in their dorms and apartments was undrinkable and came back and got supplies from the well.
We had a well with Sulphur and iron and imported as many jugs of Detroit city water as we could.
Burping Kool aid with a Sulphur after taste was horrible.
Fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on Earth. I understand that it may help against tooth decay, but it was NEVER intended to be INGESTED. Both fluoride rinses and toothpastes are SPIT OUT; not swallowed. My locale doesn’t fluoridate the water, but given what’s “permissible” in “city” water, I only drink reverse osmosis filtered water. Tap water is used for washing and flushing only.
And again, this wraps back around to the original arguments against fluoride in the water; “If you can add this to the municipal water supply, WHAT ELSE might “they” add? Interesting too, how the FDA took Berkey’s “black” water filter elements off the market, deeming the miniscule amount of silver in them a “pesticide.” Meanwhile, colloidal silver is still widely available on the open market as a “supplement.” What doesn’t Uncle Sam want you to be able to filter out of your water? Fortunately, Berkey’s fluoride filters are still on the market…
Flouride is used to ‘calm’ down a hyperactive thyroid. By poisioning it.
Now, in America, what’s one of the big issues many women have? Hypothyroidism. Where their thyroid is less active than it should.
Hmmm… nationwide flouridated water rolls out and a decade later hypothyroidism becomes a national issue. No connections there (sarc.)
And to treat hypothyroidism, doctors prescribe one synthetic thyroid hormone. One. Just one, T4. T4 turns into T3 in a functioning thyroid, so docs will grudgingly prescribe T3 also, because, you know a partially functioning thyroid might not be able to turn T4 into T3.
Now, of course, there is no synthetic T1 and T2 because docs don’t know what those two do, so in someone with decreased or no thyroid function, there’s no T1 and T2.
People with decreased thyroid are very subject to autoimmune disorders like diabetes, allergies, cancer and so forth.
But docs don’t know what the T1 and T2 do.
Now, there is a drug, used widespread back in the days before the synthetic T4 and T3 were introduced. Armour Thyroid. Yeah, ground up pig thyroid. Which produces all the thyroid hormones and has been clinically shown to work much better than the synthetics.
But insurance companies won’t cover it. Most doctors won’t prescribe it. It’s not that expensive, like $75 for a month’s supply, but if you are on a fixed income, that’s a lot of cash. And if you are taking it and paying out of pocket, a lot of doctors will drop you as a patient. Good luck finding an endocrinologist to see you for any issues if you’re on Armour Thyroid.
(And 100% makes you an Infidel according to the Religion of Pieces.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttlIuyMFwRw
When did fluoride appear on the scene? Prolly the same time sugar was added in processed foods. Both are poisonous.
Sugar was used as a preservative starting about the time of canned and processed foods.
Flouride appeared in the late 40’s early 50’s. Testing was started, but the three municipalities stopped the testing before it was halfway through, so no real research exists on the safety of flouridated water.
Anybody remember getting given the little red fluoride pulls in grade school and having a massive rod-knock the rest of the day?
Pepperidge Farm remembers…