Fluoride may be doing more harm than good

gtyellowjacket said:
Because the data shows risks at higher levels, and there is no study of the risks at lower levels.

I hate to bring up the same point twice but if there was a study tomorrow that Advil was proven to be dangerous at twice the recommended level but there is no data at the current level, would you unquestionably consume Advil at the recommended level or would you take a Tylenol and wait for more studies to come in?
Click to expand...
There are studies that show exactly that and if my doctor recommended Advil over Tylenol, since they are not as interchangeable as you suggest, then I would. If you want certainty, then you're going to die and there isn't shit you can do about it. Being stupid about risk assessment in general and particular is just a bad damned look. This is not important in itself and it damned sure isn't important as a general health issue even if there was even a shred of proof.
 
finesse said:
There are studies that show exactly that and if my doctor recommended Advil over Tylenol, since they are not as interchangeable as you suggest, then I would. If you want certainty, then you're going to die and there isn't shit you can do about it. Being stupid about risk assessment in general and particular is just a bad damned look. This is not important in itself and it damned sure isn't important as a general health issue even if there was even a shred of proof.
Click to expand...
To me, the folks desperately hanging on to municipal fluoridation despite the proven risks at higher levels are making the incorrect risk assessment.

Do you really think your doctor would recommend a medication that was proven to have some dangerous side effects at twice the dosage if there was no data on those side effects at the current dose, if there was an alternative treatment?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
To me, the folks desperately hanging on to municipal fluoridation despite the proven risks at higher levels are making the incorrect risk assessment.

Do you really think your doctor would recommend a medication that was proven to have some dangerous side effects at twice the dosage if there was no data on those side effects at the current dose, if there was an alternative treatment?
Click to expand...
Press Conference Rfk Jr GIF by PBS News
 
gtyellowjacket said:
To me, the folks desperately hanging on to municipal fluoridation despite the proven risks at higher levels are making the incorrect risk assessment.

Do you really think your doctor would recommend a medication that was proven to have some dangerous side effects at twice the dosage if there was no data on those side effects at the current dose, if there was an alternative treatment?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think that. I know that. Oncologists make that call. Any time black label drugs are prescribed, doctors are making that call. Very damned few things don't have some risks.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
To me, the folks desperately hanging on to municipal fluoridation despite the proven risks at higher levels are making the incorrect risk assessment.

Do you really think your doctor would recommend a medication that was proven to have some dangerous side effects at twice the dosage if there was no data on those side effects at the current dose, if there was an alternative treatment?
Click to expand...
Are there any studies that establish that the risk posed by flouride is linear (ie there is x amount of risk/damage from every y amount of flouride)? From my experience, most substances with toxicity levels have a threshold - ie there is no damage/risk below a certain level but it does manifest above a certain level).

Your Ibuprofen example fits this pattern. I take 2 Ibuprofen almost every day. If a doctor told me that taking 6 was dangerous, I would have no concern in the slightest about my current level of ibuprofen usage.

Contrast this with lead, where there are no safe levels of exposure.
 
roostra said:
Are there any studies that establish that the risk posed by flouride is linear (ie there is x amount of risk/damage from every y amount of flouride)? From my experience, most substances with toxicity levels have a threshold - ie there is no damage/risk below a certain level but it does manifest above a certain level).

Your Ibuprofen example fits this pattern. I take 2 Ibuprofen almost every day. If a doctor told me that taking 6 was dangerous, I would have no concern in the slightest about my current level of ibuprofen usage.

Contrast this with lead, where there are no safe levels of exposure.
Click to expand...
Sure but ibuprofen was studied at the level of 2 a day. They didn't find any issues at the time just like no one had found safety issues with fluoride until recently.

But if there was some completely new side effect that was hard to detect but was proven to be there after multiple credible studies at 4 a day, you would likely switch to Tylenol or Aleve.
 
No. I'd look to alleviate the reason I was taking that many of anything since the extended use is bad at almost any level. Do you not get that exceeding recommended dosages of anything is on the user and not the product?

Let's extend your reasoning to fluoride. Drink well or bottled water and stfu. Problem solved for those so dim that they are seriously concerned.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Sure but ibuprofen was studied at the level of 2 a day. They didn't find any issues at the time just like no one had found safety issues with fluoride until recently.

But if there was some completely new side effect that was hard to detect but was proven to be there after multiple credible studies at 4 a day, you would likely switch to Tylenol or Aleve.
Click to expand...
So you don't have any studies that indicate that the harm/risk from flouride is linear?
 
finesse said:
You don't even have anything that proves the risk is even real at recommended levels. much less linear.
Click to expand...
That's correct. I also don't have anything that says the risk isn't real at recommended levels. We only have 50 studies that say the risk is real at about double the recommended level.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
That's correct. I also don't have anything that says the risk isn't real at recommended levels. We only have 50 studies that say the risk is real at about double the recommended level.
Click to expand...
Then since there is no real evidence after 70 or more years of harm and a good deal of evidence that it has done good if would be stupid to change what we're doing unless and until there is strong evidence to do so. Wouldn't you agree? You could overreact and alert pregnant women of the possibility I guess. People who are paranoid can drink bottled water. This all seems like a tempest in a toilet bowl.
 
finesse said:
Then since there is no real evidence after 70 or more years of harm and a good deal of evidence that it has done good if would be stupid to change what we're doing unless and until there is strong evidence to do so. Wouldn't you agree? You could overreact and alert pregnant women of the possibility I guess. People who are paranoid can drink bottled water. This all seems like a tempest in a toilet bowl.
Click to expand...
No. I wouldn't agree. To me, it seems like there's enough new evidence that there could be harm to stop municipal fluoridation until the studies come in. And if the studies come in that it's safe at the current level, I'll be to yelling the loudest to put that fluoride in the water because I do appreciate the benefits.
 
So on a supposition, you'd dismantle a system that you admit is beneficial. You realize that's ass backward, don't you? You'd lose the benefits and add great costs to restore a system that empirical evidence has proven as safe as you can possibly expect. Why would that make sense to anybody?

Well, it's supper time and game time. You've been exposed by everyone once again. Catch you later.
 
finesse said:
So on a supposition, you'd dismantle a system that you admit is beneficial. You realize that's ass backward, don't you? You'd lose the benefits and add great costs to restore a system that empirical evidence has proven as safe as you can possibly expect. Why would that make sense to anybody?

Well, it's supper time and game time. You've been exposed by everyone once again. Catch you later.
Click to expand...

What evidence? Were you able to find the study where it said fluoride was safe and didn't affect IQ at .7 mg/L?

Science evolves. Things change. The EPA's limit for fluoride and water is currently 4 mg/L. I'm sure that the scientists that set that level did the work and did the studies and couldn't find any negative effects at that level but new evidence has come to light and they are flat wrong. But if you're just one of those science deniers, I think it's best that you eat your dinner and watch the game. Enjoy your evening.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
What evidence? Were you able to find the study where it said fluoride was safe and didn't affect IQ at .7 mg/L?

Science evolves. Things change. The EPA's limit for fluoride and water is currently 4 mg/L. I'm sure that the scientists that set that level did the work and did the studies and couldn't find any negative effects at that level but new evidence has come to light and they are flat wrong. But if you're just one of those science deniers, I think it's best that you eat your dinner and watch the game. Enjoy your evening.
Click to expand...
There are three such studies cited in the JAMA article you cite. See footnotes 122-124

122.
Kumar JV, Moss ME, Liu H, Fisher-Owens S. Association between low fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence: a meta-analysis relevant to community water fluoridation. Public Health. 2023;219:73-84. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2023.03.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
123.
Guth S, Hüser S, Roth A, et al. Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses. Arch Toxicol. 2020;94(5):1375-1415. doi:10.1007/s00204-020-02725-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
124.
Do LG, Spencer AJ, Sawyer A, et al. Early childhood exposures to fluorides and child behavioral development and executive function: a population-based longitudinal study. J Dent Res. 2023;102(1):28-36. doi:10.1177/00220345221119431PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
 
roostra said:
There are three such studies cited in the JAMA article you cite. See footnotes 122-124

122.
Kumar JV, Moss ME, Liu H, Fisher-Owens S. Association between low fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence: a meta-analysis relevant to community water fluoridation. Public Health. 2023;219:73-84. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2023.03.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
123.
Guth S, Hüser S, Roth A, et al. Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses. Arch Toxicol. 2020;94(5):1375-1415. doi:10.1007/s00204-020-02725-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
124.
Do LG, Spencer AJ, Sawyer A, et al. Early childhood exposures to fluorides and child behavioral development and executive function: a population-based longitudinal study. J Dent Res. 2023;102(1):28-36. doi:10.1177/00220345221119431PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Click to expand...

Good enough for me. Let's keep fluoridating that water till more data comes out. I'm yelling that very loudly into my voice to text. Number two was interesting because it's based in Europe where fluoridation levels are much lower then the US. But it notes that using other sources like fluoride toothpaste instead of fluoridating water also does not affect development. So if it does turn out that fluoridating water at current levels is an issue there are other methods.

Thank you for finding those.
 
Last edited:
finesse said:
Then since there is no real evidence after 70 or more years of harm and a good deal of evidence that it has done good if would be stupid to change what we're doing unless and until there is strong evidence to do so. Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
Of course not, b/c it seems that there could be some evidence that suggests fluoride might possibly cause harm. Dude uses more bullshit qualifiers per post than a defense attorney...
 
hedge said:
Of course not, b/c it seems that there could be some evidence that suggests fluoride might possibly cause harm. Dude uses more bullshit qualifiers per post than a defense attorney...
Click to expand...
Can we discuss how confident we are that it does good?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top