Fluoride Officially Classified as a Neurotoxin in World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journal

Posted by UncommonSense 5 years ago to Science
33 comments | Share | Flag

Does anyone recall if the MSM reported on this? Of course not, it's a media black-out, or as Ayn Rand says "blank-out'. Now for the more interesting question: why are they still putting this poison in our water? No hysteria, no hype and no conspiracy: just the facts.
SOURCE URL: http://wakingscience.com/2016/02/fluoride-officially-classified-as-a-neurotoxin-in-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journal/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by rjajr 5 years ago
    Many Objectivists reject all the facts claimed by environmentalists because of their politics. It is easy to understand, but hard to excuse, and it is a mistake. Environmentist et al. claims about the dangers of modern farming practices, our damaged food supply, and the increasing presence of toxins is very real. As I second vocation, I treat dogs with cancer. In most cases, they can be cured by switching to a clean, raw prey model diet and adding certain nutraceuticals. However, I cannot cure them if they continue to drink unfiltered tap water. There are other problems with tap water other than flouride, but that and chlorine are the two major problems. If you are one of these Objectivists, I would recommend that you challenge your assumptions and study all of their claims, especially the ones mentioned above. Many of their claims are false, but many are not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years ago
      I am not sure it is rejection, so much as a skeptical view on insufficient data presented in an emotional context to generate fear to make you believe/behave the way whoever is making the claim wants. If you look at what the Lancet says, they did no original research beyond peruse other documents and are claiming they are valid. To get an objectivist to buy into a premise, they need to render it down to a suitable sample size and definitive results "Of 10000 children who drank fluoridated water , 1.2% developed disabilities, while a control group of 10000 children who did not had a rate of .78%" That might establish some form of causality. They gussied it up with a whole lot of mumbo jumbo that had no bearing on their conclusion, just seemed to dance around the subject on the periphery. Fluoride and Manganese are on the "Table 1" but I did not see any reference where they even described what prompted it. I call that rejecting bad science and poor writing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JCLanier 5 years ago
      Rjajr: Hello, I am curious about your response on your 2nd vocation. I understand that you state that a dog should drink filtered water. So w or w/out cancer filtered water is recommended? Would you care to elaborate further on "clean, raw prey model diet" and "nutraceuticals"? I would appreciate any details you might offer.
      Thank you. JC
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years ago
    One has to question though, why was this published in 2014, and now trumpeted as "new". In addition, I read through the article itself (the Lancet) and I did not find any mention of flouride itself, but a different substance:

    Summary

    Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.

    I do not see in their article any justification for their claim, but in Table 1 they say Fluoride and Manganese, but again, no real reference or proof. I am not a neuroscientist, but I would prefer to see some data.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years ago
      Note also, they did not do any original research beyond a review of materials available, in 2006 and 2014, then render their opinion based on that. As some people have pointed out, there are lots of good toady/bad tomorrow stuff. I do not doubt that certain chemicals will cause issues, just to what degree?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Mamaemma 5 years ago
      Please allow me to be very impressed that you researched facts in order to make a rational conclusion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years ago
        Thanks, I just wish we could get hard facts.It is not a great leap to know a lot of chemicals that are released are probably not good, and indeed their claims may be true. I just do not trust any source that is "The Center for" unless it has clear data and precise connections of data and conclusions. It has been a clear connection that lead causes damage, which is why the whole Flint thing seems incredibly weird and should have been a lot bigger issue than it is. Something just seems wrong with the way they handle this stuff and report it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years ago
    "Why are they still putting poison in our water? Because the damn Jerks cannot admit they were wrong in the first place. They never took in the full exposure to fluoride in their haste to perform a service that turned out to be a dis-service. If you want to see a more current example of this kind of behavior, just examine Obama's refusal to admit any mistakes even in the face of irrefutable evidence.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
    The truth of it is...they don't know, they have been told it's ok and they don't question it, (its called coercive compartmentalization) it's the same with mercury in vaccines, and tooth fillings.
    (not to mention...MONEY)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ kddr22 5 years ago
    One must also caution on many of these that are listed that are natural are used by our bodies and without them we would also die, it is a matter of total exposure and content and the form of it that is ingested. There are many things that are dose dependent eg we need both omega 6's and 3 's in our body but our current overload of omega6's is very unhealthy but some is still needed...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 5 years ago
    Because it's very expensive to properly dispose of industrial fluoride. However, when we use it in toothpaste, and city water, WE pay for their toxin, and we dispose of it all over the country...one flush at a time.
    Let's follow the money from ALCOA to DC.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 5 years ago
    Bullshit
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/flu...

      Decide for yourself. I've been drinking distilled water (with some baking soda added to make it alcaline) for over 2 years and have been using fluoride-free toothpaste. I still have yet to get any cavities.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 5 years ago
        :) I haven't had any cavities for maybe 55 years, since switching from 'natural well water' at mom's house to 'city water' in four or five cities I've lived in... and having used fluoride toothpaste for maybe four or five decades.
        Go figure.


        Oh, and "alkaline", btw...
        and also, btw... drlwilson.com... SUCH an unbiased author, right?
        Sure...
        Now vote me down to prove I'm wrong... or just to disagree... :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years ago
        That is good you took the data and made a decision based on your interpretation of the data.I use a fluoride rinse to stop tooth sensitivity, and it seems to work, and I have no negative effects I can define as being caused by it. That is not definitive though, and I am open to some concrete data. There are lots of chemicals that have been released for years that have concrete negative impacts, I believe a bunch of wells in Camp Pendleton were poisoned by a compound that was used for cleaning they were flushing into the ground to dispose of. I can see how such chemicals cannot do you any good. I just have not seen enough data to conclusively say fluoride, in small doses is a nurotoxin, and if it is so, why would not the sluggy government not move to immediately ban it? They do for lead, and they are saying here it is on the same level, so it seems to be a strange standard.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 5 years ago
      maybe the lancet ran out of subjects. yesterday coffee was bad and today it is good. how many other products will become good soon that are bad now or just the opposite. I believe the underlying culprit in all of this is the government. the governments desire to keep the population in panic mode if they can do it so they can come to the rescue. let us speculate on the next product that we use and have used for 100 years that is now not good for us. so go for it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by katelandwells 3 years, 5 months ago
    I began getting cavities in my 30s. I have been drinking fluoride free water and using fluoride free toothpaste for a long time ever since I began I've had zero cavities. This is just my personal observation. Very happy with my decision. A side effect of this is that I feel more clearheaded.. I think my short-term memory has improved. I drink only spring water that has minerals in it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 5 years ago
    I love commenting on cult sites...


    chris price 1875 • a month ago

    it amazing what rubbish research comes to light Peckham is a former chairperson of the activist group Hampshire Against Fluoridation. He is an active political campaigner on the issue of fluoridation Hardly independant research and to make matters worse the only paper that would publish his rubbish is the Scientific World Journal They will publish anything for $1000 fee
    So that is the first of the so called quality research from our unnamed commentator.
    It make you wonder about the quality of the rest


    plusaf chris price • a minute ago

    I particularly liked it when I noticed the "obvious unbiased positions" of each of 1895's references... (/sarc).
    In addition, the 'sources' common use of terms like "might" and "a small percentage" indicate a knee-jerk level of what I refer to as "catastrophization"... the generalization that a few incidents of negative effects should be justification for making it illegal for anyone and everyone to even CHOOSE to subject themselves to such an "unconscionable risk."
    When emotions and moralization enter such conversations, rational has 'left the building.'
    I wish 1895 and his cohort might ever realize that...
    But cult members never do.
    You're all trying to Discuss Something with a Cult.
    Do you realize how Futile that is?!
    Cheers, and good luck to all.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Ben_C 5 years ago
    Too much of a good thing is bad, not enough of a good thing is bad. Finding the balance is the challenge. Funny thing that people are living way longer now than the past. Social security age requirements will be increased - go figure. Human health care is not once size fits all. I grew up when butter was bad. Now it's good. Everything is point is time. No problem, delete fluoride from drinking water = job security for dentists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo