CONFIRMED: Fluoride Damages the Brain

a reply to: whereislogic

I admit, I was exaggerating with the word "chemotherapy" and with the word "medication" I was actually thinking about "medical treatment", as a medical treatment against caries. I don't think I used the word "medicine" though (can't find it at least).

Ok, I wasn't sure if you were seriously comparing the two or exaggerating for effect.
I took the word "medication" as it was used to mean that water fluoridation was being called a medicine, which it is not. A preventative treatment for a very common ailment, dental caries, but definitely not a medicine. Sorry about that.

It isn't currently viewed as a medicine.

I tend to take the words of someone with those kind of credentials quite serious if I don't see clear signs of deception and self-interest (it takes a brave man to stand up to your collegues, or a clique of them, so I'm actually seeing clues of the opposite).

It could take a brave man, or it could be that all the salmon swimming upstream seem incorrect to one swimming downstream. There are thousands and thousands of scientific studies done on water fluoridation. Not the papers that are taken out of context by FAN to further push their agenda. They have used the Harvard Study (raw water containing extremely high amounts of naturally occurring fluoride in Asia), fluoride injected into people for PET scans as "proof" that fluoride is harmful. Not one person has ever died from properly dosed water fluoridation. Yes, there are accidents where people have died or been harmed by fluoride overdoses or equipment malfunctions (kidney patients, etc.) but not one case of someone dying of water fluoridation. If there were, I'm sure FAN would make them their cover person. Strangely, they don't ever do that. Wonder why?....

A medical treatment (or therapy) with industrial chemicals (of indefinite duration, and no money back guarantee if the waterpump messes up the concentration). And again I'd like to remind everyone that it doesn't even need to be swallowed to make your teeth harder. The fluoride you swallow will not go towards your teeth unlike those "fluoridated dental preparations", which are much more effective. The government could pay for those instead of water fluoridation, but that means some people who might have some more clout will lose some of their financial piece of the pie.

True, equipment does fail, but that can happen anywhere in any scenario. It is hardly a reason to deny the potential health benefits.
Fluoridated water does go towards your teeth. If it didn't, why do some people have problems with dental fluorosis (raw and treated water)? I don't understand that argument. If it didn't get on your teeth when drinking water, why does sugary soda/pop cause cavities? As hard as a person tried (without a straw) the liquid you drink, gets in your mouth.

Dental caries is a process of demineralisation of dental hard tissue caused by acids formed from bacterial fermentation of sugars in the diet. Demineralisation is countered by the deposit of minerals in the saliva—remineralisation. Remineralisation is a slow process, however, which has to compete with factors that cause demineralisation. If remineralisation can effectively compete the enamel is repaired. If demineralisation exceeds remineralisation a carious cavity finally forms. Fluoride prevents caries by enhancing remineralisation.

From here.

The government wouldn't pay for that as it would be quite costly. Water fluoridation is pennies whereas a trip to the dentist (because people are not smart enough to administer it themselves) would be quite pricey. The government is cheap that's why water fluoridation is in place instead of free dental care.

While I don't believe (as there is absolutely no science that can back it up) that fluoride in the levels found in water fluoridation causes harm, I do think that it is becoming less necessary as people are taking better care of themselves now.

a reply to: superman2012
Mouthwater works similar to those dental preparations. Plus I told you to ignore that sentence, if I wasn't too late with editing I would have removed it. I was also talking about swallowing, the fluoride that gets in your stomach is not as effective for your teeth as when it's in your mouth, it is still toxic and noxious though (which is why you aren't supposed to swallow toothpaste or mouthwater, or that stuff they put in those dental preparations). But hey, if you prefer to swallow more fluoride, who am I to say you can't argue for others to be forced to do so as well. Not my problem anyway.

Regarding the use of fluoridation of drinking water in the fight against caries as well as fluorosis:

Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock spent an entire chapter to this phenomenon in his book "Health and Nutrition Secrets" in which he concludes that of virtually all studies conducted worldwide, the results were either neutral or negative for fluoridation of drinking water. In contrast, there are several studies available that demonstrate the true toxicity and noxiousness of fluoride.

Source: Fluoridering - Wikipedia:

I mean, I'm not making this stuff up you now, at any level, even a natural level, it's still harmful (noxious, poisonous). Yes, our bodies are amazing when it comes to dealing with or coping with damage so that most people won't even notice.

More use of google translate (so pardon wherever I don't feel like correcting it, I'm being more lazy than the last time):

When toothpaste contains fluoride , it is advisable not to swallow it. Osteoporosis can be aggravated by fluoride , and also must be careful dialysis patients with fluorine. Who may or does not want to have fluoride , can buy fluoride -free toothpaste. Toothpaste for young children contain less fluoride because they sometimes swallow the toothpaste .
Warning Text
As of January 19, 2009 is a warning text required on fluoride -containing toothpastes for children up to 6 years. The text reads: " For children six years and younger do not use more toothpaste than the size of a pea . Minimize swallowing toothpaste. Consult a ( tooth ) doctor if your child has intake of fluoride from other sources '.

Source: Fluoride - Wikipedia
From your link:

Fluoride prevents caries by enhancing remineralisation.

Notice that they didn't say, swallowing fluoride prevents caries...

The proper* medical treatment seems to be soaking your teeth in fluoride if it has those positive effects against caries (and a person is informed about and willing to accept the fluorosis trade-off).

* = see earlier quotations about the Hippocratic oath and related views on how to conduct medical treatments or care

Oh btw, if you feel like it and perhaps you know them quite well, I'm always interested in the details and the logic used in the experiments that are used to demonstrate what I just quoted from your link. You might want to split what I quoted up if you do get into details into:

1) Fluoride prevents caries by enhancing remineralisation (focus on the preventing caries by remineralisation and how fluoride relates to that)
2) Fluoride enhances remineralisation

a reply to: superman2012
edit previous post: (with the focus on preventing caries by enhancing remineralisation ....)

Your link does return to the same subject again later on under the section "Is fluoride added to water supplies a medicine?" (where you find it in box 4), but it doesn't really get into those type of details that I would like to know (and it has so many references in the article, I'm so sad they couldn't include some references in box 4, box 2 and 3 have references, nothing in box 1 that you quoted and box 4), all it says is:

The legal definition of a medicinal product in the European Union (Codified Pharmaceutical Directive 2004/27/EC, Article 1.2) is any substance or combination of substances “presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings” or “which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action.” Furthermore, in 1983 a judge ruled that fluoridated water fell within the Medicines Act 1968, “Section 130 defines ‘medicinal product' and I am satisfied that fluoride in whatever form it is ultimately purchased by the respondents falls within that definition.”16

If fluoride is a medicine, evidence on its effects should be subject to the standards of proof expected of drugs, including evidence from randomised trials. If used as a mass preventive measure in well people, the evidence of net benefit should be greater than that needed for drugs to treat illness.17 An important distinction also exists between removing unnatural exposures (such as environmental tobacco smoke) and adding unnatural exposures (such as drugs or preservatives).18 In the second situation, evidence on benefit and safety must be more stringent. There have been no randomised trials of water fluoridation.

After what's said in box 4.

It continues:

Ethical implications

Under the principle of informed consent, anyone can refuse treatment with a drug or other intervention. The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 199719 (which the UK has not signed) states that health interventions can only be carried out after free and informed consent. The General Medical Council's guidance on consent also stresses patients' autonomy, and their right to decide whether or not to undergo medical intervention even if refusal may result in harm.20 This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit.

The convention makes provision for exceptions to the principle of informed consent if necessary for public safety, to prevent crime, or to protect public health (article 26).19 Potential benefit must therefore be balanced against uncertainty about harms, the lower overall prevalence of caries now than a few decades ago (and smaller possible absolute benefit), the availability of other effective methods of prevention [whereislogic: no need to swallow more fluoride than what can't be avoided, it's so simple, why is there even a debate about this? Are we going to continue living in the dark ages just because some group is being annoying about it and some people can't swallow their pride?], and people's autonomy. Research on areas suggested by the MRC is needed.13 Methodological challenges due to problems of measuring fluoride exposure, long latency in chronic disease, and modest effect sizes will need special attention.

Trust in the dissemination of evidence

Public and professional bodies need to balance benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries and they also overstate the evidence on harm [whereislogic: which doesn't reduce or negate the harmful/noxious effect, a reality/fact/certainty/truth, an established fact].21 On the other hand, the Department of Health's objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society and, along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings9 selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation.22 In response to MRC recommendations,13 the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this and the caveats in the report's conclusion,23 this report formed the basis of a series of claims by government for the safety of fluoridation.24

Against this backdrop of one sided handling of the evidence, the public distrust in the information it receives is understandable.

a reply to: whereislogic

I was also talking about swallowing, the fluoride that gets in your stomach is not as effective for your teeth as when it's in your mouth, it is still toxic and noxious though (which is why you aren't supposed to swallow toothpaste or mouthwater, or that stuff they put in those dental preparations). But hey, if you prefer to swallow more fluoride, who am I to say you can't argue for others to be forced to do so as well. Not my problem anyway.

Swallowing it also allows for remineralisation. It is also touched up on that link. Granted, it isn't as effective as when they apply it at the dentist, but I have stated what I believe the reason for why that isn't cost effective, thereby not going to be funded by the government, nor given to people to administer at home.

The dosage in the toothpaste, mouthwash (with fluoride) and the dental preparations are at a concentration that can cause harm. They are no where near the levels found in water fluoridation. You would die of water intoxication before you would even get skeletal fluorosis, never mind death from water fluoridation.

Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock spent an entire chapter to this phenomenon in his book "Health and Nutrition Secrets" in which he concludes that of virtually all studies conducted worldwide, the results were either neutral or negative for fluoridation of drinking water. In contrast, there are several studies available that demonstrate the true toxicity and noxiousness of fluoride

Fluoride will kill you. If you consume enough. Same as salt and water. Dosage is very important here, that's why they lowered the MAC in water treatment. Better to be safe than sorry.
Dr. Russell Blaylock, while impressive in his credentials (Dr.), seems to be out of his field of expertise (neurosurgery) when talking about other medical related items. He believes vaccines are harmful, aluminum cookware, MSG, aspartame, dental amalgams, and fluoride all cause brain damage as well. I would like to see his research papers on these, but sadly, he doesn't have any.

Blaylock has retired from neurosurgery and has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials. Blaylock also sells hope to cancer patients by encouraging them to believe he has found the secret to prevention and cure.

From here.

When toothpaste contains fluoride , it is advisable not to swallow it. Osteoporosis can be aggravated by fluoride , and also must be careful dialysis patients with fluorine. Who may or does not want to have fluoride , can buy fluoride -free toothpaste. Toothpaste for young children contain less fluoride because they sometimes swallow the toothpaste .

None of this has ever been claimed as false. Fluoridated water in dialysis machines can cause death. Children are more likely to suffer side effects of fluoridated toothpaste because of their mass/dosage of fluoride in toothpaste. Just as more salt would be harmful to them then to an adult.

Notice that they didn't say, swallowing fluoride prevents caries...

I'm well aware of what was said. There isn't a fluoride collector that contains it and doesn't allow it to get into saliva though....

The proper* medical treatment seems to be soaking your teeth in fluoride if it has those positive effects against caries (and a person is informed about and willing to accept the fluorosis trade-off).

* = see earlier quotations about the Hippocratic oath and related views on how to conduct medical treatments or care

Of course it is, I already ceded that point but made one of my own. Government is cheap and would rather try to prevent something rather than react to a problem (in this case at least). The cost of fluoridating water vs paying for dental treatment for everyone isn't even close.

Oh btw, if you feel like it and perhaps you know them quite well, I'm always interested in the details and the logic used in the experiments that are used to demonstrate what I just quoted from your link. You might want to split what I quoted up if you do get into details into:

1) Fluoride prevents caries by enhancing remineralisation (focus on the preventing caries by remineralisation and how fluoride relates to that)

I have gone into this more times than I care to remember along with providing all factual reports and disseminating the false information for everyone with studies, research papers, hard science. If you click here and read through all the information I have presented in my thread and still have questions, please feel free to ask me here.

I hope I haven't forgotten to address any points but if I have, please feel free to call me on it.

I don't use fluoridated toothpaste, and noone should! If it was necessary people use it, they would not do paste with and without fluoride.
But there is a bunch of researches proving that it's not healthy at all!

It's been stated before, but chemophobes just can't get it through their head that MANY naturally occurring chemicals are dangerous in the improper doses.

Calcification of the pineal gland does peak my interest but I've never seen one legitimate study on that.

Where are the studies about children's IQ and the constant swiping left, right, up, down, on a cell phone screen 12 inches from your face? Or those who binge watch Honey Boo Boo and Hoarders every day?

If you are scared of chemicals you are scared of chemistry. The same kind of people existed hundreds of years ago, only then it was called alchemy. You were scared, misinformed peasants then, and you are scared, misinformed peasants with shiny toys now.

originally posted by: MariaConsuelo
I don't use fluoridated toothpaste, and noone should! If it was necessary people use it, they would not do paste with and without fluoride.
But there is a bunch of researches proving that it's not healthy at all!

They do that for people that don't have a sniff about fluoride nor the actual reason/science behind it.

People still hide in their caves when the Gods throw bolts of light at them, they just hide behind computer screens now pretending that an internet meme or a website with "facts" about the dangers they face, are real.

There can't be a rational explanation, that would mean they are wrong and people can't be wrong, can they?

Edit: I mean, for Gods sake, this thread, proven to be false (as it was portrayed) has 96 flags as of now! PT Barnum was right.