Why is there fluoride in SSRIs

[rickolasnice]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11093019?dopt=Abstrac

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014515?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10728978?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9483838?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9775642?dopt=Abstract

Bullshit. There's no statistically significant study that would show such a thing, that would rule out other factors, such as the prevalence of fluoridated toothpaste.

Wouldn't using the same logic imply that there would be no statistically significant study that would rule out other factors when looking for health BENEFITS?

They usually only show the effect with much higher dosages of fluoride than is recommended for tap water.

What about the kid that drinks twice as much water as the others? If doses double the amount can cause significant enough damage to be noticed, would it be better to assume smaller doses can atleast cause SOME kind of damage?

In healthy young or middle-aged adults, about 50% of absorbed fluoride is retained and 50% excreted, but young children may retain as much as 80% (Eksterand et al 1994a,b).

The dosage makes the poison.

Fluoride & the Kidneys - Kidney Patients at Increased Risk of Fluoride Poisoning: (back to top)

"[A] fairly substantial body of research indicates that patients with chronic renal insufficiency are at an increased risk of chronic fluoride toxicity. Patients with reduced glomerular filtration rates have a decreased ability to excrete fluoride in the urine. These patients may develop skeletal fluorosis even at 1 ppm fluoride in the drinking water... The National Kidney Foundation in its ‘Position Paper on Fluoride—1980’ as well as the Kidney Health Australia express concern about fluoride retention in kidney patients. They caution physicians to monitor the fluoride intake of patients with advanced stages of kidney diseases. However, a number of reasons will account for the failure to monitor fluoride intake in patients with stages 4 and 5 of chronic kidney diseases and to detect early effects of fluoride retention on kidneys and bone. The safety margin for exposure to fluoride by renal patients is unknown, measurements of fluoride levels are not routine, the onset of skeletal fluorosis is slow and insidious, clinical symptoms of this skeletal disorder are vague, progression of renal functional decline is multifactorial and physicians are unaware of side effects of fluoride on kidneys or bone."
SOURCE: Schiffl H. ( 2008 ). Fluoridation of drinking water and chronic kidney disease: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 23:411.

"Persons with renal failure can have a four fold increase in skeletal fluoride content, are at more risk of spontaneous bone fractures, and akin to skeletal fluorosis even at 1.0 ppm fluoride in drinking water."
SOURCE: Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36:433–487

 

[sekio]

oh no fluoride will kill us all

 

[rickolasnice]

Doctor sacked refusing to stay quiet about his research
Dr. William Marcus, the chief toxicologist of the EPA's Office of Drinking Water, was fired for his refusal to be silent about his work on fluoride.

Doctor sacked for opposing fluoridation
Dr. Mullenix: On meeting with dental industry representatives afterwards, she was asked if she'd been saying that fluoride lowers children's IQ. She says, "And I told them, 'basically, yes.'"(2)

That was the end of her career. She was fired from Forsyth Dental Center.

"I got into science because it was fun, and I would like to go back and do further studies, but I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the system. I find research is utterly controlled. "

Fluoride concentrations as low at 1ppm causes significant neurological changes in rats:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9518651

The scientists reported on a study documenting that fluoride collects in the pineal gland, resulting in early sexual maturation in children. A comparison of girls in two different towns, one with flouridated water and one without, showed that those drinking the treated water matured an average of six months earlier.

50 year study documents no health benefit from fluoridation.. but shows double amount of fluorsis
Finally, the scientists pointed to the lack of double-blind studies in support of prevention of caries. They pointed out that a study done by dentists of the National Institute of Dental Research, involving more than 39,000 children aged 5-17, documented no significant differences in tooth health among fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and nonfluoridated communities. The study considered decayed, missing, and filled teeth.

They also reported a 50-year study comparing two New York communities, Newburgh and Kingston. It documented no benefit from fluoridation, but showed double the amount of fluorosis in the teeth of children drinking fluoridated water, the first sign of fluoride toxicity.

They cited a publication by John Colquhoun, Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand, titled "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation". The article stated that:

Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.

....

 

[Hah]

california water district hearings 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRa_9N2z2XQ

 

[rickolasnice]

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm

Give that a read. It's a paper by a former Principal Dental Officer..




Nice vid Hah.

 

[dread]

Boy, you sure are persistent.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11093019?dopt=Abstrac

CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a complicated pattern of disease following cessation of fluoridation. Multiple sources of fluoride besides water fluoridation have made it more difficult to detect changes in the epidemiological profile of a population with generally low caries experience, and living in an affluent setting with widely accessible dental services. There are, however, subtle differences in caries and caries treatment experience between children living in fluoridated and fluoridation-ended areas.

This proves what now? Sounds like this is pretty much counter to your point.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014515?dopt=Abstract

Ah, Kuopio. This study does nothing to account for fluoride intake by other means. Dental health in Finland is pretty good. NaF pills are routinely distributed to kids. You see the implications?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10728978?dopt=Abstract

Again, various factors could be at play here. Correlation does not imply causation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9483838?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9775642?dopt=Abstract

Study #5: A possible explanation for this unexpected finding and for the good oral health status of the children in La Salud is the effect of the school mouthrinsing programme, which has involved fortnightly mouthrinses with 0.2% NaF solutions (i.e. 15 times/year) since 1990.

#6's abstract goes as follows:

Abstract

The reunification of the two German states has resulted in social transformations in Eastern Germany after 1990, in the wake of which disadvantageous effects on oral health were to be expected. Contrary to the predicted caries increase, a caries decline in the juvenile population could be proven by epidemiological comparative studies (n = 50612) (decrease between 1983-1989 and 1993-1995 by 34.2%). The caries decline is probably caused by a broader availability of fluorides, a high level of individual dental curative and preventive care (fissure sealings) and by changed oral health behaviour and nutritional habits. Reference is made to a possible tangent between a high level of antibiotics consumption and the virulence of oral pathogenic streptococci.

Yeah. I fully agree.

Quote from #7:

This convergence, and the overall decline during the last decade without known additional fluoride supplementation, suggest that factors other than fluoride, such as food additives and antibiotics, may have contributed.

Again, none of your studies make a good case against fluoride.

Here's another pubmed article for you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11021861

OBJECTIVE: To review the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of drinking water.
...
RESULTS: 214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was -5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth. A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning.

CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects.

Yeah. In conclusion, fluoride intake (be it by tap water or other sources) is beneficial against caries, it carries a slight risk of fluorosis which is however a) not very common b) dose-dependent and c) is mostly an aesthetic concern.

Wouldn't using the same logic imply that there would be no statistically significant study that would rule out other factors when looking for health BENEFITS?

Well, not exactly. You are simplifying things again. But statistic significance is the key here. If we have studies that show amounts of caries & other dental problems from a time when people didn't consume fluoride, vs. after fluoridation was started, that gives pretty clear evidence for fluoridation. However, by the time fluoridation was ceased in most of those places in the studies, fluoride-containing toothpastes have become increasingly common.

So any newer studies need to take in account other sources of fluoride, and rule out other factors. The general consensus in the scientific community is currently that fluoride is beneficial against caries, and with proper dosage proves no serious health risks.

What about the kid that drinks twice as much water as the others? If doses double the amount can cause significant enough damage to be noticed, would it be better to assume smaller doses can atleast cause SOME kind of damage?

No. It doesn't work that way. This is again a too simplistic approach. There are many factors at play, human metabolism is very complicated.

We are talking about concentration here. In concentration of 1 ppm fluoride is safe, the body can deal with it at that concentration, with reasonable intake. Of course, if you start drinking absurd amounts of water, the whole point becomes moot again, because water itself is harmful if consumed in excess.

Also, only ~50% of fluoride is excreted a day.. it builds up in our bodies.

Source for this? Or do you just assume it is true?

 

[rickolasnice]

However, by the time fluoridation was ceased in most of those places in the studies, fluoride-containing toothpastes have become increasingly common.

So why continue to fluoridate drinking water?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP7IPDfC3yg&feature=related

"Fluoride works better when you rub it on your teeth, not when you drink it"

Sorry.. i'm off for a bit i'll be back later

 

[dread]

Quote:

50 year study documents no health benefit from fluoridation.. but shows double amount of fluorsis
Finally, the scientists pointed to the lack of double-blind studies in support of prevention of caries. They pointed out that a study done by dentists of the National Institute of Dental Research, involving more than 39,000 children aged 5-17, documented no significant differences in tooth health among fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and nonfluoridated communities. The study considered decayed, missing, and filled teeth.

They also reported a 50-year study comparing two New York communities, Newburgh and Kingston. It documented no benefit from fluoridation, but showed double the amount of fluorosis in the teeth of children drinking fluoridated water, the first sign of fluoride toxicity.

They cited a publication by John Colquhoun, Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand, titled "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation". The article stated that:

Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm

Give that a read. It's a paper by a former Principal Dental Officer..

To be clear, both your posts point to the same "article" by this quack Colquhoun.


Here's a direct refutation: Why We Have Not Changed Our Minds about the Safety and Efficacy of Water Fluoridation: A Response to John Colquhoun - Ernest Newbrun, D.M.D., Ph.D., Herschel Horowitz, D.D.S., M.P.H.

http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/newbrun.html

Choice quotes:

Despite its propitious title, Fluoride is primarily a vehicle for printing articles that decry the benefits of communal water fluoridation (13 of Colquhoun's 73 citations are from this anti-fluoride publication). Colquhoun's paper is in the same genre. In it, Colquhoun states that water fluoridation is ineffective in reducing caries and that the decline in caries observed in most Western industrialized countries is not due to fluorides but rather to a vaguely described "improved nutrition." He also contends that water fluoridation is harmful to teeth (causes fluorosis) and to general health (causes bone cancer, weakens bones, affects behavior) and lacks universal endorsement. In general, Colquhoun ignores the overwhelming findings of the efficacy of water fluoridation in reducing caries prevalence, not only by failing to cite recent individual studies from various parts of the world, including Australia, Britain, Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand as well as the United States, that have reached this conclusion, but also by omitting major reviews that have cited these studies [11,12]. Instead, Colquhoun cites his own and Diesendorf's publications, which have been discredited because of significant errors, misquotations, and the use of questionable data [13].

Conspiracy Theory and Paranoia of the Anti-fluoridationists

Colquhoun, like many opponents of fluoridation, subscribes to the conspiracy theory, according to which the government, health authorities, and the dental profession are trying to foist water fluoridation on an unsuspecting public. He did not receive a response to his inquiries about the US survey because the data were still being analyzed and pre-publication data were not available. Results were first presented at a meeting of the International Association for Dental Research in 1989 [93] and were fully published in 1990 [36]. Colquhoun implies there was a conspiracy of silence by dental researchers to withhold information from the public and to bias findings [94].

The assertion by Colquhoun of intimidation and pressure on opponents of fluoridation is without basis. For example, it is paranoiac of Martin [6] to state that unpublished critiques of the writings by Diesendorf and Groth were "circulated". Murray and Rugg-Gunn prepared a detailed point-by-point response to Diesendorf's article [4] which Nature refused to accept; subsequently it was made generally available (Fluoridation and Declining Decay: a Reply to Diesendorf, British Fluoridation Society, London, Dec. 1987). Similarly, comments on Groth's argument for the need to perform blind examinations were readily available in the literature [95].

Again, need I go any further with this?

 

[dread]

So why continue to fluoridate drinking water?

Simple: the benefits overweight the risks, according to latest research and knowledge. If sufficient proof is to someday come (scientific proof, not paranoid conspiracy theories) of the opposite, then of course the situation will be different. But currently, to our best knowledge, fluoridation poses no real risks at the proper dosage, and is clearly beneficial for teeth.

Sorry.. i'm off for a bit i'll be back later

No doubt.

 

[rickolasnice]

Fluoride builds up in the pineal gland.. sound healthy?

Fluoride causes cancer.. real healthy..

Environmental Protection Agency have done numerous surveys and studies on fluoridated drinking water, and are strongly opposed of it.. nice. Oh wait but i forgot they're just a bunch of conspiracy theory whack jobs.

Ingestion of fluoride does nothing for teeth.. it should be applied locally.

Fluoride causes early sexual maturity.

The recommended daily dose of fluoride for a baby is.. 0mg.

The government is mass medicating people without their knowledge, let alone permission.

Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water as a medicine, all other things are added to cleanse the water. Fluorides affectiveness is minimal at best.. "oh noes teh tooth decay run for your lives"

 

[rickolasnice]

No doubt.

Bit of an arrogant twat, aren't you, dread?

Again, none of your studies make a good case against fluoride.

No, but they don't exactly show me hey! you know what! fluoridating water does help our teeth!

Well, not exactly. You are simplifying things again. But statistic significance is the key here. If we have studies that show amounts of caries & other dental problems from a time when people didn't consume fluoride, vs. after fluoridation was started, that gives pretty clear evidence for fluoridation. However, by the time fluoridation was ceased in most of those places in the studies, fluoride-containing toothpastes have become increasingly common.

:O But wouldn't fluoridated tooth pastes have been becoming more popular around that time? The first city to have fluoridated water was in 1945 and fluoridated tooth paste come out in 1950. Tooth decay was already decreasing before fluoridating water and post fluoridationg saw no other improvements outside of the steady decline.

And I retract my statement about 50% fluoride being excreted a day.. i seemed to have jumped the gun, there

 

[fryingsquirrel]

Why does it even matter? Everyone drinks bottled water these days, anyway. Except me.

Edit-And that bottled water is probably just coming out of a tap somewhere. Nevermind.

 

[dread]

Fluoride builds up in the pineal gland.. sound healthy?

No it doesn't. Where's the proof?

Fluoride causes cancer.. real healthy..

No it doesn't. Where's the proof?

Environmental Protection Agency have done numerous surveys and studies on fluoridated drinking water, and are strongly opposed of it.. nice.

The one EPA study you quoted only dealt with 2-4 times the recommended fluoride levels, and even explicitly stated that the study did not concern fluoride concentrations that are commonly used in tap water.

Ingestion of fluoride does nothing for teeth.. it should be applied locally.

This, you just pulled out of your ass.

The government is mass medicating people without their knowledge, let alone permission.

Oh? When has any government ever tried to hide the fact that they put fluoride in the water? As for permission, that's a whole another issue, and is really irrelevant to the discussion.

Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water as a medicine, all other things are added to cleanse the water.

Irrelevant.

Bit of an arrogant twat, aren't you, dread?

I like how most of them have resorted to personal attacks

Yeah. Pots and kettles come to mind, again.

Is that all you got though? Repeating the same nonsense over and over isn't going to magically make your points more valid. Your arguments are getting weaker by each post, and when you run out of anything resembling a valid argument, out come the ad-hominems... 8)

Why does it even matter? Everyone drinks bottled water these days, anyway.

The irony of the thing is, tap water in many countries is more strictly regulated than bottled water... It's so funny, cranks hoarding bottled water because "teh guvment" is "poisoning" the tap waters, when the water bottles they buy probably contain more fluoride than the tap water... :D

 

[rickolasnice]

Know how to use google?

Here's one for free:

http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

Yeah. Pots and kettles come to mind, again.

Yeah well after a fair few posts calling me a nutjob, etc..

The one EPA study you quoted only dealt with 2-4 times the recommended fluoride levels, and even explicitly stated that the study did not concern fluoride concentrations that are commonly used in tap water.

Yeah that was 1 of them.

Oh? When has any government ever tried to hide the fact that they put fluoride in the water? As for permission, that's a whole another issue, and is really irrelevant to the discussion.

I never said they hide the fact but when they are forcing someone to ingest a medicine it's their responsibility to inform that person knows exactly that, and why. Thousands and thousands if not millions of people don't know that fluoride is in water and millions more don't know why.

And that comment about fluoride works locally and not from ingestion come from some dentist in a video but he was quoting research data.. can't be bothered to find it tbh.

 

[fryingsquirrel]

The only reason you know about the fluoride is because they tell us. I wonder what secret stuff is in water?

 

[amanitadine]

^

Seems most of them have already swallowed the blue pill.

I like how most of them have resorted to personal attacks

I gots me a nike 1 of those^

If you are referencing me with that comment, then well....I don't even know where to begin. You made a few ridiculous claims with no back up. The back up you then dredged up was laughable. No references, impossible to measure crap, no mention of ANY details, let alone technique used, control groups, or ANYTHING....just some subjective vague crap in barely readable english ("He felt a the weariness"). When I pointed out the ridiculousness of your "50 examples" you had no response but to tell me I couldn't read or write:D Personal Attacks? Shit. So I gave up.....you can't reason with someone unwilling to use logic. And why should I continue ? It's not like you've shown yourself as someone willing to look at information and not view it without your personal objective in mind.

And in response to all the shit you've dredged up since, Dread has done the hard work here. He actually is noble enough to try to use reason with someone apparently immune to it. Same with his willingness to try and point out the myriad flaws in Aescins reasoning. People get these crazy half-cocked ideas in their head and are unwilling to look at any evidence but that which they interpret as backing up their claims. That is not science. Science is an agreement, an agreement to examine things using a common language that supersedes all insane cultural conditioning. It is a language based on logic and deductive reasoning. One where people across the globe can reach the same conclusions, and one that is always open to new information, and flexible in incorporating that information. It does not have an objective in mind other than adhering to the scientific method. You can't take the tools of science and not agree to speak the language. That is pseudoscience, and it pisses me off like few other things. Does it occur to you ever why you are so single mindedly devoted to this idea of fluoride causing harm? I have no agenda here....if I had seen any evidence to lead me to the conclusions you are so steadfastly making, I'd like to think I'd acknowledge it. But I haven't. None.

Be grateful there are still people willing to play along, and follow your links, and even attempt to discourse with you. Being stubborn, obtuse, and frankly, downright idiotic won't get you too far here.

Cheers

p.s. - In reading through your posts made while I was making mine, just do yourself, and this forum, a favor. Walk away. Anything more is only going to get more embarrassing. True, there is no definitive answer to this debate. But all of the evidence I (and most sane people) have seen overwhelmingly points against your arguments. We are not going to get anywhere here.

 

[dread]

Know how to use google?

Here's one for free:

http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

Ok... the site you linked to is obviously not a reliable source. It's a site advocating natural medicine, by someone that calls himself "Dr. Gerald H. Smith" who is the past president of the Holistic Dental Association. Which is just another form of quackery.

Dr. Gerald Smith also seems to claim he can cure cancer with alternative "naturalistic" medicine, among other things.

So, a site ran by a quack, which also hosts numerous other anti-fluoride articles (which refer to studies that have already been refuted)... I'm not convinced. When someone claims to be able to cure cancer with "natural medicine" it doesn't go well with credibility.

Show me a study like that from a reliable scientific source and we'll talk. Seriously, I searched (google & pubmed) for any article about fluoride bioaccumulation in humans. Nothing. If this study you claim has any credibility then why can it only be found from a holistic quack site?

Yeah well after a fair few posts calling me a nutjob, etc..

You know how you recognize a nutjob? It's someone who keeps arguing even though you show him again and again where his arguments fail. A rational minded person can admit when he is wrong and learn from his mistakes.

Yeah that was 1 of them.

Yeah? Where's the rest?

I never said they hide the fact but when they are forcing someone to ingest a medicine it's their responsibility to inform that person knows exactly that, and why. Thousands and thousands if not millions of people don't know that fluoride is in water and millions more don't know why.

Semantics. Anyone can easily find out if and how much their tap water contains fluoride if they're interested. However, try finding out the fluoride (or other mineral) content of your bottled water. Not so easy is it?

And that comment about fluoride works locally and not from ingestion come from some dentist in a video but he was quoting research data.. can't be bothered to find it tbh.

Gee, how convenient for you.


- one more article for your enjoyment:

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html

Choice quotes:

How Poisonmongers Work

The antifluoridationists' ("antis") basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that fluoridation causes cancer, heart and kidney disease, and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating them—because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.

A variation of the big lie is the laundry list. List enough "evils," and even if proponents can reply to some of them, they will never be able to cover the entire list. This technique is most effective in debates, letters to the editor, and television news reports. Another variation is the simple statement that fluoridation doesn't work. Although recent studies show less difference than there used to be in decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, the benefit is still substantial. In fact, the Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills.

Does this feel familiar to anyone here? Hmm?

 

[P A]

Fluoride builds up in the pineal gland.. sound healthy?

No it doesn't. Where's the proof?

Know how to use google?

Here's one for free:

Hey now, look, kid: the fact of the matter is, the onus is ineluctably on you to provide some semblance of evidential support (even if tenuous) for your unorthodox and controversial claims...not Dr. Dread, nor Mr. Squirrel.

Yeah well after a fair few posts calling me a nutjob

Based solely upon your wild conspiratorial leanings, steadfast refusal to acknowledge refutation, inordinate degree of stubborn conviction, and perverse contrarian enthusiasm made considerably more embarrassing by your decidedly poor research methodology, I'd say you're two sandwiches short of a picnic. And a certifiable amateur quack-in-training to boot. See the above posts for further clarity, but I urge you seriously consider their purport amidst the strident jeering and derision, which is in this case fully deserved.

I like how most of them have resorted to personal attacks

And yes, this was a personal attack if you like, though I greatly prefer 'condescension' or 'sideline prickery' in cases such as these, since the ever-popular accusations of 'argumentum ad hominem' and personal attack are frequently overused and abused by silly posters on internet discussion fora like yourself. Though you're not likely to read this, as I expect that you're of a persuasion not amenable to honest critique, take heed: no one here is resorting to personal attacks, provided that the word 'resort' implies a form of recourse - in this case, no recourse is necessary. Your stupid, medically irrelevant claims have been doubly refuted by others, leaving me without need to provide anything more in the way of contradictory evidence. Since you've decided to bristle, pucker up, and persist in your inanity, everyone is making fun of you and Asecin for acting dumb. I wish it were more complicated, and I'm sure it's much easier for you to internalize all of this whilst remaining convinced that we're all just floundering in the wake of your revelatory insights and feel the need to resort to personal attackslessthanthree to defend our stodgy, deeply-held beliefs, which I can assure you is not the case. We're simply chiming in to provide derisive social feedback and to sanction your obnoxious internet mannerisms. And having a laugh at your expense.

[As an aside: 1) Evidence for water fluoridation's efficacy in more well-to-do sociocultures in which people regularly brush their teeth is modest at best, but certainly not dismissible outright 2) Pineal fluoridation could actually be of substantive concern, especially for children and adolescents. On the other hand, I could never find anything more worrying than a couple gerbil/guinea pig studies demonstrating female pubertal acceleration and delayed ball-dropping in males (or something to that effect)]

 

[/navarone/]

WTF are you taalking about?

Seriously, i have wondered here and there but your post is definetly ackeward.

 

[P A]

WTF are you taalking about?

Seriously, i have wondered here and there but your post is definetly ackeward.

...care to point out what strikes you as particularly 'ackeward?'

Or are you just back from Murph's ruined butthurt thread to douche it up again?