Why is there fluoride in SSRIs

[sekio]

Ingesting part per million quantities of fluoride is not tantamounnt to killing people because they have bad teeth. Death is no "medication".

 

[atara]

I came across a thread about someone wanting to discontinue their Celexa because it had fluoride in it. which led me to look it up and find that most common SSRI's nowdays have fluoride in them. I thought ingesting this was dangerous, hence why we are not supposed to swallow toothpaste. Can anyone tell me why fluoride is in most common SSRIs today? including celexa, paxil, and prozac? wouldnt the fluoride be ingested with the pill and wouldnt that be bad for ones body? does anyone have and answer? I found this on a website

Organofluorines in general are not at all toxic (with a few exceptions e.g. fluoroacetate), and fluorine is generally included in a chemical structure to slow the metabolism of a drug. The inclusion of a fluorine atom at a metabolically active site of a compound prevents metabolism at that position and extends the duration of action.

It is not surprising that this technique is commonly used to extend the duration of SSRIs, as it is desirable for an SSRI to have an extraordinarily long metabolic half-life.

Fluoride is not remotely toxic in doses below 10 mg/day, and is rapidly cleared from the body; in particular, the level of fluoride recommended by the AMA and implemented in many water supplies is 1 ppm, which is less than the fluoride level in the ocean, 1.3 ppm.

 

[FPU4eva]

people in ADD should honestly rule the world u guys are quite inteligent, but its the fact the government not medical communitys required this watch jesse venturas conspiracy theorys also alex jones speaks truth regardless if u are religious liberal conservative or wut, were americans

 

[fryingsquirrel]

people in ADD should honestly rule the world u guys are quite inteligent, but its the fact the government not medical communitys required this watch jesse venturas conspiracy theorys also alex jones speaks truth regardless if u are religious liberal conservative or wut, were americans

Alex Jones is either a raving lunatic or a predator, feeding on the stupid. That people believe him makes me tend to believe the latter.

 

[pofacedhoe]

I find it cute that you doggedly persist in fulfilling your incessant need to admonish my supposedly deficient level of maturity amidst exchanges that 1) In some way concern me; 2) In no way concern you; and 3) Involve petty disputes in which I'm never the first aggressor and am simply responding in kind to others' unwarranted faggotry. Perhaps you should try extending your sincerest critiques to Navarone, whose jeering, drink-sodden ejaculations provoked the quoted response in the first place? Oh but nonono, that would be unfair to your silly little A.D.D. butthurt clique of in-group fuckwits, wouldn't it?

Again comes to mind the witty aphorism to mind your own fucking business and find a new outlet for your preachy flouting. Thank you for your input. Now kindly fuck off, Hoe.



.

no,

do you think your instructions carry any weight? you're not witty you're just weak inside and have to take your emptiness out on people over the internet because in real life you'd get slapped.

i'm not part of a clique or an in crowd in ADD, there doesn't seem to really be one but if you want to feel like the victim then go ahead, and your excessive use of anal sex references and the term faggot makes me think that maybe you need to get out more.

i'm not preachy i just have manners and dont talk to others like they are worthless. the lack of respect for anyone that you demonstrate is just an example of your childish personality, something that is probably emanting form you on every level, all day everyday. inferiority complex? obviously your self esteem is lagging way below your ego and you have to pick at others to gain the self worth that i already feel when i get out of bed each day...

as for fluoride- isn't it just in the water because there was an excess floating around a while ago and it seemed like a good way to make money from it?

probably has very little to do with worries about dental hygiene and everything to do with shifty handshakes and brown envelopes

 

[rickolasnice]

^ Yeah it's inustrial waste.. there was ALOT left over after world war 2..

 

[vecktor]

I find this discussion is interesting but please cut out the personal attacks it doesn't further your argument.

To have open and honest debate, respecting other peoples opinion and not resort to personal attacks is a rare thing, especially so online where there are few direct consequences of uncivil behaviour.

 

[vecktor]

Organofluorines in general are not at all toxic (with a few exceptions e.g. fluoroacetate), and fluorine is generally included in a chemical structure to slow the metabolism of a drug. The inclusion of a fluorine atom at a metabolically active site of a compound prevents metabolism at that position and extends the duration of action.

It is not surprising that this technique is commonly used to extend the duration of SSRIs, as it is desirable for an SSRI to have an extraordinarily long metabolic half-life.

A extraordinarily long half life is not usually desirable because it makes it very difficult to achieve steady state plasma levels as the drug will tend to accumulate.

Quite a few of these drugs contain the trifluoromethyl group which acts in a similar way to chlorine improving lipophilicity and transporter affinity and selectivity without any real effect on metabolism versus the chloro compound.

Fluorination of the aromatic ring is a classic med chem move to improve affinity and selectivity, the beneficial effects on metabolic stability are just a bonus, fluoro chemicals are now cheap and readily available so get included in compound libraries, if trifluoromethoxy compounds were readily available then we would see more drugs with this motif.
The standard Med Chem approach is to run with the highest affinity experimental substance, then tweak it to get the desired profile. Whether this is wise is a debatable point as it is likely some very good drugs have been missed due to them not being amongst the most potent compounds in early development studies.

 

[P A]

do you think your instructions carry any weight?

Instructions?

have to take your emptiness out on people over the internet because in real life you'd get slapped

I find covert internet toughuys like you lulzy. By whom exactly would I be slapped? For doing/saying what? If someone speaks or acts like a prick to me, I wouldn't be so base and thuggish as to 'slap' them, and I certainly hope they wouldn't do so to me. This is how civilized people behave in a world far outside of your hypermasculine fantasy land in which others are quick to dispatch of cogent words with meaningless physical threats.

i'm not part of a clique or an in crowd in ADD, there doesn't seem to really be one but if you want to feel like the victim then go ahead

Sure there is. And I can assure that I do not in any way feel a victim, much less one of your tawdry reprobation.

and your excessive use of anal sex references and the term faggot makes me think that maybe you need to get out more.

...wut. I've never once referred to anyone on this site (nor off, if I remember correctly) as a faggot. And as for your mention of my "anal sex references" (lol), I suggest you do a little "getting out" of your own. My use of the terms 'faggotry' and 'butthurt' serve only to illustrate others' ridiculous internet behavior. It is common slang, and it really has nothing to do with homosexuality, though the terms do stem from satiric homophobia, similar in kind to how the word 'gay' is no longer commonly associated with joy or glee. I only use such terminology because 1) I find it comical and 2) It makes for effective insults, when deserved.

i'm not preachy

Sure you are. Your tone is tedious, disdainful, and scolding, and made all the more so because your opinion was never asked for. Simultaneously, you contribute nothing to the thread as a whole, in any way. Similarly to Navarone in this case.

i just have manners and dont talk to others like they are worthless. the lack of respect for anyone that you demonstrate is just an example of your childish personality

True respect is to be earned, not dished out cafeteria-style. Outside of this thread, who exactly have I 'disrespected' that hadn't already done the same to me multiple times and on multiple levels? In case you hadn't noticed (and to repeat) it was Navarone's immature puling that incited my post, to which you apparently felt compelled to respond in your scolding fashion. Like most people, I regularly give the benefit of the doubt to anyone and everyone, except under extreme circumstances. However, that benefit immediately ceases the minute someone decides to adopt a tone that is highly assertive or offensive, in which case I feel free to retort. Last I checked, this was a well-accepted, unspoken human social contract.

something that is probably emanting form you on every level, all day everyday. inferiority complex? obviously your self esteem is lagging way below your ego and you have to pick at others to gain the self worth that i already feel when i get out of bed each day...

The fact that you would take time out of your day to let me know just how well-adjusted and self-confident you are in comparison to what you arrogantly and presumptuously assume is my 'lagging self-esteem' leaves me wondering whether you're just a pot calling the kettle a pot. Your vain internet psychoanalysis is among the most predictable forms of internet forum phenomena, right up there with Godwin's law. "If you ever suspect that someone has shown you up on the internets, just pull some generic psychobabble out of your ass and let them know how easily explainable and clearly wrongheaded their behavior must be, allowing you walk away with your head held high." Self-esteem? Inferiority complex? Try harder.

In reversal - what psychologically healthy person feels such an unyielding compulsion to inform internet forum posters of how sensible, agreeable, and confident they are by comparison?

And wouldn't it be a more plausible explanation that, rather than being psychologically deficient or egoistically warped, I'm simply irked by the aggressive stupidity of others? Why do you persist in your needless tsktsking?

 

[vecktor]

to PA and the others quit the scoring of personal points against each other, just drop it.

you don't have to have the last word you don't have to 'win'.

if this persists then bear in mind I can delete a personal attack post far more quickly than you can write it.

V

 

[pofacedhoe]

^ Yeah it's inustrial waste.. there was ALOT left over after world war 2..

well if you can sell a load of limited worth crap and make up some spiel about its use as a medicine that you can force on everyone, then you've hit the jackpot

 

[dread]

its called herd immunity.
fair has nothing to do with it the world is not fair. the question is whether it is right?

Yes, that's the term I was looking for, thanks. And "fair" may not have been the best choice of words here... I'm sorry I'm not always able to communicate myself optimally, as english is not my first language.

Thing is, how important is "individual freedom"? Is it something that goes above anything else?

how far are you willing to go down this line?

Are you implying a "slippery slope" argument? Why is it that if I argue a point, you can only refute it by taking it to the extreme? Isn't that a sort of strawman?

I propose that all cystic fibrosis gene carriers are sterilized, within a generation cystic fibrosis will be gone once and for all?

is this acceptable?

I think you know the answer to that. I do not support mass sterilizations based on genetic studies, just to spell it out. Also I don't see how this has to do anything with the initial argument.

Making vaccinations mandatory is something that benefits everyone immediately and offers no adverse effects. Is individual freedom so important, that people get to be so selfish as to refuse vaccinations even if it directly harms other people?

how about defective drug using people, if they were killed it would be better for the non drug using majority?

Umm... I think non-drug using people are in the minority actually. Almost everyone uses a drug of some sort these days.

how about disabled people their very existance imposes a cost on the rest of society, and the majority would be better off if they were gased.

what about Jews? they are a minority whose interests don't necessarily coincide with the rest of a country surely it would benefit the majority to get rid of the Jews so making the country more homogeneous?

Nice Godwin here.

This is the reason why his line of reasoning is very dangerous and should be stamped out.

So, I assume you are in fact presenting a "slippery slope" argument? Ie. If you do X, it might lead to Y, Y is bad, therefore X is bad.

Can you at least see the fallacy in that?

There is one place where no one else has jurisdiction and its borders are your skin.

So... what about the criminally insane, serial killers and the like? By your argument, we shouldn't be able to medicate them against their will either.

With ethics and philosopher I am more towards individualism rather than utilitarianism. The collective good mantra is usually bullshit trotted out by people who are busy fucking over the majority in a different way.

Whereas I feel that absolutes like utilitarianism and individualism are not useful for all-compassing guidelines. Different circumstances require different measures and a balance should be found with sufficient individual freedom and collective benefit.

There will always be a conflict between the rights of the individual and the rights of others but it is very easy to go too far in favor of the rights of Society (whatever that may be) or worse the State (generally code for the ruling elite).

It is also easy to go too far in the direction of individual rights. Let's say I want to have the right to use DDT, CFC:s and other polluting chemicals because it's my right as and individual and I reject any government or other authority with their regulations on pollution because they trample on my individual freedom. Would I be in the right with an argument like this?

 

[dread]

well if you can sell a load of limited worth crap and make up some spiel about its use as a medicine that you can force on everyone, then you've hit the jackpot

^ Yeah it's inustrial waste.. there was ALOT left over after world war 2..
Yesterday 17:53

The whole "industrial waste" "argument" is a non-sequitur if I ever heard one. There are lots and lots of products that are produced as by-products of industry. Just because something is produced as a by-product of another product says absolutely nothing about the product itself.

as for fluoride- isn't it just in the water because there was an excess floating around a while ago and it seemed like a good way to make money from it?

Can you provide evidence for this assertion?

 

[P A]

....and the corollary, is it solely the privilege of the rich not to have to ingest fluoride if they choose?

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that if an overwhelming majority (much of which includes the poor as well as the rich) proffer a 'yea' vote, the dissenting few should be given undue weight in the democratic process simply because they happen to object? In an idealized world in which collective government places heavy emphasis on civil individualism, the 'water fluoridation' vote would never even be on the table, let alone make it to ballot, since it violates what you see as an evident common principle of the individual right of corporeal autonomy. As a general principle, this sounds fine. But one must consider the fact that in this quasi-libertarian society 1) Many people, regardless of class, would likely suffer greatly from easily preventable dental complications that they "chose" (or weren't even allowed to choose) to receive in lieu of having their water safely fluoridated and 2) If the vast majority among this group decided that water fluoridation would be a great idea for obvious reasons of safety, efficacy, and public welfare, no legislation would ever be enacted so long as there is a single uneducated, overly idealistic, or psychopathic dissenter. I believe that this is view borders on conservative extremism, and has little relevance to modern public policy and legislation.

When individual rights are emphasized far over and above the right of the collective, maximum suffering is ensured. Inversely, when majority fiat takes egregious precedence (as in a pure democracy), some injustice is guaranteed. I believe that the keys are the maintenance of balance, and more miopic consideration of specific cases (like water fluoridation) whilst retaining salient awareness of general common principles like yours. Since you seem fond of taking Dread's utilitarian leanings to the utmost in extremity, what of your libertarian/individualistic sentiments? We all know what they becomae when reduced to the absurd: anarchy.

how about defective drug using people, if they were killed it would be better for the non drug using majority?

Democide is not comparable to mass medication. The former is to human rights as the latter is to arguable civil rights.

 

[pofacedhoe]

The whole "industrial waste" "argument" is a non-sequitur if I ever heard one. There are lots and lots of products that are produced as by-products of industry. Just because something is produced as a by-product of another product says absolutely nothing about the product itself.



Can you provide evidence for this assertion?

i read it a couple of years ago on the net (possibly on an antifuoridation website in all honesty), what i was saying is that if you have something you cannot shift then claim it has health benefits and voila you can sell your crap; given that fluoride is better for your teeth in toothpaste than in your stomach via drinking water, it seems like it was just a way to shift an excess for a profit.

either way why force everyone to take a medicine? does that not seem bizarre to you

especially if the medicine is not a life saving drug but simply a tooth decay prevention treatment. who cares so much about societies teeth? it just doesn't quite add up in my head, what does the government gain?

 

[pofacedhoe]

Democide is not comparable to mass medication. The former is to human rights as the latter is to arguable civil rights.

both involve an infringement of rights, somewhere along the scale

where do you think the line should be drawn?

i think that people should medicate themselves or at least have the choice to (who knows your body better than you?)

for instance if you feel the need to medicate yourself i think that it is your human right to do so if you can e.g. buy toothpaste

 

[vecktor]

Yes, that's the term I was looking for, thanks. And "fair" may not have been the best choice of words here... I'm sorry I'm not always able to communicate myself optimally, as english is not my first language.

Thing is, how important is "individual freedom"? Is it something that goes above anything else?



Are you implying a "slippery slope" argument? Why is it that if I argue a point, you can only refute it by taking it to the extreme? Isn't that a sort of strawman?

No I am saying there is an underlying principle, and the examples are demonstrations of the principle at work in an extreme form.

Treatments should always be in the [ B]] treated individuals' best interest,[/B] sometimes this also gives benefits to a wider community but this should never figure in the calculation whether to treat the individual. There must also always be informed consent.

Making vaccinations mandatory is something that benefits everyone immediately and offers no adverse effects. Is individual freedom so important, that people get to be so selfish as to refuse vaccinations even if it directly harms other people?

I like your position, however it is somewhat idealistic and naive. Vaccines are not without risk and it must be considered that they are administered to healthy individuals, calculated from the individuals benefit versus risk standpoint some currently used vaccines do not add up others do. The incidence of short term adverse effects is fairly low for most vaccines however in the situation where this low absolute incidence is actually higher than the risk presented to the individual by the disease itself, it is questionable whether the vaccine should be used.
For example in healthy individuals having the annual flu vaccination does not make logical sense (neither with what we know now did the swine flu vaccination), similar analysis can be done for most vaccines.

There has also been a trend to use vaccination as a financially cheaper option, witness the reduction and delay in cervical screening due to the introduction of HPV vaccines. This cost cutting measure will probably negate any benefit from the HPV vaccine. Those given the vaccine will be exposed to the risks of a vaccine which may or may not ultimately reduce the incidence of cervical cancer amongst the vaccinees. This is a debate which almost all colleagues have refused to engage in but it is a debate that should happen and it should happen in an open and honest way based not on dogmatic positions but on the evidence available, truly evidence based medicine.

Refusing vaccines for contagious diseases does not directly harm other people, there is no duty to provide herd immunity to the rest of the population, if people want to be altruistic then that is their choice and it is up to the medical community to convince people to be altruistic in this way on the basis of enlightened self interest, It is easier to use de facto compulsion but In practically all normal circumstances any compulsory treatment is completely ethically and morally wrong. It is the right of a patient to refuse any treatment even if the treatment is considered to be in their best interest.

Even your assertion that refusing vaccination can harm other people is not completely true. There is no mechanism whatsoever by which refusing some vaccines can impact anyone else in any way, for example tetanus vaccine is effectively mandatory in the US but refusing the vaccination cannot harm anyone else in any way. Being vaccinated against chicken pox actually harms older people by increasing their risk of shingles. live polio vaccines can infect others and so on. Things are never as conveniently simplistic.

so I ask you again should vaccination be mandatory?


V

 

[amanitadine]

i read it a couple of years ago on the net (possibly on an antifuoridation website in all honesty), what i was saying is that if you have something you cannot shift then claim it has health benefits and voila you can sell your crap; given that fluoride is better for your teeth in toothpaste than in your stomach via drinking water, it seems like it was just a way to shift an excess for a profit.

either way why force everyone to take a medicine? does that not seem bizarre to you

especially if the medicine is not a life saving drug but simply a tooth decay prevention treatment. who cares so much about societies teeth? it just doesn't quite add up in my head, what does the government gain?

What does the government gain? Geeze it is spelled out repeatedly through the jillion cost benefit analyses listed above.

IT SAVES MONEY

Its potential benefits far outweigh any potential negatives, as shown in the countless studies shown as to its effect.

It seems pretty god damn simple to me. Yeah, one could approach it ethically rather than scientifically and have some footing. But it seems repeatedly that those with a moral problem with fluoridation often don't recognize this, and try to argue it scientifically (and emotionally 8) ) and then end up doing exactly what rickolas did above. Its a perfect example of such. . unwilling to acknowledge any information but that which appears to back up the argument he already has in his head. Its called "morals". A pre-determined way to react to a given situation. Sure, morals can have their place, but really don't make for objective analysis.

Philosophically it gets alot more interesting, as exemplified by Vecktors and Dreads posts....here there actually is arguable ground. But, ethics are not statistically significant, and the scientific argument remains the same. Fluoride is put in water because it has been shown repeatedly that it does a lot more good than harm and it saves society money. Period.

 

[P A]

both involve an infringement of rights, somewhere along the scale

It doesn't work that way. There is no clearly articulable scale here. You're basically whipping out a Godwin equivalent to occlude a discussion of individual liberty and its frequent conflict with common law. Human rights are not generalizable to civil ones. Only a stone psychopath with argue differently.

where do you think the line should be drawn?

To repeat, general principles/=specific cases. Of course, one can always extend the latter from the former, but you're muddling the two with vacuous talk of spectra and lines.

[Assuming here that the word murder denotes nothing more than intentional homicide] Generally speaking, does murder constitute a violation of human rights? I think so. Generally speaking, is it ethically unsound as a practical means of solving disputes? Unquestionably, I would argue. Is it legally sanctioned? Yes, for the two reasons mentioned above. However, what of the specific cases of self-defense or the defense of helpless others? By your rhetorical stance of deliberative mysteria, no matter what the circumstance, murder=murder irrespective of any situational extenuation, and should therefore be punishable accordingly without quarter. If one were to ask me the grave, heavy-handed question of where I'd "draw the line," I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to claim that I knew with any certainty. For the individual, this question is essentially insoluble; and for society, I think, best left to be decided by collective vote. This cannot be repeated often enough.

The fact that a question of ethical legislation is impossibly difficult for a single woman or man to answer doesn't suddenly relieve society of its responsibility to ask these questions and reach an agreeable conclusion by democratic participation, typically via their elected representatives. In fact, the exceeding arduousness of generating universal principles founded upon answers to insoluble moral/ethical queries is one the primary reasons that most Western states have adopted democratic-republican legislative and judicial systems in the first place. In the case of municipal fluoridation, if the collective majority are in fact both fully aware of and are in favor of it (or simply don't mind it), what are you insinuating? That some untenable "right" of a small minority is being violated, thereby ethically invalidating the democratic consensus? If so, see my above post; and consider what means of legislation you would propose that would serve as a clearly superior alternative.

In summary, for fluoridation: It fulfills its intended purpose. It's safe. It's cheap. It's regarded by the vast majority as perfectly acceptable. It violates no universal human rights. It violates no local nor federal laws. However, a persuasive case could be made that it stands in awkward conflict with practical medical ethics. In light of all this, I think that, along with aforementioned majority, I can deal with water fluoridation for the time being on all grounds - i.e., ethical, legal, and dental.

what does the government gain

The government? Nothing. The people? Pearly brights.

 

[vecktor]

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that if an overwhelming majority (much of which includes the poor as well as the rich) proffer a 'yea' vote, the dissenting few should be given undue weight in the democratic process simply because they happen to object? In an idealized world in which collective government places heavy emphasis on civil individualism, the 'water fluoridation' vote would never even be on the table, let alone make it to ballot, since it violates what you see as an evident common principle of the individual right of corporeal autonomy. As a general principle, this sounds fine. But one must consider the fact that in this quasi-libertarian society 1) Many people, regardless of class, would likely suffer greatly from easily preventable dental complications that they "chose" (or weren't even allowed to choose) to receive in lieu of having their water safely fluoridated and 2) If the vast majority among this group decided that water fluoridation would be a great idea for obvious reasons of safety, efficacy, and public welfare, no legislation would ever be enacted so long as there is a single uneducated, overly idealistic, or psychopathic dissenter. I believe that this is view borders on conservative extremism, and has little relevance to modern public policy and legislation.

The suggestion is that if tap water is fluoridated then in order to avoid fluoride for what ever reason, say for irrational personal beliefs, people have to drink bottled water which is a privilege of the rich

The reason I am poking at the collective good versus the rights of the individual arguments is of course the illegal status of drugs which are justified on the principle of protecting society over the innate rights of the individual, I find it interesting I see utilitarian positions being taken by people on a drug discussion forum. I agree that in extremis total individualism leads to a increase in the overall suffering and the same applies in respect of individual suffering in total utilitarianism, however even in societies which supposedly are focused on the greater public good the situation on the ground tends to veer towards the state acting in the name of the people interfering and causing more harm than good.

I do not believe that the state or its appointed officers and advisors necessarily have any greater wisdom than me, t I don't have the arrogance to presume that I know what is best for society or for you, instead my default position is to encourage the individual decide for themselves and society should take a similar position.

We assume that there is a certain level of competence amongst the advisers and rulers the wise and the good, except when we see them pontificating about something that is our personal area of specialism we realise they are full of shit, the revelation comes when you think about the situation when they pontificate on a field that is not your area of expertise how likely is it that they are equally full of shit in that area too.
liberal libertarian anarchist conservative?
how about human fallabillist