• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

Why is there fluoride in SSRIs

1st Paragraph: link me to something that proves fluoridated water is good for you, and i will link you to 2 things proving it's not.

Quantity does not trump quality. I can find you 100 links to sites that claim vaccinations are a conspiracy of the illuminati to give all our children autism and convert them to communists but that still doesn't create a valid point against vaccinations.

Here's something you should read though http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18584000

dread so you believe scientists when its all based on money. the whole science method is reliable on governments, and corporations pay huge amount of money for their own benefits and any smart scientist will be wise enough to do as they tell him/her to.

The amount of sheer idiocy of your statements is simply amazing. Please show me proof for your idiotic claims instead of just spewing idiotic anti-scientific bullshit around.

So is the world 6000 years old? Is the speed of light variable? Is evolution false? If you throw around preposterous claims you better be able to back them up. Show me the goddamn proof or shut the hell up.

"Science has no dogma. Science is all about the evidence" sure pal except its all based on money, contacts and influence
Scientists are bias, they choose whatever according to their benefits.
Scientists = humans = erroneous creatures incapable of ever conceiving one and only truth even if they tried for the rest of their lives

Ok listen up: science is not supposed to give you "one and only truth". That's not the purpose of science. It's not a religion - no matter how much you denialists and YEC:s and new-age crackpots want to believe so.

So you posit that all the scientists, of all the various scientific fields, everywhere around the world, are part of some mysterious conspiracy to fake the results according to the will of some mysterious entity bribing them all... what is this entity that is able to control all of the world's scientists? No matter that scientists regularly disagree on some things... you see how utterly fucking stupid your arguments are?

One of the basics of the scientific method is falsifiability. Any theory must be falsifiable or it is not a scientific theory. Anyone is free to try to prove a theory false. There is also the concept of replication of results: a single experiment is never considered 100% before another, independent group of scientists can repeat the experiment and get the same results. So you see, if scientists fake their results (like some have been known to do) they eventually get caught when the next guy who tries the same experiment can't replicate the results of their experiment (as we have seen happen.)


Yes, science doesn't give you a nice wrapped-up answer about everything like your church or bible does. But what science gives you is backed by hard evidence. Proof. Of course, some people like to plug their ears and go "la la la la I'm not hearing you" because they'd rather live in their own little fantasy land.


--- oh, and rickolasnice, your insert about the quality of UK water is a total non-sequitur. We were discussing the effects of water-fluoridation - not the individual water quality of various countries. Sure, there are lots of places where tap water is of poor quality. How is that supposed to make a case against fluoridation?
 
Basically with your post above about water contaminants you are trying to state that some conspiracy people are willingly putting it there whithout even considering something called "pollution" (ever heard of it)?

What is it with you and this nonsense evil scientist-government conspiracy to put toxic contaminants in drinking water for what gain? Deacreasing the average intelligence of the masses? Why? That would actually result in a decrease of general health, collective education, worldwide progress and ultimately in an slowed economical growth since dumb people do not benefit a country's economy, think about that.

Just tell me one thing, if we cannot trust the scientific comunity then who da hell do you trust?
Scientologists? Hippi self-proclaimed new age-scientists?

Just because some charlatans in the past have claimed that their 'product/story' was backed up by science when it obviously was not or because they paid someone to say the untruth, does not justify a wide open distrust towards worldwide research.
 
This reminds me of the time I derived empirical support for my ancient Mayan crystal-colon-cleansing-homeopathy by giving it to my best friend's sister's cousin's mother to treat her rampant amalgam poisoning, chronic fluoride toxicity, and 9000 subclinical vitamin deficiencies - she got great results! Now you can too, for only five easy installments of $29.95 and a mandatory paid subscription to my preposterous New Age spamscare site (did you know 113% of Americans have been poisoned by the evilevilevil drug companies?). Act now, and we'll throw in an anti-vaccine bumper sticker and dangerous megadose mercury chelator absolutely FREE!!1!!1one

@dread Your zeal and persistence (or perhaps righteous fury) are inspiring. If only every scientifically-minded chap on the internet were as indefatigably dedicated to dispelling the rampant lunacy that has come to pollute its servers and corrupt the minds of the naive and biochemically uninitiated. But dammitall, there just doesn't seem to be enough time in the day to rant every one of those bamboozled, superstitious shitwits into the ground, nor enough corresponding enthusiasm to go around. Sad face.

science doesn't give you a nice wrapped-up answer about everything like your church or bible does. But what science gives you is backed by hard evidence. Proof. Of course, some people like to plug their ears and go "la la la la I'm not hearing you" because they'd rather live in their own little fantasy land.

Amen. Now that's some holy writ, brutha.
 
This reminds me of the time I derived empirical support for my ancient Mayan crystal-colon-cleansing-homeopathy by giving it to my best friend's sister's cousin's mother to treat her rampant amalgam poisoning, chronic fluoride toxicity, and 9000 subclinical vitamin deficiencies - she got great results! Now you can too, for only five easy installments of $29.95 and a mandatory paid subscription to my preposterous New Age spamscare site (did you know 113% of Americans have been poisoned by the evilevilevil drug companies?). Act now, and we'll throw in an anti-vaccine bumper sticker and dangerous megadose mercury chelator absolutely FREE!!1!!1one

@dread Your zeal and persistence (or perhaps righteous fury) are inspiring. If only every scientifically-minded chap on the internet were as indefatigably dedicated to dispelling the rampant lunacy that has come to pollute its servers and corrupt the minds of the naive and biochemically uninitiated. But dammitall, there just doesn't seem to be enough time in the day to rant every one of those bamboozled, superstitious shitwits into the ground, nor enough corresponding enthusiasm to go around. Sad face.



Amen. Now that's some holy writ, brutha.
wouldn't your best friend's sister's cousin be his cousin also?=D
 
Please.......I really hope this isn't what ADD is devolving into with the recent departures. All these lunatics streaming in to fill the vacuum.......

Dread, Navarone - thank you for continuing to provide a voice of reason through this thread. Gives me hope ;)

Dread in particular, your patience is amazing. I gave up quickly, like trying to reason with a ball of putty. I always overestimate the intelligence of the general population and then I do something like go to the grocery store or open up a thread like this and am quickly reminded............it can be shocking.....

now its Fluoride and Science. How does the devil play into this? And the jews! The jews!

Is this A.D.D. A.D.?
 
Indeed

wouldn't your best friend's sister's cousin be his cousin also?

It was actually his sister-in-law, but that didn't ring so well with the rest of the jingle.

%)%)%)%)%)
 
Anyone remember the Tin Foil Hat anti conspiracy practice?

tinfoil-hat.jpg
 
Please.......I really hope this isn't what ADD is devolving into with the recent departures. All these lunatics streaming in to fill the vacuum.......

That is what I fear also... hence my "righteous fury" against the pseudoscience nutjobs.

And thanks for the support everyone.

Anyone remember the Tin Foil Hat anti conspiracy practice?

Ah, tin foil hats. Got to admire the DIY spirit of the nutjobs of old. These days, they would just buy a MiracleBrainProtectolator(tm) at $39,95 from your nearest new-age web$ite...

180px-Tinfoil_hat.jpg



oh and: http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/

Abstract
Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason.
 
Last edited:
dread, so you are saying people are gullible and easy to trick into believing into miracle cures without actual support of science ? WRONG.
one example, few years medical journals state "high doses of vitamin e is good for the heart" even your favorite NCBI had many articles. so... what happens if you are in the position you need something for your heart and you read "science" and you know science should be done precise way and they wouldnt lie to people, do you go and buy vitamin e and start taking it for years ? THEN, few year later similar, or different medical journals say "vitamin e can cause heart damage" what do you do then ? were you gullible ? were you scammed by science ? i think you have been scammed by science ! but you say "well science always changes they find new evidence and they change their mistakes" how long does it take man few years until people do as what science previously has said its ok ? so by the time your favorite "science" proves that THEY WERE WRONG you have damage. so were you scammed, were you gullible, a complete moron to buy those science claims years ago ? how can you be wrong, it was science !

ill tell you one reason why most of those greedy scientists publish those reports in journals so quick, money

i can point out over 100 examples like this. i can go on all day tho. so my question is, since you admitted yourself, science changes all the time, why trust science ever ?
 
Last edited:
And the New World Order. I should shut up, already got banned from the Alex Jones forum for rationality. Not kidding %)


i dont know what the fuck you guys are talking about. i use logic and so far by using logic i havent found any reason to believe in any conspiracies.

oh btw guys why do you keep imagining some kind of a conspiracy against science ?

ktnx good day
 
Fluoridated water seems to have little to no effect on cavities, in fact, in some areas cavities have decreased since cessation of fluoridating water.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...9?dopt=Abstrac

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9...?dopt=Abstract

*Below has nothing to do with above links*

“We found that exposure to fluoride (F) in urine was associated with reduced Performance, Verbal, and Full IQ scores before and after adjusting for confounders. The same pattern was observed for models with F in water as the exposure variable.... The individual effect of F in urine indicated that for each mg increase of F in urine a decrease of 1.7 points in Full IQ might be expected.”
SOURCE: Rocha-Amador D, et al. (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23(Suppl 4):S579-87.

"Based on the findings of this study, exposure of children to high levels of fluoride may carry the risk of impaired development of intelligence."
SOURCE: Seraj B, et al. (2006). [Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children’s intelligence]. Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2):80-86.

"it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 187.

“Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.”
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 186.

Forget any mention of conspiracy theories.. fact is.. fluoridated water is bad.
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice, tnx for your hard work, but in this "science" based forum you most likely wont be appreciated ! they rather deny any logic and now they will continue to argue on and on making shit up *sigh*
 
^ :)

Seems most of them have already swallowed the blue pill.

I like how most of them have resorted to personal attacks <3

180px-Tinfoil_hat.jpg


I gots me a nike 1 of those^
 
Last edited:
--- oh, and rickolasnice, your insert about the quality of UK water is a total non-sequitur. We were discussing the effects of water-fluoridation - not the individual water quality of various countries. Sure, there are lots of places where tap water is of poor quality. How is that supposed to make a case against fluoridation?

Huh? You talking about my reply to:

anyone has sources on this statement ? im curious what other chemicals can be found in there. interesting how people concetrated so much on the fluoride in the water here, but completely ignored the fact that water contains a huge amount of all kinds of chemicals and drugs. either intentionally put or accidental... very suspicious.

?
 
presenting the deadliest medicine in the world:

200px-Escitalopram.png


it has fluoride and cyanide!!! 1 gram of this shit can destroy a universe.
 
i dont know what the fuck you guys are talking about. i use logic and so far by using logic i havent found any reason to believe in any conspiracies.

oh btw guys why do you keep imagining some kind of a conspiracy against science ?

ktnx good day
Nothing I said was aimed at you. I just find the whole "communists (are there still communists?) putting fluoride in our water" idea amusing.

BTW-The Simpsons knew about 9-11. Google it
 
dread, so you are saying people are gullible and easy to trick into believing into miracle cures without actual support of science ? WRONG.

What exactly is wrong about that statement? Are you saying people who believe in chakras and crystal healing are not gullible? How is that?

one example, few years medical journals state "high doses of vitamin e is good for the heart" even your favorite NCBI had many articles. so... what happens if you are in the position you need something for your heart and you read "science" and you know science should be done precise way and they wouldnt lie to people, do you go and buy vitamin e and start taking it for years ? THEN, few year later similar, or different medical journals say "vitamin e can cause heart damage" what do you do then ? were you gullible ? were you scammed by science ?

There's just so many things wrong with your arguments that I don't even know where to start.

Ok, for example, many years ago smoking tobacco was thought to have various health benefits. Then science marched on and it was found that it is incredibly harmful and causes lung cancer. If you had been alive at that time you'd probably been all "oh evil science has tricked me into smoking! now they say it's bad for me, I'll never believe in science again!"

Let's see if I can make this simple for you...

Scientists are not perfect nor infallible, nor does any real scientist claim to be. Scientists make observations based on experiments, and publish their findings based on the available data and methods. When new inventions are made, and new and better methods are found, obviously sometimes scientist discover that earlier scientists, working with older methods and tools, have been wrong. Here's what's great about science: they will point out the mistake and let people know the new information, no matter how long the contrary has been believed. So when time goes on, we know more and more about how things work. This is a good thing.

i think you have been scammed by science !

What a childish and simplistic argument.

but you say "well science always changes they find new evidence and they change their mistakes" how long does it take man few years until people do as what science previously has said its ok ? so by the time your favorite "science" proves that THEY WERE WRONG you have damage. so were you scammed, were you gullible, a complete moron to buy those science claims years ago ? how can you be wrong, it was science !

I'm facepalming so hard here I don't even...

So you want a convenient scapegoat. You want to blame an abstract entity, "science", for your own mistakes? It doesn't work that way.

Yes, there are people who do "bad science". People who publish results from sloppy experiments. If some "scientist" comes ahead with a study that says "eating 10kg of pineapple a day will make you immortal" and you go ahead and start doing it. Then, a few days later, groups of other scientists - this time, hard working professional scientists - review those results and refute the first study, and they let you know that eating that much pineapple is actually harmful and will probably kill you. Now, who is at fault here: science or you for jumping to conclusions too quickly? Hint: it's not science.

But the fact is, just because some people do bad science, does not make science itself any less valid as a method of acquiring information. Your argument is basically like this:

Some X is Y, therefore, all X is Y.

Can you see the error here? "Some scientific study is wrong, therefore, all of science is wrong" does not compute.

Why don't you look up logical fallacy in wikipedia - oh I'm sorry, is that too scientific for you?

ill tell you one reason why most of those greedy scientists publish those reports in journals so quick, money

This is just more drivel.

i can point out over 100 examples like this. i can go on all day tho. so my question is, since you admitted yourself, science changes all the time, why trust science ever ?

This is a common tactic of you nutjobs. You present one half-assed argument that doesn't even hold water, then you follow with "I can give a 100 more of these". Well, I'm sorry to inform you, but whether it's a baby-finger sized nugget you dug from your panties or a truckload of manure from the old farm, shit is still shit, and it won't be any less smelly.

Do you have a better alternative to science, then? I'm curious to know how you propose us to gather information if not by the scientific method and research. Although at this point I'm pretty convinced you're just trolling, and I'm not really expecting you to come up with anything resembling sentience, but hey, you never know.



--------


NEXT PATIENT!


---------




rickolasnice said:
Fluoridated water seems to have little to no effect on cavities, in fact, in some areas cavities have decreased since cessation of fluoridating water.

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. The only argument you could possibly make is that since fluoridated toothpaste is so common, maybe water fluoridation is not strictly necessary. But that's again, with regards to the topic at hand, a total non-sequitur. As for these:


You posted the same link over and over, and each link points to pubmed search page with no search arguments.

*Below has nothing to do with above links*

You're damn right it hasn't, since the links you posted had no substance whatsoever.

We found that exposure to fluoride (F) in urine was associated with reduced Performance, Verbal, and Full IQ scores before and after adjusting for confounders. The same pattern was observed for models with F in water as the exposure variable.... The individual effect of F in urine indicated that for each mg increase of F in urine a decrease of 1.7 points in Full IQ might be expected.”
SOURCE: Rocha-Amador D, et al. (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23(Suppl 4):S579-87.

How convenient for you that you refrain from posting links to the actual studies. Unfortunately for you, I managed to find the study in question. It's here: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2007001600018&lng=en&nrm=iso

The studies linking fluoride with low IQ have been largely discredited, btw. They usually only show the effect with much higher dosages of fluoride than is recommended for tap water.

The same applies for this particular study you cite here. From the study:

Three rural communities in Mexico with contrasting levels of F and As in drinking water were studied: Moctezuma (F 0.8±1.4mg/L; As 5.8±1.3µg/L); Salitral (F 5.3±0.9mg/L; As 169±0.9µg/L) and 5 de Febrero (F 9.4±0.9mg/L; As 194±1.3µg/L).

Moctezuma is the only one here where the fluoride levels are within the recommendations. The other 2 sample areas have 5.3mg/L and 9.4mg/L, way over the recommended fluoride content - so in other words, this study sets the lowest point of reference to a place where fluoride contents are (near to) recommended levels, and two other sample areas with way higher levels, so for the purpose of proving the harmfulness of fluoride on recommended dosages this study is absolutely worthless. So, it shows fluoride can be harmful if the dosage is 5-9 times the recommendation. Big deal! Almost anything is harmful if you take 5-9 times the recommended amount.

Next case:

"Based on the findings of this study, exposure of children to high levels of fluoride may carry the risk of impaired development of intelligence."
SOURCE: Seraj B, et al. (2006). [Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children’s intelligence]. Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2):80-86.

The same applies also to this study: http://www.sid.ir/En/ViewPaper.asp?...F DENTAL MEDICINE;Summer 2006;19;2 (47);80;86

In this cross sectional study, 41 children were selected from the high fluoride area with 2.5mg/l (ppm) fluoride in the drinking water and 85 children were selected from low fluoride area with 0.4mg/l (ppm) fluoride in the drinking water. ... Results: In the high fluoride area the mean IQ of children (87.9±11) was significantly lower than in the low fluoride area (98.9±12.9) (P=0.025).

The recommended levels are around 1-1.5 mg/l. This study is also done with 2.5 times the recommended dosage. Thus, proving exactly nothing. And look at the error margins on those mean IQ:s...

Need I go on?

"it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 187.

Ok, the same study says on page 4:

The committee did not evaluate the risks or
benefits of the lower fluoride concentrations (0.7 to
1.2 mg/L) used in water fluoridation. Therefore, the
committee’s conclusions regarding the potential for
adverse effects from fluoride at 2 to 4 mg/L in drink-
ing water do not apply at the lower water fluoride
levels commonly experienced by most U.S. citizens.

Are you starting to see a pattern here?

“Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.”
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 186.

This is just a repeat of the last one. The same obviously applies here.


Conclusion: All your studies show that fluoride can be harmful in concentrations that are way over the recommended 1-1.5 mg/L. So what? This is nothing new. The dosage makes the poison. I have yet to see a single study that would question fluoride's safety on the dosage levels that are usually recommended for tap water.

Forget any mention of conspiracy theories.. fact is.. fluoridated water is bad.

Fact is... you can't get reliable facts from fear-mongering nutjob sites.
 
Last edited:
^ :)

Seems most of them have already swallowed the blue pill.

I like how most of them have resorted to personal attacks <3


I like the massive irony of this post. Seems like "pots and kettles" is an unfamiliar analogy to you.
 
Top