Bitcoin Forum

http://www.infowars.com/study-proves-fluoride-brain-damage/

“High levels of fluoride in drinking water (1-12ppm) affect central nervous system directly without first causing the physical deformities of skeletal fluorosis.” Reddy writes in the Journal of Medical and Allied Sciences. Damage to the hippocampus often results in hyperactivity and cognitive deficits.

Numerous studies conducted in China, India, Iran, and Mexico have determined that fluoride exposure is associated with IQ deficits in children.

The correlation between fluoride exposure and diminished IQ was underscored earlier this year after the results of a study in China were published. “A recent Chinese study concluded that low dose sodium fluoride in drinking water diminishes IQ, especially among children. This is the twenty-fourth such international study with the same conclusion. Sodium fluoride has also been linked to reduced fertility and lower sperm counts,” Paul Fassa wrote for Natural News in April.

http://www.infowars.com/study-proves-fluoride-brain-damage/

“High levels of fluoride in drinking water (1-12ppm) affect central nervous system directly without first causing the physical deformities of skeletal fluorosis.” Reddy writes in the Journal of Medical and Allied Sciences. Damage to the hippocampus often results in hyperactivity and cognitive deficits.

Numerous studies conducted in China, India, Iran, and Mexico have determined that fluoride exposure is associated with IQ deficits in children.

The correlation between fluoride exposure and diminished IQ was underscored earlier this year after the results of a study in China were published. “A recent Chinese study concluded that low dose sodium fluoride in drinking water diminishes IQ, especially among children. This is the twenty-fourth such international study with the same conclusion. Sodium fluoride has also been linked to reduced fertility and lower sperm counts,” Paul Fassa wrote for Natural News in April.

Despite support by public health organizations and authorities, efforts to introduce water fluoridation have met considerable opposition, opposition that is "often based on Internet resources or published books that present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation".[22] Since fluoridation's inception, proponents have argued for scientific optimism and faith in experts, while opponents have drawn on distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science.[83] Controversies include disputes over fluoridation's benefits and the strength of the evidence basis for these benefits, the difficulty of identifying harms, legal issues over whether water fluoridation is a medicine, and the ethics of mass intervention.[21] U.S. opponents of fluoridation were heartened by a 2006 National Research Council report about hazards of water naturally fluoridated to high levels;[84] the report recommended lowering the U.S. maximum limit of 4 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water.[85] Opposition campaigns involve newspaper articles, talk radio, and public forums. Media reporters are often poorly equipped to explain the scientific issues, and are motivated to present controversy regardless of the underlying scientific merits. Internet websites, which are increasingly used by the public for health information, contain a wide range of material about fluoridation ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a disproportionate percentage opposed to fluoridation. Antifluoridationist literature links fluoride exposure to a wide variety of effects, including AIDS, allergy, Alzheimer's, arthritis, cancer, and low IQ, along with diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, kidney, pineal gland, and thyroid.[22]

Stop linking me to infowars when citing a study.

Did you read the actual study? It is worse than useless.

I do neuroscience research.

I don't mean to be insulting. Sorry.

Also, do you really believe a study of 12 rats could "prove" something about humans?

Why are the weights in the table about 50% of normal rat weight, even in the control group. And why is the standard deviation so small (it is not normal for 6 rats to weigh within 2 grams of each other... possible, but not normal). Very strange. Of course, they fail to mention exactly how old the rats were when the study started making it difficult to tell what really went on. Did they just make up this data? Did they drop some animals from the study? We don't know. Therefore it is a crap paper.

Following the treatment period the rats
were euthanized and the brain (further dissected
into cerebellum, neocortex and hippocampus)
spinal cord and sciatic nerve were removed for
TEM studies.

I don't want my argument to rest on my expertise.

I won't respond to that.

You are nit-piking information. What about the "Organ somatic index" figure?

The paper states:

I guess they didn't weight the whole rat with skin & tail only the organs they were studying.

You are the one who has to prove your expertise not me disprove it.

You should also be looking for studies in fluorosilicic acid which is a very dangerous waste product of the rock phosphate fertiliser industry and in addition to sodium fluoride is usually added to public drinking water. Whatever your views are on fluorides potential benefits for preventing tooth decay mass medication against the consent of the individual is contrary to the Nuremberg Code as well as libertarian principles which we should know about being pro non-state controlled currencies.

Like I mentioned above, an entire rat brain is only going to be a couple of grams. The spinal cord will weigh less than a gram, and sciatic nerve even less than that. No way it gets anywhere near 100 grams. So no.

Ha, I so expected you to write that, what about other organs then, I admit they should have written what they had weighted but I think it is safe to assume that it is some part of the rats. Only the organs without skin and muscle fibers? Would make sense..

I have no Idea what the Organ Somatic Index supposed to be but since you don't have any either you don't have any expertise.
(Yes I will call you up on that on every post you make till you either stop, provide proof or admit you were lying, since this is the most pathetic kind of trolling there is and I love making lives of neck-bearded basement dwellers harder)

Hello,

I came across your article entitled: "Neurodegenerative changes in different regions of brain, spinal cord and sciatic nerve of rats treated with sodium fluoride" and noticed a discrepancy. I was wondering if you could explain it.

From the text:
"Male Wistar rats weighing 180 ± 20gm were used
in this experiment."

From the table:
Control Body Weight: 111.2 +/- 2.662 grams
Fluoride Body Weight: 92.888 +/- 2.621 grams

Why are these weights different? What was the age of the rats at the beginning of the study? Why are the weights reported in the table so much less than those expected of 8 week old Wistars (approx 200 grams)?

Also, how did you calculate the "Organ Somatic Index"? If it is in the way I suspect, it would mean that the normalized brain mass of fluoride-treated rats is almost 50% of normal. Was this due to differences in brain volume or brain density?

Thank you in advance for your response.

Dude, I see no reason to give you my personal info... As I have said repeatedly, you should judge an argument based on its merit (not who is saying it). If you don't want to recognize the value in viewing the world that way it is your loss. I've never come across someone so unwilling to abandon the appeal to authority fallacy. Thinking that way is bad because it means you will be easy for authority figures to manipulate. I think you see troll where there is no troll, because you think I am challenging your preconceived belief that fluoride in the water supply is bad. That's not even what I am doing. All I am saying is this one paper I happened to look at sucks.

Very well reasoned argument. It does look like you have attempted to provide unbiased peer review. Thank you. It would be interesting to e-mails these concerns to the author(s) of the paper.

I have enough of this, if you aren't man enough to admit that you were fooling around when claiming you are knowledgeable on the subject or prove it I have nothing more to say to you.

But good luck with your inquiry.

Well, I got no response. I can't say I'm surprised.

Ha, actually my coworker is in India right now because she's engaged to an Indian dude. I told her to go visit the university and confront them. That probably won't happen though. If they don't respond by next week I'll email the journal. I don't really know where to take it after that, but I've already gone this far so may as well try to get some answers.

I emailed the Corresponding Author:

This should be interesting...