Study Proves Fluoride Brain Damage

[ALPHA.]

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.

[1713984194]

1713984194

[1713984194]

1713984194

[FlipPro]

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.

Stop linking me to infowars when citing a study.

[Jalum]

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.

Ahh yes, the illustrious Journal of Medical and Allied Sciences.  The long history of this assuredly peer reviewed journal of knowledge stretches back to 2011, and they have a mighty single volume "published".  In India.  And their website (www.jmas.in) doesn't event work.

[kokjo]

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]

[bb113]

The study only used 12 rats. Don't even tell me how old the rats were making it impossible to interpret the body weight results. Body weight reported in the text conflict with what they show in the table. Had no positive control. They do no statistics or even quanitification of their TEM results. This is perhaps the crappiest study I have ever seen. What a waste of those rats lives.

http://static.infowars.com/2011/12/i/general/2011_study-neurodegenerative_changes_from_fluoride_of_brain_spinal_cord_and_sciatic_nerve.pdf

[onesalt]

Hey atlas, get back to me when it gets published in something reputable, like the lancet.

[ElectricMucus]

Stop linking me to infowars when citing a study.

Stop engaging in a troll war.
I know your type too well, pretending some "old guard" attitude against discerning opinions "just because".
Makes me sick.  

@everybody jumping the bandwagon after this: You are no better, and I'll bet you wouldn't even speak up on your own.

[bb113]

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

[ElectricMucus]

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

No

But I've read the abstract, I have no medical knowledge so I can't judge the study itself.
My bet is neither do you.

[bb113]

I do neuroscience research.

[ElectricMucus]

I do neuroscience research.

Credentials or it didn't happen.

[bb113]

I'd rather not... Look, open the pdf and look for stats. If you see no stats it means its probably bullshit. Further, saying something is "proven" after a 12 rat study is really dumb. But this is even worse, they literally looked at about 20 cells total which they hand picked out of hundreds of millions so that they could take pictures and say "look, this neuron looks fucked up and its from a rat that got force fed fluoride, and hey, I found this one that looks normal from the control rat". Yea, well, if you have hundreds of millions of cells there are always going to be some dying or some histology artifact that could make them look fucked up. That's why you compare a bunch of cells and take averages, not just qualitatively compare a couple that you hand picked.

This study was crap, the article was crap, the journal its published in is crap. Infowars is crap for sensationalizing it by saying it "proves" anything (not that the MSM is any better). It's important to use critical thinking and approach these things with common sense and not just believe something because someone wrote it down somewhere. You don't have to be an expert to detect bullshit at this extreme of a level.

[ElectricMucus]

My bullshit detector hit red levels on your post. All I have is some flames about the infowars website and you calling the study crap, claiming you do neuroscience research but are unwilling to provide credentials yourself.
That paper is still 9001 times more trustworthy than your claims.

Provide your credentials or get lost.

[bb113]

You need to learn to think for yourself, not rely on "experts" for everything.

[bb113]

I don't mean to be insulting. Sorry.

[ElectricMucus]

I think for myself but I don't claim expertise where I have none. What I see are numbers which seem to have statistical significant variation, from what I can judge by my laymans terms.
If your opinion were to have any merit you would dispute the study using quotes proving invalid practices which you haven't done.

I don't mean to be insulting. Sorry.

You had your chance, you claimed professionalism without proof, a classical troll tactic.
GTFO

[bb113]

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

I will quote the most glaring error in this paper.

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

Thats quite a discrepancy. They say the table values are from the end of the experiment. Meaning these rats must be at least 2 months (8 weeks) old. I don't use wistars (a strain of rat), i use sprague dawleys. But they are very similar. I found this growth chart with a little googling and it is consistent with what I have seen with the sprague dawley strain:



http://www.nlac.mahidol.ac.th/nlacmuEN/p_animal_Rat.htm

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.

[bb113]

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

[ElectricMucus]

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

I won't respond to that.

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.

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

The paper states:

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

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

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

[caston]

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.