Study Proves Fluoride Brain Damage

[bb113]

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

I won't respond to that.

Well that was the headline given by infowars. It has caused me to call their integrity into question. Its not good for a news org to mindlessly parrot what they are told. It is also not good to exaggerate the news just because it confirms the journalist's previously held beliefs.

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?

Well another flaw of this paper is they don't say how they calculated the index. From looking at it, I would guess (I am being forced to guess because this paper is crap) that it was something like brain weight divided by body weight at the end of the study times 100. I guess this because a rat brain is about 1-2 grams. Because this outcome measure is derived from the body weight measurement, and their weight measurements are inconsistent with the literature as well as reported inconsistently within the paper, I also do not put much stock in those values. Also, the result reported here is basically saying that rats treated with fluoride have brains half the size (or half the density) of normal. Think about it, that difference is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE. They spend almost no time discussing it at all. This is once again very strange behavior by these researchers. Further, such a huge difference has never been observed for humans, which (even if we accept this result) calls the "clinical relevance" of this study into question.

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.

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.

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.

All I ask is that you try to follow my reasoning, question it when it seems lacking, and agree when it makes sense.

[1714930727]

1714930727

[1714930727]

1714930727

[1714930727]

1714930727

[1714930727]

1714930727

[1714930727]

1714930727

[bb113]

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.

While that may be true, this paper is not good evidence for it.

*edited for grammar

[ElectricMucus]

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)

[bb113]

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)

I used my expertise to find this paper with one of the same authors. For that one they calculate the organ somatic index as (weight of the brain/day 15 body weight) times 100.
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-1/331-17.pdf

A major point I am trying to get accross to you is that you do not need expertise to see there is something wrong with this article. Why do they not clearly state what they did? Didn't someone peer review the article they wrote? If so, why did the reviewer fail to ask the authors to include this information that is necessary to interpret the results? There is something wrong here. I noticed these oddities within 5 minutes of opening the pdf.

Why would they report "body weight" as all the organs but without the skin and muscle fibers? Can you think of any good reason for them to do that? I can't. I will tell you right now that if they did do that it would be an exceptional thing to do and should be noted and explained in the text of the journal article. Usually, body weight refers to the entire, live animal.

[ElectricMucus]

Since you are obsessed on "debunking" the paper: Ask them 

So how does "doing neuroscience research" involve expertise in googleing? Cool so now I am a Neuroscientist too.
Please admit your lie before embarrassing yourself more.

[bb113]

I'm not obsessed with debunking it. I am trying to get you to stop blindly believing in it.

Finding relevant information and knowing how to get access to it is a skill whether you want to accept it as one or not. I was kidding though... because I found that related paper on the second page of a google search, it took very little skill or effort. Once again, I don't want my arguments to rest on my credentials. If they aren't good enough for you on their own, then I am failing at explaining myself properly.

[bb113]

I emailed the Corresponding Author:

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.

This should be interesting...

[ElectricMucus]

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.

[bb113]

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.

[caston]

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.

[bb113]

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.

Thank you. I will post the response (or paraphrase if I am not given permission).

[coretechs]

I don't do any medical research, I work in IT.

That paper is total crap.  It would still be total crap if I went to school with a different set of people and put a different suffix after my name.  I would even argue that lots of less crappy medical research papers with peer-review are also crap, because of the inability to account for and/or control variables for extended time periods.

I don't blame the authors though, they probably just drank a lot of fluoride their whole lives.  Nothing a little bloodletting can't fix.

[bb113]

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.

[ElectricMucus]

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.

Wait for it? Might take a while till they are around if it is a university email.

[bb113]

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.

[caston]

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.

Thank you for trying to contact them. I'm curious as to how you worded your e-mail. We assume you decided not to use the word "crap" in your communication.

best regards,

Chris

[bb113]

I emailed the Corresponding Author:

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.

This should be interesting...

Sorry for not making it clear. What I sent is quoted above.

[caston]

OK I didn't see that post. Thank you