Flouride In Water

tbs624

Leif wrote: »

Your message appears to be "science has made mistakes, therefore you cannot trust science, therefore trust alternatives".

Are you and Ed related somehow?;)

No, the message is more "do not hold "science" and scientific studies" up as some kind of god" - Ed's original comment was that

if you want to find it, there's all sorts of nonsense on the internet that contradicts mainstream medicine and science.

It's good for there to be contradiction - it can trigger a valuable rethink, & provoke further studies/investigation.And of course "mainstream science and medicine" even gets to contradict itself, when it has to be admitted that the belief that x treatment for y condition was the absolute "gold standard" has turned out to be a bit of a mistake.

Leif wrote: »

When you say science and medicine "often gets it wrong", that is not the case. The number of mistakes is tiny when compared to the successes.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on whther "that is not the case" - the term "often" means many times/many instances. Some fine examples of those are listed in the original fluoride thread

Leif wrote: »

Actually if you understood how science works, ..

.....:rotfl:

....you would realise that the truth is that knowledge improves with time. 30 years ago anti-biotics were over-used, today we acknowledge the benefits, but see the wisdom of more limited use.

You are absolutely right, and those young adults who now have teeth with enamel hypoplasia, linked to antibiotics prescribed for them earlier in their lives, would certainly see the wisdom of more limited use for future generations.

Still at least those antibiotics were prescribed as individual doses, unlike fluoridation of the water supply which needlessly doses *everyone* up on the false premises that (a) there would be benefit for all and (b) that it is acceptable to use the water supply to medicate the public as a whole.

Note that the water companies have sought and obtained an indemnity , so that they don't get to foot the bill for future legal cases arising from water fluoridation.

You are confusing independent academic research with corporate research.

No confusion on my part. There is much research that is presented as "independent" that is anything but.

tbs624

Millie_Millsters wrote: »

Your post reminded me of this website

and

all_change wrote: »

Thank you so much for posting that, haven't looked at it in ages..

Yawn, yawn........yep, all_change .....it's old hat. Most GCSE students get to have a giggle at the site.

Torry_Quine

Leif wrote: »

I wonder if the person who said they have an allergy to fluoride learnt of their allergy from a recognised medical source, or self diagnosis, or from an 'alternative medicine practitioner' some of whom are total quacks.

I said I had a sensitivity not an allergy. I was not diagnosed by myself or anyone who could be described as a quack but by a fully trained and qualified dietician.

Leif

tbs624 wrote: »

Are you and Ed related somehow?;)

No, the message is more "do not hold "science" and scientific studies" up as some kind of god" - Ed's original comment was that It's good for there to be contradiction - it can trigger a valuable rethink, & provoke further studies/investigation.And of course "mainstream science and medicine" even gets to contradict itself, when it has to be admitted that the belief that x treatment for y condition was the absolute "gold standard" has turned out to be a bit of a mistake.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on whther "that is not the case" - the term "often" means many times/many instances. Some fine examples of those are listed in the original fluoride thread

.....:rotfl: You are absolutely right, and those young adults who now have teeth with enamel hypoplasia, linked to antibiotics prescribed for them earlier in their lives, would certainly see the wisdom of more limited use for future generations.

Still at least those antibiotics were prescribed as individual doses, unlike fluoridation of the water supply which needlessly doses *everyone* up on the false premises that (a) there would be benefit for all and (b) that it is acceptable to use the water supply to medicate the public as a whole.

Note that the water companies have sought and obtained an indemnity , so that they don't get to foot the bill for future legal cases arising from water fluoridation.

No confusion on my part. There is much research that is presented as "independent" that is anything but.

It is of course possible that Ed and I are related, but since I do not know who Ed is, I cannot comment. Ultimately most UK people - apart from first generation immigrants - are related, albeit distantly. But your comment is cheap and pathetic.

You are using sophistry with your comment on often. You confirm my suspicion that your view is "Medicine has made some mistakes therefore it cannot be trusted". I'll leave you to enjoy your unbalanced world view.

Leif

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I was not diagnosed by ... a fully trained and qualified dietician.

How did this person diagnose 'sensitivity' to fluoride? And how does sensitivity differ from an allergy?

brook2jack

sorry thought had posted a lengthy reply some days ago but must have got swallowed up

Science is never 100% but something is deemed to be true when there is a consensus. Most papers of "fluoride allergy" have not been peer reviewed or are from one researcher, so most references you find supporting fluoride alllergies are not from peer reviwed papers or national or world health organisations but from the more "alternative" forms of information.

Every now and again there are reviews of study papers from many sources and agin these reviews do not support the view that fluoride sensitivity or allergy exist.

All of these references will have people who disagree , especially as some suggest that fluoride is probably an essential nutrient in small doses

Yes there may be some people who due to health problems may need to be careful about many things like sodium intake because of eg kidney disease but the WHO report even looked at this and found no clear link with fluoride intake and various health problems even in those with a high exposure to fluoride occupationally eg smelters.

The very very naturally high concentrations of fluoride naturally occurring in many parts of eg Africa is a health concern the same as a high salt content makes sea water undrinkable or high calcium content makes kidney stones more likely, but that is purely in relation to naturally occuring high fluoride intake far in excess of fluoride supplements in water, food, beverages etc

References to back up statement that royal college physicians, World health organisation and immunologists on the whole believe that fluoride allergy/sensitivity does not exist , and it should be noted most of these studies are concerned with naturally fluoridated water above 4ppm in people who have always lived with that level of fluoride and in people who are medically compromised. Water that has fluoride added is 1ppm and most peoples diet will contain foodstuffs that contain around 1ppm fluoride.

http://www.bfsweb.org/documents/summary%20of%20rcp.pdf

http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/Reactions-to-fluoride.aspx

http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/medicine/allergy.htm

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=295


Review of "Dietary Reference Intakes Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride", published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Richard G Foulkes BA MD, Fluoride, 1997, 30:4

Torry_Quine

Leif wrote: »

How did this person diagnose 'sensitivity' to fluoride? And how does sensitivity differ from an allergy?

Of course a sensitivity is not the same as an allergy. If someone is truly allergic they absolutely can't eat the food and can be very ill indeed with an anaphalactic reaction needing immediate medical attention. With a sensitivity although you can feel ill with symptoms like digestive upsets you don't need immediate attention.

How she diagnosed was by a properly undertaken elimination diet not some unorthodox methodology but no doubt that's not good enough for you.

Leif

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Of course a sensitivity is not the same as an allergy. If someone is truly allergic they absolutely can't eat the food and can be very ill indeed with an anaphalactic reaction needing immediate medical attention. With a sensitivity although you can feel ill with symptoms like digestive upsets you don't need immediate attention.

Sorry but that is incorrect. I have an allergy to certain kinds of pollen. I do not need to seek medical attention. What you describe is an extreme allergic reaction. Allergic reactions vary greatly. What you describe as a sensitivity is probably what is more commonly called an intolerance. Asians are often lactose intolerant due to the absence of the gene that is required for digesting lactose.

The other poster has addressed the issue of fluoride sensitivity and whether or not it is real.

By the way, just because someone with letters after their name says you have something, does not mean you do. I have been told some right old nonsense by doctors, who are generalists, not specialists. I know a fair few people who died, or nearly died, after misdiagnosis by a doctor.

brook2jack

Torry_Quine wrote: »

How she diagnosed was by a properly undertaken elimination diet not some unorthodox methodology but no doubt that's not good enough for you.

This I find fascinating. It is impossible to eat a diet free of fluoride. Virtually every food and drink source contains fluoride. That fluoride varies from food to food but even varies according to the area.

I would love to know what was eliminated from your diet and what remained, as well as what area your remaining food stuffs came from.

I'm sorry to say it is nonsense to say you can do an elimination diet for fluoride sensitivity as there would be virtually nothing you could eat or drink. This is part of the reason some researchers think fluoride may be an essential nutrient and it is universally acknowledged to be necessary/ essential for bone and tooth formation
http://www.jacn.org/content/19/6/715.long

http://www.nrv.gov.au/nutrients/fluoride.htm.

tbs624

Leif wrote: »

It is of course possible that Ed and I are related, but since I do not know who Ed is, I cannot comment. Ultimately most UK people - apart from first generation immigrants - are related, albeit distantly. But your comment is cheap and pathetic.

You are using sophistry with your comment on often. You confirm my suspicion that your view is "Medicine has made some mistakes therefore it cannot be trusted". I'll leave you to enjoy your unbalanced world view.

:rotfl: So Leif still cannot answer the questions asked of him/her in post 40 ..

tbs624 wrote:

It is not a question of "dismissing science" - you have applied your own special interpretation there: the point was about balance but don't let that stop you pretending that you know what my "way of thinking" is.

In response to your assertion:

"Given that the World Health Organisation, innumerable national science academies and medical studies have found no harmful effects from the amounts found in drinking water (and significant benefits), there is no reason to worry about it." and your reference to the " need to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information. "

..do please share the "innumerable" medical studies with us, via specific references. "Significant benefits" you say? Again, do please share.

But then we can see that s/he much prefers waffle and generalisation, as evidenced in the reply to Torry Quine....

Leif wrote:

I know a fair few people who died, or nearly died, after misdiagnosis by a doctor.