Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Fluoridegate


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#136    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,365 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 February 2011 - 05:20 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 24 February 2011 - 04:19 AM, said:

I don't feel the urge to support the claim. People are allowed to have opinions. People believe what they want to believe. I cannot influence this reality in any manner.

Actually, you can.  It is rather simple.  You can influence other peoples opinions with sound arguments and supporting evidence.  It is a tried and tested way of advancing ideas and thoughts, and has a much, much, better success record than simply stating postulates and telling people to figure it out themselves.

But you are quite correct.  People are allowed to have opinions.  In a discussion forum, such as this one is, people are encouraged to have opinions.  However, opinions in and of themselves are rather useless for a discussion.  In a discussion forum, people not only state their opinions, but also...well, discuss them.  If all you can do is state an opinion, and refuse to do anything else, well, you aren't really discussing anything, are you?  At which point, everyone else has the right to come to the opinion that your opinion is of little relevance to the discussion, since you are so personally indifferent to supporting it in any meaningful manner.

We refer to this as intellectual laziness.  If you do not have the urge to support your opinion, don't expect anyone else to.  And don't be surprised when your opinion isn't given any weight.


#137    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,959 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 24 February 2011 - 11:36 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 24 February 2011 - 05:20 AM, said:

Actually, you can.  It is rather simple.  You can influence other peoples opinions with sound arguments and supporting evidence.  It is a tried and tested way of advancing ideas and thoughts, and has a much, much, better success record than simply stating postulates and telling people to figure it out themselves.

But you are quite correct.  People are allowed to have opinions.  In a discussion forum, such as this one is, people are encouraged to have opinions.  However, opinions in and of themselves are rather useless for a discussion.  In a discussion forum, people not only state their opinions, but also...well, discuss them.  If all you can do is state an opinion, and refuse to do anything else, well, you aren't really discussing anything, are you?  At which point, everyone else has the right to come to the opinion that your opinion is of little relevance to the discussion, since you are so personally indifferent to supporting it in any meaningful manner.

We refer to this as intellectual laziness.  If you do not have the urge to support your opinion, don't expect anyone else to.  And don't be surprised when your opinion isn't given any weight.


I am positive I do not appear intellectually lazy. Of that, I am sure.

Unlike you, I don't think opinions are useless for discussion. "I think this." " Hmmm, intersting. But I think this.... What if we put those together to get some work done?!"
Brainstorming is just this a good portion of the time, most of the time utilizing opinion.

I am indeed too lazy and too respectful of my own time to search and provide information that no one else wants to see. I am not here to convince people. I am here to express my thoughts and to, on occasion, to provide loving support to those who wring my heart, to sometimes, but not always, to learn from others. However, I remain adamant that no one put their own brand of taxes on my time. IOW, I will not provide sources, which would take up my precious time, to those people I find are merely there to annoy me if I do.

If I find that the request is authentic and reasonable, by people not out there to attack me or flame me, like Cop and danilost, then I would be happy to provide sources.

Dani, I have had contact with before, many times. She is on my ignore list due to her actions toward me. I am not interested in contact or discussion with her.
Cop, I just could care less what he says. He does not effect me, and only went on ignore yesterday, due to his persistent insistence that I engage in discussion with him when I didn't want to. (and for some reason the ignore did not take a hold. Will try again today.) In real life, I successfully pare' out those people who I do not find worthwhile in my life. I am sure I can do it here as well.

I am allowed to control what discussions I engage in and with whom, am I not?

I see that I am not required to muster up sources in this forum, having read again and again the rules. I really honestly think you should take a look at those who complain and see if they are doing the things that they complain about in others. For the record, I do not complain about people. I take them or leave them. I do not write to you moderators because someone pissed me off.

When I get pissed off, I shut the site out of my computer and go garden or something, putting the media in the healthful perspective I think it should be in in my life. I don't cry-baby to moderators because someone here isn't doing what I want them to.

I reiterate. I do not like fluoride in the tap water. I do not think it is healthful. I consider it institutional poison. And I work at the local level, seeing to it another perspective on it is made known to those who really matter. My energies regarding this issue are NOT directed towards this forum nor any other forum. I actually take physical action in real life regarding my thoughts on fluoridation. Needless to say, these government people indeed get the sources then need from me to make a wise and careful decision regarding this.  I will not back down on this sentiment.

Let's keep the importance of this forum into a healthful perspective, shall we?

Edited by regeneratia, 25 February 2011 - 12:13 AM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#138    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,959 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 25 February 2011 - 12:06 AM

View PostCopasetic, on 22 February 2011 - 06:50 AM, said:

Exactly. It is an easy way to reduce dental carries. From a cost-benefit public health standpoint its a wise decision.

Its no different than fortifying your milk with vitamin D or having all pregnant women take prenatal vitamins high in folate. Sure you could test everyone pregnant woman for the genetic markers for the 5 or so mutations which lead to folate-deficient defects (neural tube defects), but its not efficient and its not cheap. The genetic tests are expensive and not everyone would be able to afford them, let alone get insurance companies to pay for them.

Its far easier to have all pregnant women take prenatals with folate. Is it perfect? Of course not, neural tube defects still occur (sometimes unrelated to folate too might I add), but the two alternatives would see a higher number of NTDs than the current solution. Likewise, a small percentage of people (outside the bell curve) have an adverse reaction to too much fluoride exposure and some people still get cavities (I've never had one!). Cost wise, and in reduction to dental expenditures and oral hygiene its certainly a great benefit (compare dental caries in parts of the world where fluoride is not available to those where fluoridated water and toothpaste are used).

All of public health is a numbers game. It has to be, because of individual variation you can't have one solution for everyone. You have find a common distribution, which you can find affordable treatment for and deal with the outliers on an individual basis.

One day, hopefully our technology evolves enough (in both cost and function) that a small sample of blood taken at the time your born will let us know how and when to treat medical or potential conditions for the rest of your life. Unfortunately, we're not there yet.

Cop, Fluoride is NOT a vitamin! It is not on the list of RD allowances. Fluoride is indeed different than Vit D.

We don't drink soda in this household. My offspring prefers water and drinks green tea, like we do.
Of course, green tea is shown to reduce cavities, via naturally occurring fluoride.

http://www.eurekaler...p-ggf030509.php

BTW, what does industrial fluoride in tap water do to the soft tissues of the gums?
http://www.eurekaler...p-gdf092210.php

Let's get some thinking going here.
And here are your sources, for those of you who love to pick me apart. Have at it!!

I disconnected because I wanted to. I did not feel compelled to discuss anything with you. I have no intention of supporting my position here. I do THAT in real life, not cyber life. Doing it here can be considered a real waste of my effort. And I value my time, way too much to allow you to direct how I spend it.

What is really interesting is that many of the posters here are on Copes friends list. Isn't that interesting?!

Edited by regeneratia, 25 February 2011 - 12:40 AM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#139    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,959 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 25 February 2011 - 12:15 AM

I am not able to ignore Copasetic in my manage ignore. Why? He shows up no matter what I do.
There is something going on here that is beyond the norm.

Edited by regeneratia, 25 February 2011 - 12:41 AM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#140    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 25 February 2011 - 12:55 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 25 February 2011 - 12:06 AM, said:

BTW, what does industrial fluoride in tap water do to the soft tissues of the gums?

http://www.eurekaler...p-gdf092210.php

Nothing, according to this article. The word "fluoride" doesn't appear once.

You assume fluoride to be the cause without acknowledging other potential contributing factors such as a lack of regular flossing, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, which are mentioned in your article as well as other sources:

http://www.nidcr.nih...T=Guest#whoGets

http://www.webmd.com...odontal-disease

Edited by Cybele, 25 February 2011 - 01:27 AM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#141    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,959 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 25 February 2011 - 02:01 AM

View PostCybele, on 25 February 2011 - 12:55 AM, said:

Nothing, according to this article. The word "fluoride" doesn't appear once.

You assume fluoride to be the cause without acknowledging other potential contributing factors such as a lack of regular flossing, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, which are mentioned in your article as well as other sources:

http://www.nidcr.nih...T=Guest#whoGets

http://www.webmd.com...odontal-disease

No, but the article does indicate that there is an increased incidence of gum disease. And again, if fluoride effects the hardest substance in your body, your teeth enamel, then what do you think it might do to the soft tissue of the gums? What does it do to the highly absorptive epithelial cells in your mouth?

These are questions here, folks. Not answers.

I have found webmd not to be reliable so I never use it. Medscape used to be a reasonable source until webmd bought them (I was so sad when it happened). So links to webmd are unconvincing to me. Been at this medical stuff a long time. I am familiar with the nature of sites like webmd.

Edited by regeneratia, 25 February 2011 - 02:04 AM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#142    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2011 - 02:29 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 25 February 2011 - 12:06 AM, said:

Cop, Fluoride is NOT a vitamin! It is not on the list of RD allowances. Fluoride is indeed different than Vit D.

We don't drink soda in this household. My offspring prefers water and drinks green tea, like we do.
Of course, green tea is shown to reduce cavities, via naturally occurring fluoride.

http://www.eurekaler...p-ggf030509.php

BTW, what does industrial fluoride in tap water do to the soft tissues of the gums?
http://www.eurekaler...p-gdf092210.php

Let's get some thinking going here.
And here are your sources, for those of you who love to pick me apart. Have at it!!

I disconnected because I wanted to. I did not feel compelled to discuss anything with you. I have no intention of supporting my position here. I do THAT in real life, not cyber life. Doing it here can be considered a real waste of my effort. And I value my time, way too much to allow you to direct how I spend it.

What is really interesting is that many of the posters here are on Copes friends list. Isn't that interesting?!


1. Not "many of the posters here are on" my friend's list. I have, I believe, 4 people on my friends list. Nor am I sure what that has to do with anything.

2. I think you need to take a deep breath, you're acting like I'm stalking you across the internet. I asked you 1 post of questions, to clarify your position. I followed up that one post, asking if you were planning on answering the questions. You've made it clear you don't want to, fair enough, I can't make you answer questions. I'm not loosing sleep about it. Maybe you are confusing my responses to littlefish with responses to yourself?

3. I've provided some academic resources on the study of fluoride in this topic, if you don't consider that "research" then I don't really know what is. As I've pointed out, I am a medical student, this is something (researching health topics) that I have to do. We do this whole thing called "evidence based medicine"--Imagine what that entails.....

4. There is no such thing as "natural fluoride" and "unnatural fluoride". Fluorine is an atom, not a molecule, its not manufactured by man. We aren't busy making "synthetic fluoride" and dumping it into the water. This is something one would undoubtedly discover with some cursory research into chemistry and how the fluoridation process happens.

5. If you want to ignore, then do so. Telling everyone how you are "ignoring Copasetic" and this constant charade of portraying me as "out to get people and keep them dumb" is, again, immature. If you want to discuss, then discuss, if not then drop the facade and quit referencing me.


#143    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,959 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 25 February 2011 - 02:36 AM

In pharmaceutical research, there are studies which assess just what systems are affected by the parent drug. These studies, involving pharmacokinetics, assess just where a parent drug goes, in what tissues, how long it stays in the tissues and so on. Where are the studies like this for fluoride? I don't think there are any. But I do think there should be. We really need to know how the daily oral consumption of fluoride affects all the systems of the body. Again, the studies in support of fluoridating tap lack this rigorous plethora of studies. I think it is time to put it thru those studies.

For example, aspirin stays in the whisker hair follicles of a rat for quite a while, the rat whisker follicles being a hot bed of storage for aspirin. Why do we not know this kind of stuff with regards to the human ingestion of fluoride?

My sources for the aspirin study may not be online, but I have the slides here at the house. It is known by a few people who do this kind of work in pharmaceutical research. I am married to one of them.

Off to play Little Big Planet with the delightful offspring.

Edited by regeneratia, 25 February 2011 - 02:49 AM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#144    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2011 - 02:39 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 25 February 2011 - 02:36 AM, said:

In pharmaceutical research, there are studies which assess just what systems are affected by the parent drug. These studies, involving pharmacokinetics, assess just where a parent drug goes, how long it stays in the tissues and so on. Where are the studies like this for fluoride? I don't think there are any. But I do think there should be. We really need to know how the daily oral consumption of fluoride affects all the systems of the body. Again, the studies in support of fluoridating tap lack this rigorous plethora of studies. I think it is time to put it thru those studies.


Do you want to know the answer? Have you looked for these studies? What database are you looking in?


#145    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2011 - 02:41 AM

You should use words like "bioavailability", "biopersistence", "efficacy trial" etc when searching the literature. And you should be doing a literature search for these studies. You aren't going to find them on Google.


#146    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2011 - 03:20 AM

This took me about 5 minutes to search for these studies you want. It actually took me longer to get damn refworks working to load them in and format the references for you.


Fluoride efficacy;
1. Ayad F, Stewart B, Zhang YP, Proskin HM. A comparison of the efficacy of a triclosan/copolymer/sodium fluoride dentifrice, a stannous fluoride/sodium hexametaphosphate/zinc lactate dentifrice, and a sodium fluoride dentifrice for the control of established supragingival plaque and gingivitis: a six-week clinical study. J Clin Dent. 2010;21(4):111-116.

2. Barnes VM, Richter R, DeVizio W. Comparison of the short-term antiplaque/antibacterial efficacy of two commercial dentifrices. J Clin Dent. 2010;21(4):101-104.

3. Boneta AE, Aguilar MM, Romeu FL, Stewart B, DeVizio W, Proskin HM. Comparative investigation of the efficacy of triclosan/copolymer/sodium fluoride and stannous fluoride/sodium hexametaphosphate/zinc lactate dentifrices for the control of established supragingival plaque and gingivitis in a six-month clinical study. J Clin Dent. 2010;21(4):117-123.

4. Ekstrand KR, Bakhshandeh A, Martignon S. Treatment of proximal superficial caries lesions on primary molar teeth with resin infiltration and fluoride varnish versus fluoride varnish only: efficacy after 1 year. Caries Res. 2010;44(1):41-46.

5. Ganss C, Neutard L, von Hinckeldey J, Klimek J, Schlueter N. Efficacy of a tin/fluoride rinse: a randomized in situ trial on erosion. J Dent Res. 2010;89(11):1214-1218.

6. He T, Sun L, Li S, Ji N. The anti-plaque efficacy of a novel stannous-containing sodium fluoride dentifrice: a randomized and controlled clinical trial. Am J Dent. 2010;23 Spec No B:11B-16B.

7. Hughes N, Mason S, Jeffery P, et al. A comparative clinical study investigating the efficacy of a test dentifrice containing 8% strontium acetate and 1040 ppm sodium fluoride versus a marketed control dentifrice containing 8% arginine, calcium carbonate, and 1450 ppm sodium monofluorophosphate in reducing dentinal hypersensitivity. J Clin Dent. 2010;21(2):49-55.

8. Prasad KV, Sohoni R, Tikare S, Yalamalli M, Rajesh G, Javali SB. Efficacy of two commercially available dentifrices in reducing dentinal hypersensitivity. Indian J Dent Res. 2010;21(2):224-230.

9. Schlueter N, Klimek J, Ganss C. Efficacy of an experimental tin-F-containing solution in erosive tissue loss in enamel and dentine in situ. Caries Res. 2009;43(6):415-421.

10. Silva KG, Pedrini D, Delbem AC, Ferreira L, Cannon M. In situ evaluation of the remineralizing capacity of pit and fissure sealants containing amorphous calcium phosphate and/or fluoride. Acta Odontol Scand. 2010;68(1):11-18.

11. Weinstein P, Spiekerman C, Milgrom P. Randomized equivalence trial of intensive and semiannual applications of fluoride varnish in the primary dentition. Caries Res. 2009;43(6):484-490.

12. Yengopal V, Chikte UM, Mickenautsch S, Oliveira LB, Bhayat A. Salt fluoridation: a meta-analysis of its efficacy for caries prevention. SADJ. 2010;65(2):60-4, 66-7.



Fluoride bioavailability/pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics;

1. Altenburger MJ, Schirrmeister JF, Lussi A, Klasser M, Hellwig E. In situ fluoride retention and remineralization of incipient carious lesions after the application of different concentrations of fluoride. Eur J Oral Sci. 2009;117(1):58-63.

2. Altenburger MJ, Schirrmeister JF, Wrbas KT, Klasser M, Hellwig E. Fluoride uptake and remineralisation of enamel lesions after weekly application of differently concentrated fluoride gels. Caries Res. 2008;42(4):312-318.

3. Baeshen H, Kjellberg H, Birkhed D. Oral fluoride retention in orthodontic patients with and without fixed appliances after using different fluoridated home-care products. Acta Odontol Scand. 2010;68(4):185-192.

4. Barros BS, Tomita NE. Epidemiologic aspects of dental fluorosis in Brazil: research in the period 1993-2006]. Cien Saude Colet. 2010;15(1):289-300.

5. Bottenberg P, Cleymaet R. The use of fluoride from the viewpoint of toxicology and ecology]. Rev Belge Med Dent. 1993;48(4):82-89.

6. Burt BA, Beltran ED. Water fluoridation: a response to critics in Australia and New Zealand. J Public Health Dent. 1988;48(4):214-219.

7. Buzalaf MA, Vilhena FV, Iano FG, et al. The effect of different fluoride concentrations and pH of dentifrices on plaque and nail fluoride levels in young children. Caries Res. 2009;43(2):142-146.

8. Chatzistavrou E, Eliades T, Zinelis S, Athanasiou AE, Eliades G. Fluoride release from an orthodontic glass ionomer adhesive in vitro and enamel fluoride uptake in vivo. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(4):458.e1-8; discussion 458-9.

9. Cury JA, do Amaral RC, Tenuta LM, Del Bel Cury AA, Tabchoury CP. Low-fluoride toothpaste and deciduous enamel demineralization under biofilm accumulation and sucrose exposure. Eur J Oral Sci. 2010;118(4):370-375.

10. Demos LL, Kazda H, Cicuttini FM, Sinclair MI, Fairley CK. Water fluoridation, osteoporosis, fractures--recent developments. Aust Dent J. 2001;46(2):80-7; quiz 143.

11. Duckworth RM, Horay C, Huntington E, Mehta V. Effects of flossing and rinsing with a fluoridated mouthwash after brushing with a fluoridated toothpaste on salivary fluoride clearance. Caries Res. 2009;43(5):387-390.

12. Duckworth RM, Maguire A, Omid N, Steen IN, McCracken GI, Zohoori FV. Effect of rinsing with mouthwashes after brushing with a fluoridated toothpaste on salivary fluoride concentration. Caries Res. 2009;43(5):391-396.

13. Ericsson Y. Report on the safety of drinking water fluoridation. Caries Res. 1974;8(0):suppl:16-27.

14. Gabre P, Birkhed D, Gahnberg L. Fluoride retention of a mucosa adhesive paste compared with other home-care fluoride products. Caries Res. 2008;42(4):240-246.

15. Hara AT, Kelly SA, Gonzalez-Cabezas C, et al. Influence of fluoride availability of dentifrices on eroded enamel remineralization in situ. Caries Res. 2009;43(1):57-63.

16. Horowitz HS. The effectiveness of community water fluoridation in the United States. J Public Health Dent. 1996;56(5 Spec No):253-258.

17. Karsenty E, Sgan-Cohen H, Vered Y, Leventhal A. Optimal fluoride level in drinking water and public health]. Harefuah. 2003;142(11):754-8, 806.

18. Kassirer B. The fluoridation controversy: a debate. Part II: The pros of fluoridation. Ont Dent. 1994;71(8):29, 31-2.

19. Levy SM. Review of fluoride exposures and ingestion. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22(3):173-180.

20. Li Y. Fluoride: safety issues. J Indiana Dent Assoc. 1993;72(3):22-26.

21. Lopes Mde F, Braga Jde K, de Oliveira AE, Cavalcante PR, Ribeiro CC. Fluoride oral retention after professional topical application in children with caries activity: effect of the immediate water consumption. J Dent Child (Chic). 2008;75(2):121-124.

22. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Logan S, Sheiham A. Topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels or varnishes) for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4)(4):CD002782.

23. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1)(1):CD002278.

24. McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ. 2000;321(7265):855-859.

25. Milgrom P, Zero DT, Tanzer JM. An examination of the advances in science and technology of prevention of tooth decay in young children since the Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health. Acad Pediatr. 2009;9(6):404-409.

26. Newbrun E. Current regulations and recommendations concerning water fluoridation, fluoride supplements, and topical fluoride agents. J Dent Res. 1992;71(5):1255-1265.

27. Newbrun E. Water fluoridation and fluoridation supplements in caries prevention. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1980;8(1):38-47.

28. Nordstrom A, Birkhed D. Fluoride retention in proximal plaque and saliva using two NaF dentifrices containing 5,000 and 1,450 ppm F with and without water rinsing. Caries Res. 2009;43(1):64-69.

29. Olympio KP, Cardoso VE, Bijella MF, Pessan JP, Delbem AC, Buzalaf MA. Urinary fluoride output in children following the use of a dual-fluoride varnish formulation. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009;17(3):179-183.

30. Parnell C, Whelton H, O'Mullane D. Water fluoridation. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009;10(3):141-148.

31. Pessan JP, Alves KM, Ramires I, et al. Effects of regular and low-fluoride dentifrices on plaque fluoride. J Dent Res. 2010;89(10):1106-1110.

32. Ripa LW. A half-century of community water fluoridation in the United States: review and commentary. J Public Health Dent. 1993;53(1):17-44.

33. Spencer AJ, Slade GD, Davies M. Water fluoridation in Australia. Community Dent Health. 1996;13 Suppl 2:27-37.

34. Tenuta LM, Cerezetti RV, Del Bel Cury AA, Tabchoury CP, Cury JA. Fluoride release from CaF2 and enamel demineralization. J Dent Res. 2008;87(11):1032-1036.

35. Tenuta LM, Zamataro CB, Del Bel Cury AA, Tabchoury CP, Cury JA. Mechanism of fluoride dentifrice effect on enamel demineralization. Caries Res. 2009;43(4):278-285.

36. Villa A, Cabezas L, Anabalon M, Rugg-Gunn A. The fractional urinary fluoride excretion of adults consuming naturally and artificially fluoridated water and the influence of water hardness: a randomized trial. Community Dent Health. 2009;26(3):132-137.

37. Vogel GL, Chow LC, Carey CM. Calcium pre-rinse greatly increases overnight salivary fluoride after a 228 ppm fluoride rinse. Caries Res. 2008;42(5):401-404.

38. Weintraub JA. Fluoride varnish for caries prevention: comparisons with other preventive agents and recommendations for a community-based protocol. Spec Care Dentist. 2003;23(5):180-186.

39. Whitford GM, Sampaio FC, Pinto CS, Maria AG, Cardoso VE, Buzalaf MA. Pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride: lack of effect of chemical compound. Arch Oral Biol. 2008;53(11):1037-1041.

40. Whiting P, MacDonagh M, Kleijnen J. Association of Down's syndrome and water fluoride level: a systematic review of the evidence. BMC Public Health. 2001;1:6.

41. Zettle K. The fluoridation controversy: a debate. Part I: The cons of fluoridation. Ont Dent. 1994;71(8):23-5, 27-8.


Fluoridation safety;

1. Barros BS, Tomita NE. Epidemiologic aspects of dental fluorosis in Brazil: research in the period 1993-2006]. Cien Saude Colet. 2010;15(1):289-300.

2. Bottenberg P, Cleymaet R. The use of fluoride from the viewpoint of toxicology and ecology]. Rev Belge Med Dent. 1993;48(4):82-89.

3. Burt BA, Beltran ED. Water fluoridation: a response to critics in Australia and New Zealand. J Public Health Dent. 1988;48(4):214-219.

4. Demos LL, Kazda H, Cicuttini FM, Sinclair MI, Fairley CK. Water fluoridation, osteoporosis, fractures--recent developments. Aust Dent J. 2001;46(2):80-7; quiz 143.

5. Ericsson Y. Report on the safety of drinking water fluoridation. Caries Res. 1974;8(0):suppl:16-27.

6. Horowitz HS. The effectiveness of community water fluoridation in the United States. J Public Health Dent. 1996;56(5 Spec No):253-258.

7. Karsenty E, Sgan-Cohen H, Vered Y, Leventhal A. Optimal fluoride level in drinking water and public health]. Harefuah. 2003;142(11):754-8, 806.

8. Kassirer B. The fluoridation controversy: a debate. Part II: The pros of fluoridation. Ont Dent. 1994;71(8):29, 31-2.

9. Levy SM. Review of fluoride exposures and ingestion. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22(3):173-180.

10. Li Y. Fluoride: safety issues. J Indiana Dent Assoc. 1993;72(3):22-26.

11. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Logan S, Sheiham A. Topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels or varnishes) for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4)(4):CD002782.

12. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1)(1):CD002278.

13. McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ. 2000;321(7265):855-859.

14. Newbrun E. Water fluoridation and fluoridation supplements in caries prevention. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1980;8(1):38-47.

15. Parnell C, Whelton H, O'Mullane D. Water fluoridation. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009;10(3):141-148.

16. Spencer AJ, Slade GD, Davies M. Water fluoridation in Australia. Community Dent Health. 1996;13 Suppl 2:27-37.

17. Weintraub JA. Fluoride varnish for caries prevention: comparisons with other preventive agents and recommendations for a community-based protocol. Spec Care Dentist. 2003;23(5):180-186.

18. Zettle K. The fluoridation controversy: a debate. Part I: The cons of fluoridation. Ont Dent. 1994;71(8):23-5, 27-8.


#147    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 25 February 2011 - 05:38 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 25 February 2011 - 02:01 AM, said:

No, but the article does indicate that there is an increased incidence of gum disease.

The point is that the article does nothing to support your opinions; the associated conditions listed may, by themselves, be sufficient to account for the rise in gum disease.

View Postregeneratia, on 25 February 2011 - 02:01 AM, said:

And again, if fluoride effects the hardest substance in your body, your teeth enamel, then what do you think it might do to the soft tissue of the gums? What does it do to the highly absorptive epithelial cells in your mouth?

These are questions here, folks. Not answers.

Raising questions without providing answers (or at least evidence) is rather pointless, imo.

View Postregeneratia, on 25 February 2011 - 02:01 AM, said:

I have found webmd not to be reliable so I never use it. Medscape used to be a reasonable source until webmd bought them (I was so sad when it happened). So links to webmd are unconvincing to me. Been at this medical stuff a long time. I am familiar with the nature of sites like webmd.

I see. I'll avoid using it in the future, then.

Edited by Cybele, 25 February 2011 - 05:50 AM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#148    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,959 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 25 February 2011 - 11:35 PM

View PostCybele, on 25 February 2011 - 05:38 AM, said:

The point is that the article does nothing to support your opinions; the associated conditions listed may, by themselves, be sufficient to account for the rise in gum disease.



Raising questions without providing answers (or at least evidence) is rather pointless, imo.



I see. I'll avoid using it in the future, then.

It does support my opinions, or I wouldn't have posted it. You have to think past the words. There is a unaccounted for increase in gum disease. WHY?

Thank you for your humble opinion. I respect it. But I do not agree with it. My motto, as always, is "question authority" and "question, question, question". In all disney movies, in songs all over the different genres, everywhere I hear "Things are not what they seem." I believe this whole-heartedly. Never take things at face value. Never.

My sentiments on webmd are just that, opinions. You are entitled to yours, of course. However I watched how they took over a great medical site and converted it to just another whore for the pharmaceutical industry. Since I am not fond of the pharmaceutical industry and their systemic murder of the mass of the trusting, I dislike the site. Medscape has been notified of that, several times. I utilize them, but I always make sure to give feedback when I see it happening. They have cleaned up somewhat tho, and presented more life-style changes for medical conditions while also presenting pharmaceutical information. There are now author disclaimers as well. That rocks!!

The same goes for all sorts of medical information. There was a time when Dr.s encouraged smoking, saying that it aided in digestion. The initial support of fluoridating tap water came from a man who told us to smoke too.

Clinical studies do not involve pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetics comes far prior to clinical testing. I will not read past the first example since the first one does not address the issue.

Edited by regeneratia, 26 February 2011 - 12:17 AM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#149    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,359 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 25 February 2011 - 11:37 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 24 February 2011 - 05:20 AM, said:

Actually, you can.  It is rather simple.  You can influence other peoples opinions with sound arguments and supporting evidence.  It is a tried and tested way of advancing ideas and thoughts, and has a much, much, better success record than simply stating postulates and telling people to figure it out themselves.

But you are quite correct.  People are allowed to have opinions.  In a discussion forum, such as this one is, people are encouraged to have opinions.  However, opinions in and of themselves are rather useless for a discussion.  In a discussion forum, people not only state their opinions, but also...well, discuss them.  If all you can do is state an opinion, and refuse to do anything else, well, you aren't really discussing anything, are you?  At which point, everyone else has the right to come to the opinion that your opinion is of little relevance to the discussion, since you are so personally indifferent to supporting it in any meaningful manner.

We refer to this as intellectual laziness.  If you do not have the urge to support your opinion, don't expect anyone else to.  And don't be surprised when your opinion isn't given any weight.

I believe it may be more than the laziness it appears to be.  When your mind is always telling you that other people have alternative motives, people are plotting against you, and everything is mired in conspiracy it is also easy to believe that you could not gain the information to back up your position because it is being obscured.  I really worry after reading these posts that there might be something more clinical going on.


#150    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 February 2011 - 03:02 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 25 February 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

It does support my opinions, or I wouldn't have posted it. You have to think past the words. There is a unaccounted for increase in gum disease. WHY?

Thank you for your humble opinion. I respect it. But I do not agree with it. My motto, as always, is "question authority" and "question, question, question". In all disney movies, in songs all over the different genres, everywhere I hear "Things are not what they seem." I believe this whole-heartedly. Never take things at face value. Never.

My sentiments on webmd are just that, opinions. You are entitled to yours, of course. However I watched how they took over a great medical site and converted it to just another whore for the pharmaceutical industry. Since I am not fond of the pharmaceutical industry and their systemic murder of the mass of the trusting, I dislike the site. Medscape has been notified of that, several times. I utilize them, but I always make sure to give feedback when I see it happening. They have cleaned up somewhat tho, and presented more life-style changes for medical conditions while also presenting pharmaceutical information. There are now author disclaimers as well. That rocks!!

The same goes for all sorts of medical information. There was a time when Dr.s encouraged smoking, saying that it aided in digestion. The initial support of fluoridating tap water came from a man who told us to smoke too.

Clinical studies do not involve pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetics comes far prior to clinical testing. I will not read past the first example since the first one does not address the issue.








0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users