7 ms·
Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children
- jakeogh 8y agoConventional wisdom is often wrong.
- 23443463455 8y agoConventional “wisdom” is rarely anything but simple convention. It always amazes me how people tend to short circuit all rational thought and higher order intellect when it comes to certain, almost inexplicably obsessed about things. This fluoride issue is a good example, people who aren’t self-important and “educated” have been derided and ridiculed for years now simply because they suggest there may be something wrong, even though their claims are based on the very science the self-important group claims to hold to be sacrosanct. So objective evaluation leaves you with the realization that it must be something else than actual scientific method and rational intellect that incenses the self-important cohort. My belief is that it is really based on a naked kind of supremacism of the “educated” and self-important people who, although extremely competent and skilled in many ways, seem to lack quite basic skills like humility and exhibit strong psychopathic tendencies, which would allow them to cede the very notion that those they have utter contempt for (usually those not in a concentration of self-important narcissism of urban self-selection) May have actually bested them or have pointed out the worst thing possible to the self-important supremacist psychopathic group … that they were wrong about something. There seems to be an odd kind of psychological or even cognitive barrier that prevents that group from accepting divergence from beliefs that have been psychologically comparnentalized and shielded from approach that it causes almost violent and very much cognitively dissonant reactions. Just float the notion that climate change is the 21st century’s alchemy andbthat there is a whole science industry behind it that inherently depends on furthering the notion of climate change in spite of fundamental issues that question the whole notion. Just alone the violent reaction to “denying” climate change should indicate to any rational person that something is not right. Serious, old school, died in the scientific wool actual scientists with no financial incentive have raised serious questions about the whole notion … but those are summarily ignored and violent reaction is the norm upon possibly informing anyone of the dissenters. That’s another example of how our supposedly most educated, learned, and intelligent; seem to be incapable sometimes of getting over themselves.
- vixen99 8y agoThe title I supplied was " More research on potential adverse effects of fluoride is needed" and was taken from the paper. Not sure how the actual paper title appeared.
- johnaspden 8y agoSo, does it turn out that all those nut jobs who ignored science and claimed that putting a neurotoxin in the water supply was a bad thing might have had a point?
- nabla9 8y agoMore public utilities remove naturally occurring fluoride from the water so that it stays below the WHO suggested safe levels 0.5 to 1.5 mg/L.
- yayana 8y agoThe paper doesn't actually argue a linear relationship and seems to show .8 mg/L might be ideal, which is the lower part of the current range. But I think you would need a much larger study of people exposed to the recommended range to see if lower is always better.
- linedash 8y agoNo; it turned out that bad studies produce not very useful statistics. Others in this thread have already indicated why this study doesn't help with much. Unfortunately it will just give the anti-fluoride crowd ammunition.
- bobthechef 8y agoWhy don't Europeans fluoridate?
- kurthr 8y agoBecause they have working public health systems? Actually, I think it's a pretty personal and difficult question to answer that's unlikely to be uniform across Europe. Perhaps it's because they drink more tea and coffee which themselves have high fluoride levels (~3-5x fluoridated water levels in the US? http://fluoridealert.org/issues/sources/tea/ http://fluoridealert.org/issues/sources/tea/
- nabla9 8y ago
- FrozenVoid 8y agoWhere are those fluoride shills, proclaiming the great benefits of involuntrary medicating everyone to improve teeth by osmosis(fluoride is applied topically)? Sooner or later, this will be on the same page of history as asbestos and leaded fuel.
- matthewmacleod 8y agoI mean there is pretty compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay in children. I’m not clear what your objection is - are you suggesting this is not the case?
- FrozenVoid 8y agohttp://fluoridealert.org/new-visitors/teeth/ http://fluoridealert.org/new-visitors/teeth/
- matthewmacleod 8y agoYeah, I think the chances of "fluoridealert.com" being a legitimate source of scientific information to be pretty slim.
- sjg007 8y agoDo kids really need fluoride before their adult teeth start to grow in?
- matthewmacleod 8y agoThey don't "need" it, but my understanding is that water fluoridation reduces rates of tooth decay in both deciduous and permanent teeth.
- philliphaydon 8y agoNot really. Tooth paste for kids generally doesn’t contain fluoride to begin with. But it’s still important to get kids into the habit of brushing and prevent gum disease.
- SagelyGuru 8y agoAre teeth more important than brain? Only when your real interest is to sell more sugary drinks and processed sugary foods. Sugar is cheap and addictive and if you somehow fix the tooth decay, it is your "perfect product". Serious questions need to be asked about the World Health Organisation for supporting and pushing fluoridation globally.
- matthewmacleod 8y agoThis is a conspiracy theory view which isn’t worth giving much consideration to.
- jxub 8y agoSince a couple of years, I use the Himalaya Herbals Indian toothpaste, with fluoride from natural sources only, and I heavily endorse it.
- mcculley 8y agoThis makes me wonder if fluoride could be a cause of the rise in autism.
- nordsieck 8y agoThey found a 2 IQ point difference testing kids 6-12 years old with a sample size of 500. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe anything in this study. I understand that it's expensive to run longer studies, but with an effect size of 2 IQ points, they'd really have to test the kids post puberty at a minimum. Otherwise the numbers will just be too volatile.
- swebs 8y ago500 sounds like a sufficient sample size to me. How many samples would you need before accepting the results of a study?
- nordsieck 8y agoIt's not necessarily any one aspect of the study, but all of the elements as a whole. 1. This is an observational study, not a double blind experiment. We know that these are basically garbage. In many cases it's unethical to do experiments, so observation is the best we have; that doesn't mean it's any good. 2. IQ pre puberty is highly volatile. The younger you test, the less your results correlate with eventual adult IQ. It may be possible to add say 100x more participants to compensate for the 2nd point. You can't add more participants to fix the first point; blacklisting confounders just doesn't work except in exceptional cases (e.g. smoking and cancer). The real way to do this study is 1. Double blind study instead of observation. This means along with everything they're already doing, they need to give the mothers a 16 year supply of water filters (presumably over time). Half of them would be inert. 2. Run the study until the kids are at least 16. Yes, this is more expensive, but the knowledge per dollar gained would be infinitely higher.
- dpark 8y ago> but the knowledge per dollar gained would be infinitely higher. Would it be? It sounds like millions, potentially tens of millions, would be required to run this hypothetical study. And the likely outcome is that the effect is minimal.
- mrfusion 8y agoWhere does toothpaste fall on this scale?
- FrozenVoid 8y agoFluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. generally contain between 1,100 and 1,450 parts per million (ppm) fluoride (the equivalent of over 1 mg of fluoride for each gram of paste). http://fluoridealert.org/issues/dental-products/toothpastes/ http://fluoridealert.org/issues/dental-products/toothpastes/
- mrfusion 8y agoIs that enough to lower intelligence? I couldn’t seem to figure it out from the paper.
- mchannon 8y agoLooking at the shotgun blasts they had been able to produce, I'm disappointed there wasn't a clearer signal. Take out the 130 IQ kid with little fluoride and the three kids with high fluoride and slightly-below-average IQ's and you might even be able to predict a beneficial effect to fluoride. To clear up a few of the other questions, they didn't measure where mama was getting her fluoride, or how much was in her tap water, or even how effective she was at excreting it. They also didn't measure postnatal fluoride exposure by the children, which may be less, more, or just as important. Mama could have swallowed some toothpaste or mouthwash even though she lived on unfluoridated water. She could have eaten a steady diet of fluoride-infused potato chips manufactured in a place with fluoridated water even though her water was unfluoridated. Or, she could have been a tea drinker, which is a leading source of fluoride. Absent evidence to the contrary, I believe this study's conclusions are the right ones, but the study could do little to back them up. For all we know (and for all the efforts the study didn't make to rule it out), higher fluoride exposure could simply be a reflection of poverty, which would similarly correlate to lower childhood IQ's. If you drink untreated water in Mexico, you may very well be drinking fluoridated water, which occurs naturally in some spots. El Paso and Albuquerque have naturally fluoridated water.
- klakier 8y agoThey adjusted the results for the excretion ratio (adjusted for urinary creatinine and specific gravity, respectively). Note that at least in Europe the toothpastes for children contain no fluoride.
- chefkoch 8y agoIn Germany toothpaste for children contains a third of the flouride of toothpaste for adults (500ppm).
- bobthechef 8y agoSome brands of toothpaste substitute fluoride with xylitol. There is evidence that it hardens enamel. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14700079 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14700079 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0917239404700099 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S091723940...
- asdffinio 8y agoOh, boy. This will be fun. To the (many) people in this comments section who seem unable to read, here's the conclusion of the study: "Community water and salt fluoridation, and fluoride toothpaste use, substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries (sic) (Jones et al. 2005) and is acknowledged as a public health success story (Easley 1995). Our findings must be confirmed in other study populations, and additional research is needed to determine how the urine fluoride concentrations measured in our study population are related to fluoride exposures resulting from both intentional supplementation and environmental contamination. However, our findings, combined with evidence from existing animal and human studies, reinforce the need for additional research on potential adverse effects of fluoride, particularly in pregnant women and children, and to ensure that the benefits of population-level fluoride supplementation outweigh any potential risks." This is a preliminary study that doesn't even try to establish a causal connection between water fluoridation and intelligence. It suggests an avenue of future research. It's not a license to assert whatever fringe beliefs you want. The evidence is that water fluoridation is safe and effective. Maybe future studies will change that, but those studies have yet to be done. We should all be skeptics. Dismissing the consensus in favor of conspiracy theories is not skepticism. It is blind credulity.
- bobthechef 8y agoBut why fluoridate? Why add fluoride to the water supply? Even IF it helps prevent tooth decay and even IF we knew there were no harmful side effects, how is that a reason? Why not add something to make hair shinier? Or your breath smell fresh? Or something for heart disease? It's such an arbitrary thing to add to water. Besides, with fluoride in toothpaste, what's the point? I would prefer that nothing were added to tap water. Leave it alone.
- erikerikson 8y agoThe savings of public funds (e.g. avoided emergency room visits resulting from cavity) due to cavities dwarf the private savings.
- seandougall 8y agoDental health is not just cosmetic; it affects multiple areas of physical health. If there were a safe way to add something that would prevent heart disease, it would absolutely be in the public interest. Your other examples are strawmen. You can certainly argue (as this paper’s conclusion does) that more research is needed on other potential effects of fluoridation, but it isn’t arbitrary.
- teaspoons 8y agoand fluoridation doesn't affect dental health because you're drinking the water which means the fluoride doesn't get to the teeth but is absorbed elsewhere in the body. If you want fluoride you can get it through toothpaste. It should be a choice.
- patrickg_zill 8y agoSupposedly fluoridation leads to a change in the pineal gland, which is a partially understood part of the brain. Any truth to that?
- stillbourne 8y agohttps://www.ada.org/en/publications/ada-news/2017-archive/september/ada-responds-to-study-suggesting-association https://www.ada.org/en/publications/ada-news/2017-archive/se...