Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon and I find his published papers on fluoride neurotoxicity very intriguing: http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon and I find his published papers on fluoride neurotoxicity very intriguing: http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

Before you get too enamored with this quack, you should read this:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yJfsVt_NO3oJ:www.skepdic.com/blaylock.html+Dr.+Blaylock&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Note that the idiot believes HE has found the cause AND cure for cancer.

And I call him a quack for another reason also: He has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials.

Certainly NOT the kind of guy I'd trust with anything - let alone my health!

Before you get too enamored with this quack, you should read this:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yJfsVt_NO3oJ:www.skepdic.com/blaylock.html+Dr.+Blaylock&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Note that the idiot believes HE has found the cause AND cure for cancer.

And I call him a quack for another reason also: He has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials.

Certainly NOT the kind of guy I'd trust with anything - let alone my health!

You've made no argument supporting a counter-view on the matter. You sound like a negative campaign ad.

What exactly is your definition of a "quack"?

Google "russell blaylock fraud" and "russell baylock scam". Even a cursory read should set off all kinds of alarm bells.

Google "russell blaylock fraud" and "russell baylock scam". Even a cursory read should set off all kinds of alarm bells.

Alarm bells can be very distracting.

After you manage to shut off those alarms, you should be better off concentrating on the science of the matter.

Alarm bells can be very distracting.

After you manage to shut off those alarms, you should be better off concentrating on the science of the matter.

Google him, read his insane claims and decide for yourself whether there is any "science" there. Check the facts before you make smartass remarks.

You've made no argument supporting a counter-view on the matter. You sound like a negative campaign ad.

What exactly is your definition of a "quack"?

And you sound like a non-thinker. Do your homework before commenting. :bugeye:

"Quack", idiot", "insane", "smartass", "non-thinker"....

Is name calling the best you guys can do?

I haven't even posted an opinion on the matter and you already have me figured out, apparently in much the same way you have Dr. Blaylock already figured out. Wow, you guys are good!

I'm not really here to debate the safety of fluoride or Dr. Blaylock's work. Sciforums is the last place I would expect open-minded science discussion. I'm just here to point out one simple observation:
it all comes down to who you trust, not what you know.

Because, for example, who here really knows exactly how fluoride biochemically interacts with every cell of the body?

Fluroide is detrimental to the pineal gland. :bawl:

"Quack", idiot", "insane", "smartass", "non-thinker"....

Is name calling the best you guys can do?

I haven't even posted an opinion on the matter and you already have me figured out, apparently in much the same way you have Dr. Blaylock already figured out. Wow, you guys are good!

I'm not really here to debate the safety of fluoride or Dr. Blaylock's work. Sciforums is the last place I would expect open-minded science discussion. I'm just here to point out one simple observation:
it all comes down to who you trust, not what you know.

Because, for example, who here really knows exactly how fluoride biochemically interacts with every cell of the body?

There are many credible studies by major organizations on the effects of fluoride. Here's one summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
Use Google to find others.

Google Blaylock's claims. They are completely insane. The man thinks public vaccinations should be stopped! He thinks he knows how cancer happens and how to cure it!

TAKE 10 MINUTES TO CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE YOU COMMENT!

There are many credible studies by major organizations on the effects of fluoride...

My idea of what is credible is different than yours. Whether or not you realize it, you don't actually believe in science... you believe in money, power, and apparent authority. You don't believe in science; you believe in credentials.

Why is it OK to overlook the financial conflicts of interests of these "major organizations", but when it comes to someone like Andrew Wakefield and his MMR vaccine research, his alleged conflict of interest is of major concern. This is only one example that I happen to have thought about earlier today. Although it's just one example of such a mainstream thought process, personal exploration of this irrationally-accepted double standard might reveal the root of one's brainwashing.

My idea of what is credible is different than yours. Whether or not you realize it, you don't actually believe in science... you believe in money, power, and apparent authority. You don't believe in science; you believe in credentials.

Why is it OK to overlook the financial conflicts of interests of these "major organizations", but when it comes to someone like Andrew Wakefield and his MMR vaccine research, his alleged conflict of interest is of major concern. This is only one example that I happen to have thought about earlier today. Although it's just one example of such a mainstream thought process, personal exploration of this irrationally-accepted double standard might reveal the root of one's brainwashing. Are you seriously saying WHO, the Canadian Dental Association and the American Dental Association (all of whom endorse fluoride) are misleading the public? None of them market fluoride and, in the case of dentists, it reduces their business by reducing cavities. What possible reason do they have to lie? Do you seriously believe they don't have competent scientists? None of the major studies are by industry groups since fluoride is just an industrial chemical not a pharmaceutical.

"Quack", idiot", "insane", "smartass", "non-thinker"....

Is name calling the best you guys can do?

I haven't even posted an opinion on the matter and you already have me figured out, apparently in much the same way you have Dr. Blaylock already figured out. Wow, you guys are good!

I'm not really here to debate the safety of fluoride or Dr. Blaylock's work. Sciforums is the last place I would expect open-minded science discussion. I'm just here to point out one simple observation:
it all comes down to who you trust, not what you know.


Yes, we ARE good - and it's because we dig far deeper than you do, apparently.

Your last statement (above) is a prime example of your short-sighted approach to determining the value of something/someone. In order to make an accurate assessment of someone and their claims, you first have to know something (contrary to your stupid statement above that I'm referring to) and then do research them to see IF they can be trusted. We did that - YOU did not.

I wonder what you all think of this - http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/nofluoride

I wonder what you all think of this - http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/nofluoride
It is a series of opinions. What matters is evidence not opinion. Many studies of the effects of fluoride on thousands of people over years of use have been done. They all agreed that fluoride's benefit outweighed it disadvantages.

There was an article about that in the Washington Post today. It said that since parents have been giving their children trendy bottled water to take to school, instead of drinking from the water fountains like we all did, there has been a significant increase in children's cavities.

I don't remember how many fillings I had in my baby teeth, but there must not have been very many because I never developed any negative feelings about going to the dentist. I only had one filling in my adult teeth, and that was in a wisdom tooth that eventually had to be removed anyway.

Now at 67 I got a cavity in one of my roots so I'm in the middle of getting an implant. Since like all higher animals we have bilateral symmetry, my dentist says he can see the beginnings of a cavity in the same place in the opposite tooth. In a couple of years I'll have to have that one replaced too.

It is a series of opinions. What matters is evidence not opinion. Many studies of the effects of fluoride on thousands of people over years of use have been done. They all agreed that fluoride's benefit outweighed it disadvantages.

They all agree?? You mean the studies that you've specifically selected out of the bunch because they coincide with your beliefs? That's called cognitive dissonance. What about all the other studies? What about the many studies which show that fluoride is harmful. Oh right, that's not considered evidence because obviously any study which conflicts with mainstream consensus is wrong by default. Dissect, downplay and ignore all studies which dissent; accept, rationalize and defend all studies which conform. Is that your scientific method?

When was the last time any of you actually took the time to scrutinize the pro-fluoride side of the story in the same way you do the other side?

Here's a recent example of a study which conflicts with your deeply held beliefs: http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/China/Fluoride-in-Water-Linked-to-Lower-IQ-in-Children
....and remember:
Step 1: Dissect
Step 2: Downplay
Step 3: Ignore

They all agree?? You mean the studies that you've specifically selected out of the bunch because they coincide with your beliefs? That's called cognitive dissonance. What about all the other studies? What about the many studies which show that fluoride is harmful. Oh right, that's not considered evidence because obviously any study which conflicts with mainstream consensus is wrong by default. Dissect, downplay and ignore all studies which dissent; accept, rationalize and defend all studies which conform. Is that your scientific method?

When was the last time any of you actually took the time to scrutinize the pro-fluoride side of the story in the same way you do the other side?

Here's a recent example of a study which conflicts with your deeply held beliefs: http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/China/Fluoride-in-Water-Linked-to-Lower-IQ-in-Children
....and remember:
Step 1: Dissect
Step 2: Downplay
Step 3: Ignore

An organization called the Fluoride Action Network has an obvious bias. Your post makes emotional, ad hominem arguments. Post a link to a study with a large base (>1,000 people) and more than a one point analysis that states that fluoride's disadvantages outweigh its advantages.

Basic toxicology (real science) and its most important observation.
The dose makes the poison.

This means two things.
1. In sufficient dose, anything becomes toxic - even water.
2. In small enough dose, anything becomes non toxic, even fluoride.

It is easy to show that fluoride is toxic. In sufficient dose it is definitely nasty. However, in smaller doses, it is quite harmless. Guess what dose is used for addition to water supplies?

Basic toxicology (real science) and its most important observation.
The dose makes the poison.

This means two things.
1. In sufficient dose, anything becomes toxic - even water.
2. In small enough dose, anything becomes non toxic, even fluoride.

It is easy to show that fluoride is toxic. In sufficient dose it is definitely nasty. However, in smaller doses, it is quite harmless. Guess what dose is used for addition to water supplies?

Thanks! Biochemistry has always been a complicated subject for me. It's a relief to know that the perplexing intricacies of biochemical reactions can actually be summed up by the operation of these two simple rules.

A health authority tried to illegally force the fluoridation of Southampton's water, the High Court has heard.

Resident Geraldine Milner is taking legal action to challenge the decision made in 2009 by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA).

The SCSHA, which believes the move will improve dental health, gave the go-ahead despite a public consultation showing 72% opposed the idea. [source: BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-12223552)]

Funnily enough it's not the first time people in the country have been guinea pigs, although they kind of got a little caught out this time. Again the problem here is the public is obviously against it because no one has offered any actual figures to identify if there concerns are truly warranted, in reality it's possible that "Mass Hysteria" stops something that *might* have been beneficial (on the other hand it might have been damaging, but you really need the figures to generate a proper conclusion)

Apparently, some states are reducing their levels of fluoride in the water:

Maine Takes Steps to Lower Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water (http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/14864/Default.aspx)