Could fluoride be linked to bone cancer?

An instructor teaching oral health and epidemiology over at Harvard School of Dental Medicine led this study looking at kids between 6 and 8 years old. Apparently, those who drank fluoridated water—which, thank goodness, isn't how things work in most of Europe, since only Americans seem to go for that—have a five times higher chance of developing bone cancer before they even hit twenty compared to kids who didn't drink it.

But wait, it gets even messier. The instructor’s own dissertation mentor spent fifteen years and a cool $1.3 million on "valuable" research that supposedly found absolutely zero link between fluoride and cancer. And if you want the kicker... the whole study was funded by Colgate! It’s wild what money can do... honestly, it's a miracle anyone sees the truth when people just choose to look the other way.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512585

So, there’s this one study floating around, but honestly, the methodology is pretty thin. They’re pointing to bone cancer as a primary tumor appearing more often during that age group, but I don't know—that feels like a bit of a stretch to me.
Systemic fluoride just doesn't cut it. It turns out trying to bake fluoride into your enamel from the inside out isn't actually a strong enough defense against the acids that eat away at your teeth and cause cavities. Local application—like using it directly on the teeth—is way more effective...

Since this comment was published in a Harvard magazine, there’s clearly some weight behind it... the editorial board wouldn't have greenlit it if it were just nonsense. If they were spreading lies, the author and the editors would be facing massive defamation lawsuits for "insinuating" that a tenured professor's research was anything less than solid. As for those "parameters" people keep bringing up... you really need to sit down and read the full piece—actually, both articles—before deciding whether the data is actually lacking or not.

"Douglass’ $1.3 million dollar, 15 year study did not find a link between drinking fluoridated water and developing osteosarcoma. Douglass because He allegedly cited Bassin’s study is a subset of his study and that he had not been able to replicate her results.
...

"Readers are cautioned not to generalize and over-interpret results before making conclusions, and before influencing any related policy decisions."

You really gotta read the whole article first... 😉

I get how some people struggle with reading actual peer-reviewed journals—but honestly, dustycanyon6 is telling you the truth, there's no need to freak out...
If you ask me, this is just some small-scale academic bickering...
Science is a massive business these days...

Sandra King86 said:You really need to read the whole article. 😉

I get how some people struggle with reading stuff meant for academic journals, but dustycanyon6 is trying to tell you... there's really no need to get all worked up about it.

Seriously, you have to read the entire thing first! 😉

The Environmental Working Group, a Washington D.C. based advocacy Group, recently filed an ethics complaint against Douglass because He allegedly cited Bassin in his report, despite the opposite conclusions reached by the two studies. Douglass said he just listed Bassin’s study as a related publication and not a reference.

It's exactly that "he said" excuse that's going to land Douglass in court. 😉 Obviously, he can't "replicate" those results, because if he did, he'd be admitting his entire 15-year study was a total bust. Personally, I don't care what Douglass thinks... I want to see if someone else—someone independent who isn't on the payroll of big toothpaste corporations—can actually replicate the findings or not.

dustycanyon6 said:I think you really need to read the whole article... 😉

So, The Environmental Working Group—that Washington D.C. based advocacy Group—just dropped an ethics complaint against Douglass... apparently because He allegedly cited Bassin in his report, even though their findings are basically total opposites. Douglass is claiming he was just listing Bassin’s study as a related read rather than using it as a direct reference, though...

That’s exactly why Douglass is gonna end up in court—all that "he said" stuff... 😉 Of course... no way... Trying to replicate results just feels like an attempt to prove his 15-year study was wrong... honestly. What I actually care about is whether someone else—someone truly independent who isn't getting a paycheck from big toothpaste companies—can actually replicate them or not... not just Douglass...

🤣

Go ahead and do whatever you want—but I wouldn't ditch the toothpaste just because some... just some environmental group... nothing too crazy... So, apparently someone’s actually filing a lawsuit over an ethics violation just because they cited someone else's work... like, really? Just because they quoted them... 😬
But hey—that’s just my take...

Honestly, I’m out... feels like my IQ is dropping by the second just reading this thread... 😁😁
🙂

Karen said:🤣

Look, do whatever you want, but I wouldn't suggest ditching the toothpaste just because some environmental group might try to sue someone over an ethics violation for citing a study... totally paranoid, right? 😬
But hey! That's just me!

Who said anything about quitting toothpaste? No way. I'm definitely not starting to drink fluoridated water or anything like that... 😉

Karen said:Anyway, I'm out of here before my IQ drops any lower reading this thread... 😁 😁
🙂

Is it really because of the fluoride? 😬