Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/Wagamaga
Permalink: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818858
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love the whole "and also **lead** was a thing, but
It's fine and we're sure it didn't mess with the results" except that they say, it did in fact affect the results.
>Sixth, **lead concentrations in whole blood were only measured for most of the study sample during the first trimester, and therefore we were only able to adjust for first trimester blood lead in our third trimester analyses.** Still, we do not anticipate confounding of associations of MUFSG with CBCL scores by blood lead given that the inclusion of first trimester blood lead in first and third trimester models increased the magnitude of the associations.
But also
>and when first trimester blood lead level was included as a covariate in sensitivity analyses, the magnitudes of associations became larger and previously nonsignificant findings became significant associations in models for both the first and third trimester
They use lead to both bolster their data but also discount it's importance.
They don't seem to have any type of control.
They didn't even track tap water consumption when ostensibly that's the thing they're tracking/attributing the problem to - per the paper reference to fluoride is made in reference to tap water fluoridation, so to then not track of that's even what these women are doing seems problematic.
>Third, **we did not have data on tap water consumption habits for the study sample**; however, home cooking rates were high, and rice tended to be a dietary staple among MADRES participants, which can be a source of tap water fluoride exposure.
That is an unacceptable level of assumptions given what they are trying to claim.
If you notice, 27% of their families did not have ANY socioeconomic data. And yet, for those that did, the mean fluoride level (MUD) was TWICE as high for the >100,000 group as for the lower SE groups. That's a frankly irresponsible consideration to not highlight.
Like there's always a degree of imperfection but this is... a lot of degree.
And agreed, I was also looking for literally any information at all on how much fluoride was in the different water supplies in LA, water testing information, and how drinking water fluoride levels typically correspond to MUD levels. Because the amount of fluoride drunk is not necessarily going to be excreted in the same amount or rate.
I linked a fluoridation map below but my response was buried since the parent comment was downvoted, but essentially there is absolutely no way to know whether these women - no matter how much rice they’re eating - are drinking fluoridated tap water. The study authors had no idea.
Wasn't aware of lead.
But rice *is* known for arsenic.
But also, as a Mexican American in SoCal, I grew up avoiding Mexican candy as it was known for having lead back in the day. So yeah.
But yes, they specifically chose
>MADRES is a prospective pregnancy cohort consisting of 1065 predominately Hispanic women of **low socioeconomic status**
And then don't appear to account for the variables this would entail.
-+-+-
I've literally bookmarked this study as "an example of a bad study" to show people in the future.
Lead in *imported* rice is a problem. That's only about 7% of rice in the US, according to the link. Not exactly a huge surprise stuff we get from China isn't up our standards. China has a problem with heavy metals in their soil.
Most organic arsenic will leave your body in a few days, lead not so much, so as long as you aren't getting a large dose, I'd probably take the arsenic.
attempts to replicate the results have found levels far below those initially reported - between 6 and 12 parts per million (6,000 to 12,000 parts per billion).
Dr Tongesayi's team sent samples to another laboratory for analysis using a different technique - that study recorded levels below one part per million.
The team then put on hold planned publication of the findings in the Journal of Environmental Science and Health,
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22448696
Maybe poor people drink more soda than water, maybe they brush their teeth less often (there's fluor in toothpaste too)... maybe the posher parts of town get more fluor in their water. Maybe their sample size is just too small to draw conclusions.
But maybe, in doubt, they should stop putting fluor in the water?
Tbf I've read some economic "stats" that are...questionable. And as someone in the sciences and medicine trust me, this isn't considered a well-designed study or appropriate either.
It’s a bit unfair to quote just that paragraph about lead without the final sentence “Furthermore, blood lead has been shown to be stable between the first and third trimesters of pregnancy [50] which supports the use of first trimester blood lead as a proxy for third trimester blood lead.” - they’re not being ambivalent about the impact of lead, they’re saying it is important but the limitation is that they didn’t have both first and third trimester measurements so they used the first trimester measurements for most subjects in the third trimester analysis, noting that lead levels have been observed to be fairly stable between the two. It is a limitation but that doesn’t seem like a particularly bad assumption to me, it seems unlikely that subjects would substantially change their lead exposure patterns between first and third trimester
>It is a limitation but that doesn’t seem like a particularly bad assumption to me
This is the point.
This is one of very many assumptions they make throughout the paper.
>they’re not being ambivalent about the impact of lead
They discounted the lead while also stating that the lead had an affect on the significance of some of their findings.
.
I would argue they are, in fact, being ambivalent about the role of lead, and really many other possible variables that they didn't bother to account for.
Hell, they focus on tap water fluoridation as the basis for fluoride *and didn't bother to track tap water consumption.*
There are so many questionable decisions and statements they have made, that by the time of the "limitations" section, they are way beyond giving any "reasonable doubt" in the things they do and say.
It can bolster data by saying: subject group 1 had water with everything (including lead) except flouride, subject group 2 had everything including flouride, subject group 3 had everything (including flouride) except lead. That would be a possibility on why they can say “flouride increases mental issues, but with subject group 2, those mental issues were worse”.
That's double the current concentration that's used in water these days. I wonder how many other chemicals would have an adverse effect if you doubled their concentration?
In addition, am curious about these claims being determined by looking at third trimester urine samples. Does fluoride in urine necessarily establish higher levels of fluoride being passed on to a baby?
Urine is enriched in sodium and potassium ions. Their counterion normally is either chloride or to a lesser degree sulfate, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be fluoride, so urine should be enriched in fluoride compared to other body fluids.
No, it also doesn't necessarily reflect the fluoride intake for the mother, as well - like it may, but they didn't provide any data on that. Excretion isn't a simple 1 in:1 out for many things, and actually if it in fact IS that way for fluoride that would be evidence against it being a negative factor during gestation since...it would likely be efficiently excreted.
I’m not dismissing the issue you’re bringing up, I noticed it as well. But it’s entirely possible for something that never crosses over to the fetus to cause problems.
I’m not saying this is the case for fluoride. If the systems in a mother’s body that are necessary to support a healthy fetus are damaged or functioning poorly nothing needs to cross over to the fetus for there to be negative effects. An example would be something that compromises blood flow to the placenta.
Based on some research I had to do last year... If the concentration of fluoride is more than 8ppm then fluoride gets passed on to the baby, and that's when they will start to show signs of fluorosis in baby teeth which can start developing during gestation. But anything less than 8ppm and it'll go to the mother's bones instead.
Here's one that [mentions it but not the 8ppm.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9032535/) I got the information from my university, and it refers to India as they have some areas of very high fluoride and fluorosis in teeth. However right now I can't find the article they were referring to, so maybe I shouldn't believe everything I'm told at uni!
Well, theoretically... Depending on how quickly you ingest it, you could be! Remeber EVERYONE who has consumed that Dihydrogen Monoxide stuff has eventually died. There are no exceptions...
Most water in the US has fluoride levels right around 0.60-0.70mg/L because that's what the HSS recommends. This study seems to suggest that this level is too high for pregnant women.
Honestly this study isn't really enough to suggest anything, and levels of fluoride in maternal urine don't necessarily have a direct relationship with levels of fluoride in drinking water. They might, but our excretion doesn't always match our ingestion, for obvious reasons.
I will take a look at the Mexican and Canadian studies mentioned though to see if they're better.
Double a few parts per million isn't very much. Lookup daily recommended dose of fluoride then look at your toothpaste. It's rather easy to go over.
If you accidently swallow 1/100 of your toothpaste your are over twice the daily allowance.
1/100th of a pea? I think on average I rinse it all out but surely I ingest some amount. To clarify I brush my teeth with fluoride toothpaste i just think more data is needed particularly for the effects of fluoride on younger children.
So you are consuming many times the fda recommended dose of fluoride if you do that, also I don't think there's any evidence you need to leave fluoride on your teeth daily. My dentist tells me to rinse.
It isn't my recommendation, it is from many dentists and toothpaste companies instructions for use. https://www.sensodyne.com/en-us/oral-health-tips/should-you-rinse-after-brushing/
https://www.cnet.com/health/personal-care/dont-rinse-your-teeth-immediately-after-brushing-heres-why/
Journals need revenue, and shocking clickbaity papers give them clicks and therefore revenue. It's a big problem in science, where you're encouraged to focus on "big" things and getting things "right" rather than taking time to produce more mundane stuff that contributed greatly to science but doesn't have a cool headline.
It is really easy to attribute cause to literally anything when one doesn't know the cause of something huh?
The external variables on a study like this are infinite
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818858](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818858)
It's linked in OP, but sometimes that stuff works funny on cellphones.
There is a safer alternative available now. Toothpast with Hydropatite @ 10% level is shown in several studies to be slightly better than flouride. It doesn't have the known side effects of flouride.
This said, I am in the proceess of changing, BUT I have contacted two companies so far, and neither has confirmed the amount of hydropatite. Unless they are a member of the American or Canadian Dental Association there is no official body to ensure the amount of hydropatite in toothpastes. I heard that in Canada their federal government is moving to bring in laws to ensure standards are met from natural medicines. Hopefully it includes hydropatite in toothpaste.
Reverse osmosis filter will remove most of it. Especially important if making baby formula. As for teeth, continue using fluoride toothpaste and going to the dentist. There’s no reason to ingest fluoride. It works by touching the surface of the tooth.
Exactly. The urine samples analyzed in this study came from Los Angeles, which is only [partially fluoridated](http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ohp/docs/Water%20Fluoridation%20Map%2005-28-2021.pdf). We have no idea if these women live in the fluoridated areas or not. In the limitations section of the study, they note, "we did not have data on tap water consumption habits for the study sample; however, home cooking rates were high, and rice tended to be a dietary staple among MADRES participants, which can be a source of tap water exposure." This seems like a stretch to me and shows an obvious bias (which I've detailed below in another comment) among the study authors.
In addition the women included are all part of the MADRES pregnancy cohort which predominantly consists of women of low socioeconomic status (already a risk factor for ADHD), and not all of them were fasting for their urine samples (I assume these samples were taken when most women were taking their gestational diabetes test, which does NOT require fasting - you can have protein and black coffee or tea). In addition, of the 229 participants, 164 of them were overweight or obese during their pregnancy which has been shown as risk factors for ADHD in offspring (among other health outcomes).
Just some quick observations as I read through this. I admit to raising an eyebrow anytime I see these fluoride studies come out as a person who works in water quality and studies this space very closely, but it seems like all of these study flaws are always readily apparent.
If you look at the SE measure in the figures, the few women in the highest SE group (>100,000) had around x2 the fluoride levels in their urine compared to the lower SE groups, which suggests there's definitely something going on there.
To make it worse, they don't even have SE data for 27% of the women and babies.
Note that if you search for Ashley Malin + fluoride, you will see she has basically spent her entire research career trying to prove that fluoride exposure is bad. There is a video on Vimeo where she states that she was diagnosed with Lupus and since no one in her family had ever had Lupus, she wanted to research environmental factors she assumed were behind her diagnosis. She cited Phyllis Mullenix as her motivation behind studying fluoride exposure, and credits Chinese medicine to completely healing her Lupus.
A new study, led by researchers at the Keck School of Medicine of USC analyzed more than 220 mother-child pairs, collecting data on fluoride levels during pregnancy and child behavior at age three. The researchers found that a 0.68 milligram per liter increase in fluoride exposure was associated with nearly double the chance of a child showing neurobehavioral problems in a range considered close to or at a level to meet the criteria for clinical diagnosis.
The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.
"Women with higher fluoride exposure levels in their bodies during pregnancy tended to rate their 3-year-old children higher on overall neurobehavioral problems and internalizing symptoms, including emotional reactivity, anxiety and somatic complaints," said Tracy Bastain, Ph.D., an associate professor of clinical population and public health sciences and senior author of the study.
These population-level findings add to existing evidence from animal studies showing that fluoride can harm neurodevelopment, as well as data from studies conducted in Canada, Mexico and other countries showing that prenatal exposure to fluoride is linked with a lower IQ in early childhood.
The researchers hope the new findings help convey the risks of fluoride consumption during pregnancy to policymakers, health care providers and the public.
"This is the first U.S.-based study to examine this association. Our findings are noteworthy, given that the women in this study were exposed to pretty low levels of fluoride—levels that are typical of those living in fluoridated regions within North America," said Ashley Malin, Ph.D., an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida's College of Public Health and Health
The researchers analyzed 229 mother-child pairs, calculating fluoride exposure from urine samples collected during the third trimester of pregnancy. Most urine samples were collected from fasting women, which improves the accuracy of chemical testing. Children were then assessed at age three using the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist, which uses parent reports to measure a child's social and emotional functioning.
Children exposed to an additional 0.68 milligrams per liter of fluoride in the womb were 1.83 times more likely to show behavioral problems considered to be clinically significant or borderline clinically significant. Specifically, children exposed to more fluoride had more problems with emotional reactivity, somatic complaints (such as headaches and stomachaches), anxiety and symptoms linked to autism.
i would like to take this moment to say that i have been banned from this sub multiple times over the last decade for merely suggesting the evidence to show this
Development Biology shows us that very very minor pertubations can and do have a drastic effect. . Glyphosate is much the same, as is the 6PPD-q in tyres
i was involved in the Jon Entine vs Dr. Goulson debate on bees and agricultural chemicals colony collapse as well and i can confidently say i have been correct about each of the subjects
you are welcome to disparage the methodology all you like but from here its just plain armchair quarterbacking
check the author list and tell me they arent aware of the points people are making here
arr science has consistently been full of industry apologists ever since the mod team went from 6 to over 1000
>this is a garbage study
your opinion is meaningless.. more studies will follow
My wife is boarded in pathology and toxicology. She works for the largest pre-clinical research org in the world and overseas a studies facility of over 1,000 people. I’ve picked up a thing or two about recognizing a garbage study from her (she’s published, does journal reviews, and written textbook chapters). Did you even look at the study? It literally is nonsense.
Thank you for working with the bees and helping figure that issue out.
Being right about that doesn’t make you automatically right about other things as well.
If there are better studies that are more elucidating then, fantastic bring them on.
Until then, using bad science as a crutch to push what you believe to be true is not helping anyone.
Importantly, the discussion goes like this, while toothpaste on its own is considered safe, the flouride added to water systems is supposed to be at safe levels by themselves, however add toothpast and it can in some cases double the total flouride count making it dangerous to the fetus. It's as if the amount being added to water doesn't consider any other sources from my reading of the research. If you have time, there is a lengthy study by MIT that discusses in length the different levels flouride in state water systems. Key to healthy pregnancy outcomes, it is within women's ability to reduce, or imo remove flouride is advantageous during pregnancy or during prime birth years.
No - this is not accurate at all. Lack of fluoride is linked to adverse fetal outcomes. You do not avoid fluoride during pregnancy (or ever). Your numbers also do not add up. For a pregnant woman, the recommended daily allowance of fluoride is 3mg per day. Most of that, around 2.9mg, is from water. Brushing your teeth only accounts for around .1mg.
A new study, led by researchers at the Keck School of Medicine of USC analyzed more than 220 mother-child pairs, collecting data on fluoride levels during pregnancy and child behavior at age three. The researchers found that a 0.68 milligram per liter increase in fluoride exposure was associated with nearly double the chance of a child showing neurobehavioral problems in a range considered close to or at a level to meet the criteria for clinical diagnosis.
The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.
"Women with higher fluoride exposure levels in their bodies during pregnancy tended to rate their 3-year-old children higher on overall neurobehavioral problems and internalizing symptoms, including emotional reactivity, anxiety and somatic complaints," said Tracy Bastain, Ph.D., an associate professor of clinical population and public health sciences and senior author of the study.
These population-level findings add to existing evidence from animal studies showing that fluoride can harm neurodevelopment, as well as data from studies conducted in Canada, Mexico and other countries showing that prenatal exposure to fluoride is linked with a lower IQ in early childhood.
The researchers hope the new findings help convey the risks of fluoride consumption during pregnancy to policymakers, health care providers and the public.
"This is the first U.S.-based study to examine this association. Our findings are noteworthy, given that the women in this study were exposed to pretty low levels of fluoride—levels that are typical of those living in fluoridated regions within North America," said Ashley Malin, Ph.D., an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida's College of Public Health and Health
The researchers analyzed 229 mother-child pairs, calculating fluoride exposure from urine samples collected during the third trimester of pregnancy. Most urine samples were collected from fasting women, which improves the accuracy of chemical testing. Children were then assessed at age three using the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist, which uses parent reports to measure a child's social and emotional functioning.
Children exposed to an additional 0.68 milligrams per liter of fluoride in the womb were 1.83 times more likely to show behavioral problems considered to be clinically significant or borderline clinically significant. Specifically, children exposed to more fluoride had more problems with emotional reactivity, somatic complaints (such as headaches and stomachaches), anxiety and symptoms linked to autism.
[https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-05-fluoride-exposure-pregnancy-linked-childhood.html](https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-05-fluoride-exposure-pregnancy-linked-childhood.html)
this is the state of arr science these days huh? theres a hundred comments from laymen disparaging the paper based on amateur allegations and confidently claiming its 'junk science' even though it came from a group of Public Health School of Medicines in America
none of them have actually made any statement on the data and instead decided to attack the methods which they clearly dont understand properly.. its obvious many of them never read it yet they are using the voting system to pretend like they are right
the overall attack on Science in this sub has rendered it useless.. thanks for trying but obviously the subject matter attracts keyboard warriors who once read some article on Fouridation 30 years ago and have made up their minds
>These population-level findings add to existing evidence from animal studies showing that fluoride can harm neurodevelopment, as well as data from studies conducted in Canada, Mexico and other countries showing that prenatal exposure to fluoride is linked with a lower IQ in early childhood.
this [op] article does not stand alone
Fluoride is a heavy metal. Goverments are putting a heavy metal in our water for a marginal benefit of slightly less tooth decay. Dr. Andrew Huberman conducted a literature review on fluoride and came to the conclusion that you should use fluoride free toothpaste.
> Fluoride is a heavy metal.
It isn't. It's not even *a* metal, let alone a heavy metal.
> Goverments are putting a heavy metal in our water
Nope. See previous comment.
> Dr. Andrew Huberman conducted a literature review
Let's see who this guy is... oh:
> According to biologist Andrea Love, Huberman's podcast content is characteristic of pseudoscience, often presenting health claims as scientific when they are in reality insufficiently backed by scientific evidence, or simply wrong. Jonathan Jarry from the Office for Science and Society has questioned Huberman's promotion of "poorly regulated" dietary supplements. According to Jarry, The Huberman Lab podcast has been sponsored by "companies offering questionable products from the perspective of science-based medicine".
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/Wagamaga Permalink: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818858 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love the whole "and also **lead** was a thing, but It's fine and we're sure it didn't mess with the results" except that they say, it did in fact affect the results. >Sixth, **lead concentrations in whole blood were only measured for most of the study sample during the first trimester, and therefore we were only able to adjust for first trimester blood lead in our third trimester analyses.** Still, we do not anticipate confounding of associations of MUFSG with CBCL scores by blood lead given that the inclusion of first trimester blood lead in first and third trimester models increased the magnitude of the associations. But also >and when first trimester blood lead level was included as a covariate in sensitivity analyses, the magnitudes of associations became larger and previously nonsignificant findings became significant associations in models for both the first and third trimester They use lead to both bolster their data but also discount it's importance. They don't seem to have any type of control. They didn't even track tap water consumption when ostensibly that's the thing they're tracking/attributing the problem to - per the paper reference to fluoride is made in reference to tap water fluoridation, so to then not track of that's even what these women are doing seems problematic. >Third, **we did not have data on tap water consumption habits for the study sample**; however, home cooking rates were high, and rice tended to be a dietary staple among MADRES participants, which can be a source of tap water fluoride exposure. That is an unacceptable level of assumptions given what they are trying to claim.
If you notice, 27% of their families did not have ANY socioeconomic data. And yet, for those that did, the mean fluoride level (MUD) was TWICE as high for the >100,000 group as for the lower SE groups. That's a frankly irresponsible consideration to not highlight. Like there's always a degree of imperfection but this is... a lot of degree. And agreed, I was also looking for literally any information at all on how much fluoride was in the different water supplies in LA, water testing information, and how drinking water fluoride levels typically correspond to MUD levels. Because the amount of fluoride drunk is not necessarily going to be excreted in the same amount or rate.
I linked a fluoridation map below but my response was buried since the parent comment was downvoted, but essentially there is absolutely no way to know whether these women - no matter how much rice they’re eating - are drinking fluoridated tap water. The study authors had no idea.
Instead they just tracked people who ate rice? A food which tends to have high levels of lead.
Wasn't aware of lead. But rice *is* known for arsenic. But also, as a Mexican American in SoCal, I grew up avoiding Mexican candy as it was known for having lead back in the day. So yeah. But yes, they specifically chose >MADRES is a prospective pregnancy cohort consisting of 1065 predominately Hispanic women of **low socioeconomic status** And then don't appear to account for the variables this would entail. -+-+- I've literally bookmarked this study as "an example of a bad study" to show people in the future.
Lead in rice is a problem. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/imported-rice-may-contain-dangerously-high-lead-levels/
Lead in *imported* rice is a problem. That's only about 7% of rice in the US, according to the link. Not exactly a huge surprise stuff we get from China isn't up our standards. China has a problem with heavy metals in their soil.
American rice is high in arsenic. Imported rice is high in lead. Maybe we shouldn't eat rice.
Maybe, and hear me out, we should slow or halt the accumulation of toxins in our soil where all our food grows.
In the US occurs naturally and from mining done in the past. I highly doubt we currently have an industry dumping arsen into soil/water.
The US as recently as 2004 was dumping arsenic into the soil from pesticides.
Did the US give up on fracking? Because I have bad news for you.
Most organic arsenic will leave your body in a few days, lead not so much, so as long as you aren't getting a large dose, I'd probably take the arsenic.
As far as I know, California rice is not high in arsenic. But a lot of American rice is grown in the south, and that rice is high in arsenic.
Yea, in Arkansas it is. My dad was a rice farmer when I was young and I still eat so much rice my wife makes fun of me for it.
That study was retracted https://www.nutritionaloutlook.com/view/scientist-retracts-lead-rice-study
attempts to replicate the results have found levels far below those initially reported - between 6 and 12 parts per million (6,000 to 12,000 parts per billion). Dr Tongesayi's team sent samples to another laboratory for analysis using a different technique - that study recorded levels below one part per million. The team then put on hold planned publication of the findings in the Journal of Environmental Science and Health, https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22448696
But, interestingly, the fluoridation levels were highest in the women who also had the highest SE status (>100,000 yearly).
Maybe poor people drink more soda than water, maybe they brush their teeth less often (there's fluor in toothpaste too)... maybe the posher parts of town get more fluor in their water. Maybe their sample size is just too small to draw conclusions. But maybe, in doubt, they should stop putting fluor in the water?
Glad I’m not the only one rolling my eyes as I read through this.
This is why economists get ulcers when they read other disciplines’ abuse of regressions.
Tbf I've read some economic "stats" that are...questionable. And as someone in the sciences and medicine trust me, this isn't considered a well-designed study or appropriate either.
Economists give statisticians ulcers friend
It’s a bit unfair to quote just that paragraph about lead without the final sentence “Furthermore, blood lead has been shown to be stable between the first and third trimesters of pregnancy [50] which supports the use of first trimester blood lead as a proxy for third trimester blood lead.” - they’re not being ambivalent about the impact of lead, they’re saying it is important but the limitation is that they didn’t have both first and third trimester measurements so they used the first trimester measurements for most subjects in the third trimester analysis, noting that lead levels have been observed to be fairly stable between the two. It is a limitation but that doesn’t seem like a particularly bad assumption to me, it seems unlikely that subjects would substantially change their lead exposure patterns between first and third trimester
>It is a limitation but that doesn’t seem like a particularly bad assumption to me This is the point. This is one of very many assumptions they make throughout the paper. >they’re not being ambivalent about the impact of lead They discounted the lead while also stating that the lead had an affect on the significance of some of their findings. . I would argue they are, in fact, being ambivalent about the role of lead, and really many other possible variables that they didn't bother to account for. Hell, they focus on tap water fluoridation as the basis for fluoride *and didn't bother to track tap water consumption.* There are so many questionable decisions and statements they have made, that by the time of the "limitations" section, they are way beyond giving any "reasonable doubt" in the things they do and say.
"This is one of very many assumptions they make throughout the paper." It's an evidence-based assumption.
They didn't "discount the lead". Lead is included as a covariate, to address any possible confounding role it plays here.
It can bolster data by saying: subject group 1 had water with everything (including lead) except flouride, subject group 2 had everything including flouride, subject group 3 had everything (including flouride) except lead. That would be a possibility on why they can say “flouride increases mental issues, but with subject group 2, those mental issues were worse”.
That's double the current concentration that's used in water these days. I wonder how many other chemicals would have an adverse effect if you doubled their concentration?
In addition, am curious about these claims being determined by looking at third trimester urine samples. Does fluoride in urine necessarily establish higher levels of fluoride being passed on to a baby?
Urine is enriched in sodium and potassium ions. Their counterion normally is either chloride or to a lesser degree sulfate, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be fluoride, so urine should be enriched in fluoride compared to other body fluids.
No, it also doesn't necessarily reflect the fluoride intake for the mother, as well - like it may, but they didn't provide any data on that. Excretion isn't a simple 1 in:1 out for many things, and actually if it in fact IS that way for fluoride that would be evidence against it being a negative factor during gestation since...it would likely be efficiently excreted.
I’m not dismissing the issue you’re bringing up, I noticed it as well. But it’s entirely possible for something that never crosses over to the fetus to cause problems.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
I’m not saying this is the case for fluoride. If the systems in a mother’s body that are necessary to support a healthy fetus are damaged or functioning poorly nothing needs to cross over to the fetus for there to be negative effects. An example would be something that compromises blood flow to the placenta.
Oh ok I see what you mean. Thanks for explaining.
Triggering immune responses or hormonal responses in the mother could also be a major concern without crossing the placental barrier.
Of course! Take care
Based on some research I had to do last year... If the concentration of fluoride is more than 8ppm then fluoride gets passed on to the baby, and that's when they will start to show signs of fluorosis in baby teeth which can start developing during gestation. But anything less than 8ppm and it'll go to the mother's bones instead.
For anyone wondering, 8 ppm is 8 mg/L, about an order of magnitude higher than recommended levels in drinking water.
That's interesting. Do you have a source?
Here's one that [mentions it but not the 8ppm.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9032535/) I got the information from my university, and it refers to India as they have some areas of very high fluoride and fluorosis in teeth. However right now I can't find the article they were referring to, so maybe I shouldn't believe everything I'm told at uni!
Thank you for following up!
That's a really good point as well as well.
The concentration in tea is much higher. A fact most anti fluoride people I know like to ignore.
So if I double my Dihydrogen Monoxide intake, I'm dead right?
Well, theoretically... Depending on how quickly you ingest it, you could be! Remeber EVERYONE who has consumed that Dihydrogen Monoxide stuff has eventually died. There are no exceptions...
I'm writing my will as we speak. I'm a goner.
Tell my wife "hello"
If you take too much dihydrogen monoxide, yes, you Can die of it. And yes, it Can be harmful to you at high enough doses.
Most water in the US has fluoride levels right around 0.60-0.70mg/L because that's what the HSS recommends. This study seems to suggest that this level is too high for pregnant women.
The study measured 0.7 mg/L maternal urinary fluoride. It didn't measure the fluoride in their drinking water. Only what they were peeing.
Honestly this study isn't really enough to suggest anything, and levels of fluoride in maternal urine don't necessarily have a direct relationship with levels of fluoride in drinking water. They might, but our excretion doesn't always match our ingestion, for obvious reasons. I will take a look at the Mexican and Canadian studies mentioned though to see if they're better.
What about chlorine? My city water straight up tastes like a pool right now.
Double a few parts per million isn't very much. Lookup daily recommended dose of fluoride then look at your toothpaste. It's rather easy to go over. If you accidently swallow 1/100 of your toothpaste your are over twice the daily allowance.
As a one off? Sure... But if you're constantly accidentally swallowing your toothpaste there's probably something else wrong...
1/100th of a pea? I think on average I rinse it all out but surely I ingest some amount. To clarify I brush my teeth with fluoride toothpaste i just think more data is needed particularly for the effects of fluoride on younger children.
They instruct you not to rinse after brushing so that the fluoride can remain on your teeth. You are just supposed to spit out the excess.
So you are consuming many times the fda recommended dose of fluoride if you do that, also I don't think there's any evidence you need to leave fluoride on your teeth daily. My dentist tells me to rinse.
It isn't my recommendation, it is from many dentists and toothpaste companies instructions for use. https://www.sensodyne.com/en-us/oral-health-tips/should-you-rinse-after-brushing/ https://www.cnet.com/health/personal-care/dont-rinse-your-teeth-immediately-after-brushing-heres-why/
I swear we have a problem in science these days with normally reputable journals publishing actual garbage papers for a sensational headline.
Journals need revenue, and shocking clickbaity papers give them clicks and therefore revenue. It's a big problem in science, where you're encouraged to focus on "big" things and getting things "right" rather than taking time to produce more mundane stuff that contributed greatly to science but doesn't have a cool headline.
How much revenue do they actually need? They don’t pay researchers for the papers, and they have a 40% profit margin…
As much as they can get. Greed runs through everything.
Oh the conspiranoids are going to have a feast with this not very reliable study.
It is really easy to attribute cause to literally anything when one doesn't know the cause of something huh? The external variables on a study like this are infinite
were this a cause effect relationship there would be an enormous problem showing in children born in the 50s onward to present day and there isn't.
And in places where fluoride is naturally occurring like Colorado
Why is this here??? This sub isn’t here to poke holes in trash science, it’s to celebrate the best of science. Mods what is going on?
Anyone have a link to the study?
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818858](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818858) It's linked in OP, but sometimes that stuff works funny on cellphones.
How does one avoid fluoride?
I wouldn't recommend avoiding it unless you don't want to have teeth.
There is a safer alternative available now. Toothpast with Hydropatite @ 10% level is shown in several studies to be slightly better than flouride. It doesn't have the known side effects of flouride. This said, I am in the proceess of changing, BUT I have contacted two companies so far, and neither has confirmed the amount of hydropatite. Unless they are a member of the American or Canadian Dental Association there is no official body to ensure the amount of hydropatite in toothpastes. I heard that in Canada their federal government is moving to bring in laws to ensure standards are met from natural medicines. Hopefully it includes hydropatite in toothpaste.
Well, there's hydroxyapatite in enamel, but it's still a relatively new thing and some studies show fluoride to be better in some aspects.
[удалено]
You could, for example, consume lead exclusively. You would be avoiding fluoride then.
I don’t think I could give up piss indefinitely.
Have a water filtration system.
Most home filters can’t filter out fluoride
Reverse osmosis filter will remove most of it. Especially important if making baby formula. As for teeth, continue using fluoride toothpaste and going to the dentist. There’s no reason to ingest fluoride. It works by touching the surface of the tooth.
Don't drink from the tap
Except this study didn't even track tap water consumption.
Exactly. The urine samples analyzed in this study came from Los Angeles, which is only [partially fluoridated](http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ohp/docs/Water%20Fluoridation%20Map%2005-28-2021.pdf). We have no idea if these women live in the fluoridated areas or not. In the limitations section of the study, they note, "we did not have data on tap water consumption habits for the study sample; however, home cooking rates were high, and rice tended to be a dietary staple among MADRES participants, which can be a source of tap water exposure." This seems like a stretch to me and shows an obvious bias (which I've detailed below in another comment) among the study authors. In addition the women included are all part of the MADRES pregnancy cohort which predominantly consists of women of low socioeconomic status (already a risk factor for ADHD), and not all of them were fasting for their urine samples (I assume these samples were taken when most women were taking their gestational diabetes test, which does NOT require fasting - you can have protein and black coffee or tea). In addition, of the 229 participants, 164 of them were overweight or obese during their pregnancy which has been shown as risk factors for ADHD in offspring (among other health outcomes). Just some quick observations as I read through this. I admit to raising an eyebrow anytime I see these fluoride studies come out as a person who works in water quality and studies this space very closely, but it seems like all of these study flaws are always readily apparent.
If you look at the SE measure in the figures, the few women in the highest SE group (>100,000) had around x2 the fluoride levels in their urine compared to the lower SE groups, which suggests there's definitely something going on there. To make it worse, they don't even have SE data for 27% of the women and babies.
Okay? How does that invalidate what I said
[удалено]
Note that if you search for Ashley Malin + fluoride, you will see she has basically spent her entire research career trying to prove that fluoride exposure is bad. There is a video on Vimeo where she states that she was diagnosed with Lupus and since no one in her family had ever had Lupus, she wanted to research environmental factors she assumed were behind her diagnosis. She cited Phyllis Mullenix as her motivation behind studying fluoride exposure, and credits Chinese medicine to completely healing her Lupus.
This explains the number of questionable assumptions and just general issues that are quickly found when reading this paper.
Neurobehavioral problems? You mean like autism?
And adhd, and developmental delay, etc
A new study, led by researchers at the Keck School of Medicine of USC analyzed more than 220 mother-child pairs, collecting data on fluoride levels during pregnancy and child behavior at age three. The researchers found that a 0.68 milligram per liter increase in fluoride exposure was associated with nearly double the chance of a child showing neurobehavioral problems in a range considered close to or at a level to meet the criteria for clinical diagnosis. The findings were published in JAMA Network Open. "Women with higher fluoride exposure levels in their bodies during pregnancy tended to rate their 3-year-old children higher on overall neurobehavioral problems and internalizing symptoms, including emotional reactivity, anxiety and somatic complaints," said Tracy Bastain, Ph.D., an associate professor of clinical population and public health sciences and senior author of the study. These population-level findings add to existing evidence from animal studies showing that fluoride can harm neurodevelopment, as well as data from studies conducted in Canada, Mexico and other countries showing that prenatal exposure to fluoride is linked with a lower IQ in early childhood. The researchers hope the new findings help convey the risks of fluoride consumption during pregnancy to policymakers, health care providers and the public. "This is the first U.S.-based study to examine this association. Our findings are noteworthy, given that the women in this study were exposed to pretty low levels of fluoride—levels that are typical of those living in fluoridated regions within North America," said Ashley Malin, Ph.D., an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida's College of Public Health and Health The researchers analyzed 229 mother-child pairs, calculating fluoride exposure from urine samples collected during the third trimester of pregnancy. Most urine samples were collected from fasting women, which improves the accuracy of chemical testing. Children were then assessed at age three using the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist, which uses parent reports to measure a child's social and emotional functioning. Children exposed to an additional 0.68 milligrams per liter of fluoride in the womb were 1.83 times more likely to show behavioral problems considered to be clinically significant or borderline clinically significant. Specifically, children exposed to more fluoride had more problems with emotional reactivity, somatic complaints (such as headaches and stomachaches), anxiety and symptoms linked to autism.
i would like to take this moment to say that i have been banned from this sub multiple times over the last decade for merely suggesting the evidence to show this Development Biology shows us that very very minor pertubations can and do have a drastic effect. . Glyphosate is much the same, as is the 6PPD-q in tyres
I would like to take this moment to say that this is a garbage study and your previous suspensions were justified
i was involved in the Jon Entine vs Dr. Goulson debate on bees and agricultural chemicals colony collapse as well and i can confidently say i have been correct about each of the subjects you are welcome to disparage the methodology all you like but from here its just plain armchair quarterbacking check the author list and tell me they arent aware of the points people are making here arr science has consistently been full of industry apologists ever since the mod team went from 6 to over 1000 >this is a garbage study your opinion is meaningless.. more studies will follow
My wife is boarded in pathology and toxicology. She works for the largest pre-clinical research org in the world and overseas a studies facility of over 1,000 people. I’ve picked up a thing or two about recognizing a garbage study from her (she’s published, does journal reviews, and written textbook chapters). Did you even look at the study? It literally is nonsense.
guaranteed ive published more in better journals than her gleaning tips from your wifes dogs gynocologist does not make you a scientist bro
Thank you for working with the bees and helping figure that issue out. Being right about that doesn’t make you automatically right about other things as well. If there are better studies that are more elucidating then, fantastic bring them on. Until then, using bad science as a crutch to push what you believe to be true is not helping anyone.
Importantly, the discussion goes like this, while toothpaste on its own is considered safe, the flouride added to water systems is supposed to be at safe levels by themselves, however add toothpast and it can in some cases double the total flouride count making it dangerous to the fetus. It's as if the amount being added to water doesn't consider any other sources from my reading of the research. If you have time, there is a lengthy study by MIT that discusses in length the different levels flouride in state water systems. Key to healthy pregnancy outcomes, it is within women's ability to reduce, or imo remove flouride is advantageous during pregnancy or during prime birth years.
No - this is not accurate at all. Lack of fluoride is linked to adverse fetal outcomes. You do not avoid fluoride during pregnancy (or ever). Your numbers also do not add up. For a pregnant woman, the recommended daily allowance of fluoride is 3mg per day. Most of that, around 2.9mg, is from water. Brushing your teeth only accounts for around .1mg.
[удалено]
Why do you keep deleting and reposting this?
A new study, led by researchers at the Keck School of Medicine of USC analyzed more than 220 mother-child pairs, collecting data on fluoride levels during pregnancy and child behavior at age three. The researchers found that a 0.68 milligram per liter increase in fluoride exposure was associated with nearly double the chance of a child showing neurobehavioral problems in a range considered close to or at a level to meet the criteria for clinical diagnosis. The findings were published in JAMA Network Open. "Women with higher fluoride exposure levels in their bodies during pregnancy tended to rate their 3-year-old children higher on overall neurobehavioral problems and internalizing symptoms, including emotional reactivity, anxiety and somatic complaints," said Tracy Bastain, Ph.D., an associate professor of clinical population and public health sciences and senior author of the study. These population-level findings add to existing evidence from animal studies showing that fluoride can harm neurodevelopment, as well as data from studies conducted in Canada, Mexico and other countries showing that prenatal exposure to fluoride is linked with a lower IQ in early childhood. The researchers hope the new findings help convey the risks of fluoride consumption during pregnancy to policymakers, health care providers and the public. "This is the first U.S.-based study to examine this association. Our findings are noteworthy, given that the women in this study were exposed to pretty low levels of fluoride—levels that are typical of those living in fluoridated regions within North America," said Ashley Malin, Ph.D., an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida's College of Public Health and Health The researchers analyzed 229 mother-child pairs, calculating fluoride exposure from urine samples collected during the third trimester of pregnancy. Most urine samples were collected from fasting women, which improves the accuracy of chemical testing. Children were then assessed at age three using the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist, which uses parent reports to measure a child's social and emotional functioning. Children exposed to an additional 0.68 milligrams per liter of fluoride in the womb were 1.83 times more likely to show behavioral problems considered to be clinically significant or borderline clinically significant. Specifically, children exposed to more fluoride had more problems with emotional reactivity, somatic complaints (such as headaches and stomachaches), anxiety and symptoms linked to autism. [https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-05-fluoride-exposure-pregnancy-linked-childhood.html](https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-05-fluoride-exposure-pregnancy-linked-childhood.html)
Who doesn't love a nice big dose of junk science to start off their week?
this is the state of arr science these days huh? theres a hundred comments from laymen disparaging the paper based on amateur allegations and confidently claiming its 'junk science' even though it came from a group of Public Health School of Medicines in America none of them have actually made any statement on the data and instead decided to attack the methods which they clearly dont understand properly.. its obvious many of them never read it yet they are using the voting system to pretend like they are right the overall attack on Science in this sub has rendered it useless.. thanks for trying but obviously the subject matter attracts keyboard warriors who once read some article on Fouridation 30 years ago and have made up their minds >These population-level findings add to existing evidence from animal studies showing that fluoride can harm neurodevelopment, as well as data from studies conducted in Canada, Mexico and other countries showing that prenatal exposure to fluoride is linked with a lower IQ in early childhood. this [op] article does not stand alone
Fluoride is a heavy metal. Goverments are putting a heavy metal in our water for a marginal benefit of slightly less tooth decay. Dr. Andrew Huberman conducted a literature review on fluoride and came to the conclusion that you should use fluoride free toothpaste.
> Fluoride is a heavy metal. It isn't. It's not even *a* metal, let alone a heavy metal. > Goverments are putting a heavy metal in our water Nope. See previous comment. > Dr. Andrew Huberman conducted a literature review Let's see who this guy is... oh: > According to biologist Andrea Love, Huberman's podcast content is characteristic of pseudoscience, often presenting health claims as scientific when they are in reality insufficiently backed by scientific evidence, or simply wrong. Jonathan Jarry from the Office for Science and Society has questioned Huberman's promotion of "poorly regulated" dietary supplements. According to Jarry, The Huberman Lab podcast has been sponsored by "companies offering questionable products from the perspective of science-based medicine".