Talk:Fluorine deficiency

message: Fluorine has not been authoritatively shown to be an essential nutrient in the human diet (see my comments and linkage on the Essential Nutrient - Talk page).  Therefore, a condition of "fluorine deficiency" cannot be shown either.  This entry not only too short but IMO errondeous.   Dus7 06:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree that this article should be deleted altogether.  I found it educational: no such thing as deficiency.  Great!  The quote above would be more informative in the article than on the Talk page (and if I knew anything about editing WP I'd do it).  Suggest redirect to subsection of Fluoride if necessary. Bmael (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fluorine

message: Emphasizing and interpreting "may", when it is simply used by the source, seems like original research. A source analyzing the NIH's use of the word 'may' would have been needed to support the sentences added. I support the way it looks now. II | (t - c) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand how it might seem like OR, but I don't think it qualifies AFAIK. Anyways, I'm fine with the look now thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm not satisfied. Now the Merck source is understated. Thus my motivation to tease apart the contradictory (one source with the position it exists to another that states it only may exist) references with this edit ... Can we overcome hesitation over the appearance of OR? It seems like there would be a way to still be good editors and point out this significant difference between these two foundational sources to highlight the ambiguity of the very existence of this article in the first place. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Merck source is unreferenced. Regardless of its reputation for reliability, it's not as high-quality as the two recent, high-quality reviews of fluoride and fluoridation currently used. These state that there is a minimal, and perhaps exaggerated, systemic effect for fluoride in the prevention of tooth decay, and they are emphasized above the Merk source, as they should be. II | (t - c) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and 'may' 

message: This article on fluorine deficiency, as well as that of fluoridation, lacks scientific thought and should be seriously questioned. 
Repeating dated and unconfirmed research is a sign that an argument lacks evidence. Comparisons to iodide deficiency are melodramatic and inappropriate. No actual evidence that fluoride deficiency exists is presented, nor are any cases cited.
In fact, more recent research indicates that there is much greater financial motivation for deliberate fluoridation of water than there is health benefits. The industries benefiting from fluoridation should be examined, and the health claims should certainly be re-evaluated in light of more recent research.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.235.31 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there Reliable Sources to back up your claims? Phearson (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have trouble with the concept of this article.  But there is so much hysteria and ignorance about fluoride, that many articles have been created to cope with this hysteria and ignorance.  I am pretty sure chloride is required for life.  I would be surprised that fluoride competes with iodide in the thyroid, that sounds like the kind of pseudoscience propagated by the virulent antifluoride crowd.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the tips.  This is not really the place for us to discuss our knowledge as much to review content.  I will say that the radii of F- and I- differ greatly, and if there were a problem, then one might expect chloride to be a problem.  If you find a WP:MEDRS article on F- interfering with I- uptake under physiological conditions,  that would be relevant.  The usual anion that interferes with iodide is perchlorate, at least that what I have heard.  If you find articles on this F vs I topic, that don't make the strict MEDRS standard, then send the ref to my talk page.   --Smokefoot (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS QUESTIONABLE 

message: To be scientific, determining a fluorine "deficiency" in anyone would require medical lab work on the individual.  Do they determine a deficiency with analysis of blood, urine, bone, fingernails, hair, or what?  How often is this analysis done in a given population and by whom?  You can't determine a deficiency by counting cavities unless your intention is to be deceptive, or unscientific.  Let's look at Singapore for instance.  Singapore has been 100% fluoridated since 1956 yet 40% of their preschoolers suffer from severe dental caries.  Would it be scientific to claim they aren't getting enough fluoride from their water without doing some kind of lab work on the population?  Physicians can determine iron levels, Vitamin D levels, cholesterol levels, etc.  By not mentioning lab work that can be done on an individual to determine fluoride levels, you are omitting science and the scientific method.  Is this your intent?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting a change to the article? TippyGoomba (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

text: That's nice. Maybe I can comb your hair while you get ready to tell us about it? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you explain what lab work is used to determine a fluoride deficiency? 

message: As fluoride is not a nutrient there is no such thing as fluoride deficiency. This entry cites the ICD codes for "mineral deficiency" not for fluoride deficiency.  SharonNY (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In looking over the article, editing it seems a waste of time. It's full of false information and was most likely created by either someone with a mistaken POV or is a piece of astroturf. Fluoride has been entirely or largely abandoned for treatment of osteoporosis since although it increases bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, it does not result in a reduction in vertebral fractures and worsens the symptoms of arthritis and causes gastrointestinal side effects, again without any positive effect on the vertebral fracture rate. Additionally, longitudinal studies of fluoride ingestion by dental researchers at the Iowa Fluoride Study (IFS) have repeatedly found that "ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries prevention" (Warren 2003) and " findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake,”  (Warren 2009). Moreover, the 2000 York and 2015 Cochrane reviews of fluoridation literature have found them to be low quality with conclusions not supported by the evidence. Thesis consistent with the study evaluating the data from a large US study of 39k US children that found no difference in decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated regions. (Water Fluoridation & Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-1987 National Survey of U.S. Children. John A. Yiamouyiannis. Fluoride. Vol 23. No 2. April 1990.: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/232/files/FJ1990_v23_n2_p055-067.pdf) So the only question is how does one go about properly deleting a false article? Seabreezes1 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no ICD code for fluoride deficiency  

message: The United States and European Union both recognize fluoride as an essential nutrient. However, neither felt that there was sufficient information to identify an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) or Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), so instead designated as "Adequate Intake." This is in effect a placeholder designation - based primarily on what people actually consume via food and beverages (including water). In time, the expectation is that nutrients 'graduate' to having EARs and RDAs. An example, is vitamin D, which went from AI in 1997 to EAR and RDA in 2010. Both groups also set a fluoride UL, which is the upper limit for safety, above which adverse effects may occur. The difference between recommended and too much is not large, but this is not unique. For vitamin D, older adults are advised to consume at least 20 ug but less than 100 ug. For calcium, older adults are advised to consume at least 1300 mg/day but less than 2000 mg/day. David notMD (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Dietary recommendations as section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fluorine deficiency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019174633/http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/nutoverview.pdf to http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/nutoverview.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is full of mistakes and misinformation. 
In 2012 and 2013, the European Food Safety Authority in consideration of dietary reference values (DRV) wrote “Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified,” and “Overall, there was a lack of high quality evidence upon which DRVs may potentially be based for fluoride.” http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/283e.pdf and hhttps://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3332
 
The 1997 IOM did not set a RDA. They determined that although fluoride was not a nutrient in the traditional sense, that based on claims of dental benefit from ingestion with no adverse effects, they would include an ADEQUATE INTAKE (AI) and UPPER LIMIT (UL). https://www.nap.edu/read/11537/chapter/35 
However, in 1999 and 2001, even the CDC admitted that any benefit was primarily and predominantly topical after teeth erupted. They wrote, “Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth..." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm
The IOM will not revisit their AI and UL as it seems to be a political process that requires an appropriate government sponsor. 
Even the pro-fluoride Iowa Fluoride Study researchers wrote in 2009 that, “These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.” http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19054310
I suggest this article be replaced with a short statement of fact per above, and locked down to prevent malicious promotion of disinformation.  
Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Having recently studied the effects of fluoride on biological life in depth, I was shocked to find that this wiki not only exists, but is filled with patently false information. This article is doing far more harm than good in its current state. I've added a factual accuracy dispute template for now. 99.240.76.148 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate information 

message: Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Someone please delete this shameful page. We have enough real problems that we don't need to invent fictional ones. 2600:4040:501E:B100:972:B9DB:31DB:E354 (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluoride deficiency does not exist, and this page is an insult to science.