An article regarding the false health claims made by Pete Evans.
Thank you to Paleo Pete to trying to make people aware of the dangers of fluoride and sun gazing. There are two websites showing scientific evidence that fluoride does affect our health (long term) if people like to take the time to do the research. I have had lymphoma and been told by doctors not to swim in pools, (because of the chemicals), not to wash my hands with anything that has petrol or any other substitute. Yet I am forced to shower and bathe in water with fluoride in it because I can’t afford to place a reverse osmosis filter in the bathroom.
Sooo two websites (not mentioned) and one celebrity chef with 0 medical qualifications think Fluoride is bad. Every professional medical and dentistry body thinks Fluoride is good at the tap water dose. Who to believe?
By the way, the chemical you refer to in pools is known as ‘Chlorine.’ It’s addition in tap water stops us dying from millions of waterborne bacteria. The more you know
Sorry to hear that you have Lymphoma.
Actually, there are many, many websites which show that the absence of flouride in drinking water has adverse effects. There are longitudinal studies which point to poor dental health where flouride is absent compared to proximal communities with flouride. You will of course realize that poor dental health often leads to other health issues too.
If you look at the research, as opposed to social media websites from people trying to sell stuff, there is no evidence of a linkage between Lymphoma and chemicals. There is general advide to stay away from weed and insect killers due to the lowered immunity you may have. There is also some small increase in the incidence of Lymphoma in occupations which have heavy & prolonged use of these chemicals. There appears to be a greater risk from breast implants.
You are no doubt aware of Lymphoma Australia resources. They claim to be “the only national charity dedicated to Lymphoma”. You could contact them and get some factual information instead of relying on unqualified people who have products that they want to sell.
Hope you get better.
Yes, there is scientific evidence that at higher levels, fluoride can result in adverse health effects. These levels or concentrations are far greater than that used in water fluoridation.
Fluoride is no different to almost any other compound or chemical, at high concentrations they can cause health impacts, but at low concentrations they are safe.
The following factsheet provides a very balanced and objective information on fluroide intake from water fluoridation., as it a good resource based on scientific evidence.
This advice applies to anyone. Continuous petrol skin contact has risks…from additives or the hydrocarbons themselves.
Or the dermatitis that you will get because it strips all the oil off your skin and the local irritation it produces.
I would say ‘don’t bath in petrol’ applies to us all.
Others have dealt with the fluoride issue so I won’t repeat that.
Pete is actually in favour of sun gazing not making us aware of its dangers.
I wonder if we could crowd fund a study to determine if sun gazing causes loss of IQ in celebrity chefs who sell snake oil.
And it is also addressed in detail in this thread as well:
The trouble is we don’t know how much arsenic is in other foods.
EG> This is a copy of the contamenents that are included in the fluoride.
“Are there trace contaminants in fluoride compounds? Trace contaminants or impurities (such as heavy metals) occur in fluoridation compounds typically at low levels. The NSW Code of Practice for Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies stipulates that any impurities in the fluoridation compound shall not result in non-compliance with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. Fluoride compounds are diluted with drinking water many thousand-fold to achieve 1 mg/L of fluoride1. To ensure that heavy metals are kept to a very low level in drinking water a maximum % by weight in lead equivalent is specified in the Code. The Code also advises that regular full chemical analysis of fluoridating compounds should be obtained by the water supply authority from the manufacturer. This testing should include assessment for levels of heavy metals.Is fluoridated water monitored for the presence of trace contaminants? Through the NSW Health Drinking Water Monitoring Program, all public water utilities monitor the chemical quality of water to ensure compliance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The chemical qualities of public water supply systems in NSW, which receive fluoridation, are monitored on a monthly basis. This includes tests, for example lead, arsenic and cadmium.What are the results of chemical testing of drinking water? In 2012 calendar year there were 1669 chemical analyses of water performed and reported to NSW Health from fluoridated and non-fluoridated supplies in regional NSW. Three illustrative results for heavy metals follow. For arsenic the guideline value is 0.01 mg/L, the average level found was 0.0009 mg/L, results ranged from 0.0005 to 0.0070 mg/L and all results were below the Australian Drinking Water guideline level. The guideline level for mercury is 0.001 mg/L, the average level found was 0.0001 mg/L, results ranged from 0.00005 to 0.0003 mg/L and all results were below the guideline value. For lead the guideline value is 0.01 mg/L, the average level found was 0.0012, the results ranged from 0.0005 to 0.0570 and there were five exceptions above the guideline level. Exceptions above the guideline value for lead occasionally occur and often relate to plumbing materials containing trace amounts of lead and samples taken without flushing.” Only last week it was found, in America, that the amount of contaminents as well as fluoride, which they say included arsenic, was detrimental to the ability for children to learn.
This is a final finding of the American research and court hearing.
What did you conclude from this?
Could I have a link to that please - context matters.
This is the American website where the whole court case has been recorded.
Your posts were off topic where you posted them. They seem to fit here, where you posted regarding the claims made back in February.
Help me out here. I looked at several articles on that URL but couldn’t link it to your extract. Which one is it?
This is slightly off topic but it does explain how I feel about Pete Evans own practices.
The vast majority of scientific research can be twisted to a different meaning by taking a few lines out of context. A hypothesis can be presented as a finding, the independent variables can be excluded, one adverse finding can be taken from 99 safe findings.
As such I struggle to take websites like the one you listed seriously. They’ve presented an apparent finding and as @syncretic mentioned it’s not clear where they got that conclusion from despite them linking articles they claim support them.
If you wish to make a claim, might I suggest linking the DIRECT study you have obtained it from, preferably with a page or excerpt number.
Looking at the information on the posted URL…and the poorly mapped website…it appears the US courts haven’t found anything yet. The latest update suggest the hearing should be happening about now, via video due to COVID -19…so as they say, the jury is out.
Fluoridation has served dental health well.
I was surprised when looking for household water filtration just how prominently some products that aim to remove fluoride are promoted.
The product promotions offer supposed benefits well beyond fluoride removal.
One very expensive filtration product offers:
The Infra-Red filter can activate water molecules in our body, warming and eliminating fats, chemicals and toxins from our blood and thus smoothening the flow of blood.
Is this illustration relating to the IR Filtration of water ‘puffery’ or should like claims be disallowed in product promotion? Snake oil is too kind a description.
Another typical example of professionally produced marketing for a one filter does all solution,
Paleo Pete is not alone in misleading product placement. Should consumers expect the marketing of products using claims that are subjective and dubious to be more effectively regulated? At least where the marketing promotes poor health outcomes.
I saw his interview a few weeks back and was taken by his smugness as much as anything he said. He kept re-iterating he was open minded but always went back to his conspiracy theories. It was as if ‘I know there are enough fools to believe me and it helps my bad-boy income and thus is good’.
This was a Canadian study which has been widely criticised. For balance, here are what some experts/academics in the field have said about the released paper.
It appears while anti-fluoride groups hang their hats on the Canadian study as proof, it appears that the peg holding the hat is not all that strong or is rubbery.