Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: aruanan; TomB
Hi guys - I know I'd sure enjoy seeing your input on this thread, now deteriorating into an antifluoride thread. You're so much better at it than I am. Can't let some of this stuff go unchallenged, though. [/evil grin]
40 posted on 04/14/2003 9:23:15 PM PDT by Spyder (Just another day in Paradise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Spyder
Well, it's known that plaques in the brains of Alzheimers victims have higher than expected levels of aluminum. That is beyond dispute. The question is how the aluminum got there and whether it was a cause of or a consequence of the disease. It was this presence of aluminum in brain plaque that set off the frenzy of avoidance of aluminum cookware and of using deodorant with aluminum chlorhydrate. There's no correlation between the use of aluminum cookware or aluminum chlorhydrate in deodorant and the development of Alzheimers disease. The open question was still where the aluminum was coming from if not from these sources and whether it was the cause or an effect of the disease. It's known that aluminum inhibits the action of the serine protease plasmin. This protease promotes the alpha-cleavage of an amyloid beta precursor. The idea is that failure to cleave the precursor leads to a buildup of amyloid beta and the formation of plaque. This study seems to support the idea that a particular form of aluminum is responsible for the presence of the aluminum in the brain plaques and that it is cytotoxic. That a geographic region has both increased levels of monomeric aluminum as well as elevated incidence of Alzheimers disease would suggest a causal or contributary role for monomeric aluminum rather than one of attendant circumstance.

Of course, if people living in that area for some reason are more prone to decreased renal function with age, then they could show increased levels of aluminum-induced accumulation and toxicity. It's believed that entry of aluminum to the brain from blood "may involve transferrin-receptor mediated endocytosis and a more rapid process transporting small molecular weight Al species."* It's known that aluminum increases iron-induced oxidative damage. This damage could mediate the aluminum's neurotoxicity. Since it's not known exactly what's going on but that aluminum is neurotoxic, it's prudent to avoid a high intake of aluminum. On the other hand, compared with the ambiguity of studies relating the presence of dietary aluminum and the onset of Alzheimers, the protective effect of aspirin and alcohol against Alzheimers is huge. In other words, taking or not taking a daily aspirin or a regular dosage of ethanol will have a much greater effect on someone developing Alzheimers than whether or not he eats bacon fried in an aluminum pan or drinks Coke from an aluminum can.

As far as wacko comments about fluoride, it's funny that folks who won't believe studies that don't support the conclusion they want will use other studies to support a conclusion arrived at by a rejection of the scientific method. They're cherry pickers. It's impossible to carry on rational discourse with them because they've rejected the basis for it: entertaining the possibility that they could be wrong and subjecting themselves to a means that lies outside wishful thinking that could correct mistaken ideas.


*The toxicology of aluminum in the brain: a review. Yokel RA.Neurotoxicology 2000 Oct;21(5):813-28.
53 posted on 04/15/2003 1:31:14 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: Spyder
Hi Spyder.

The only thing I have to add, as I do in EVERY thread that mentions fluoride, is that in many areas of the country Fluoride is NATURALLY OCCURRING in concentrations many times what is put into municipal water supplies.

These areas have had high fluoride levels FOREVER, so if there were a relationship between fluoride and alzheimer's, those communities would show a marked increase in cases. And of course, we don't see that (or any other malady, for that matter).

Not being able to prove a negative, that is about as conclusive as proof can get.

57 posted on 04/15/2003 8:26:21 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson