The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
from controlled animals our findings therefore demonstrate that a fluoride-free diet encouraged pineal site proliferation in the pineal gland gland growth in aged animals and fluoride treatment inhibited gland growth these findings suggest that dietary fluoride may be detrimental to the pineal gland
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
this was eight weeks of a fluoride free diet now they don't exactly they may say in the paper how much fluoride was in the diets of these animals too but they at least had fluoride free water so very compelling if you're a rat if you're not a rat i think the question still remains
at four weeks the pineal glands from fluoride free animals showed a 96 increase in supporting cell numbers and then eight weeks a seventy three percent increase in the number of pineal sites
Furthermore, there are also studies in animals showing that limitation of fluoride increases the growth of pineal sites, the actual cells of the pineal gland.
There are multiple studies in animal models correlating higher levels of fluoride in the pineal gland with higher levels of calcification of the pineal gland and lower pineal gland function.