Intelligent Drug and Supplement Info
by Cy Willson
Extended Cycles for Big Gains
Q: I'd like to do a longer mass cycle of 4-AD-EC, maybe up to six weeks. Is that okay? How much should I take per day and what should I take when coming off? Thanks for any advice!
A: Its perfectly fine to use 4-AD-EC for prolonged periods of time. As for how much to take, stick with 100 mg/day of the new 4-AD-EC.
As for what to take when coming off, you really dont have to take much simply because 4-AD is one of the least suppressive androgens available. However, it certainly wouldnt hurt to use Alpha Male after such a cycle.
I go over this topic in detail in my previous article, The Never Ending Cycle. Keep in mind, however, that the 4-AD-EC formulation back then differs from what's currently available. Therefore, youll see that I previously recommended 100-200 mg/day, whereas 100 mg/day should be sufficient now. Also, Bill Roberts recommendation of taking the androgen early in the AM is also not a bad idea.
'Roids From Doctors
Q: Are those Testosterone gels and patches doctors give out any good for bodybuilding purposes?
A: Well, yes and no. Specifically, a given amount of Androgel can be used with an aromatase inhibitor or an estrogen antagonist in a post cycle protocol, which Ive described in a previous Cy-BORG column. On the other hand, if you're using such formulations in order to gain muscle mass, it wont be a very effective approach simply because they arent providing enough exogenous Testosterone to where a eugonadal (normal) man would see much in terms of gains.
This isnt to say you wouldnt see any benefit whatsoever, but compared to using 500 mg of Testosterone enanthate or cypionate per week, the results will be dismal.
A Shot of Energy?
Q: I know some boxers that get regular B12 shots for "energy." Is that really helpful in fighting fatigue?
A: Unless the boxers you know are vegetarians, have a GI disease, or have had a gastrectomy and dont supplement with a multivitamin/mineral supplement, then there's little point in getting such injections. In other words, unless youre deficient, taking large amounts of B12 isnt going to "give you more energy."
On the other hand, supplementing with oral vitamin B12, in amounts that are found in a multivitamin, may afford a cardioprotective effect via a reduction in homocysteine. Folate and Vitamin B6 also have similar benefits.
So, while the bioavailability of parenterally administered (injected) B12 is obviously much higher than that taken orally, we actually need very small amounts. If youre still convinced that B12 injections work wonders for you, be my guest, but Ive yet to see any data supporting the idea that vitamin B12 injections have any benefit in terms of fatigue in humans that arent deficient to begin with.
This is again one of the many cases where people will look at the clinical symptoms of a given vitamin or mineral deficiency and then conclude that "if a deficiency results in a given effect, then an excess will not only reverse it, but cause just the opposite." In this case, people see that lack of vitamin B12 results in weakness, fatigue, memory loss, etc., so they assume an excess will allow for improved strength, energy and cognition. Wrong.
While I certainly do wish things were that simple, the sad fact is that they're not. While the next argument may be that people dont get enough vitamin B12 in their diets, its thought we only really need around 1 mcg/day. The average diet supplies that and quite a bit more, especially if you consume a lot of meat and obviously even greater if you take a multivitamin. (1-4)
In short, skip the shots.
Drug Me, Cy-BORG!
Q: I'm looking for a new stimulant. Ephedra is all but gone and caffeine doesn't do the trick anymore. Any relatively safe new drugs out there to jack me up before a workout?
A: There arent any new compounds on the market which Id consider to fit those categories of "safe, new and stimulatory." However, you may want to give pseudoephedrine a try. While its not as potent of an agonist at the beta 1 and beta 2-adrenergic receptors, as compared to ephedrine, it still has enough potency to provide at least somewhat of a stimulatory effect.
Taking approximately 30-60 mg of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride along with 100-200 mg of caffeine may be sufficient for some people. Some may require up to 120 mg or more of pseudoephedrine but as with any drug, its always best (in terms of avoiding side effects) to start at a lower dosage and increase it until the desired effect is reached.
As a side note, a smaller percentage of the pseudoephedrine will be metabolized to norpseudoephedrine, which may possess some amphetamine-like activity. In fact, this may very likely have been the alkaloid responsible for many of ephedra products near amphetamine-like activity. (5-6)
I should also remind you that Biotests Power Drive, while not a stimulant in the traditional sense, works very well in getting you mentally revved up for a workout.
Fish or Flax or Neither?
Q: Now I'm really confused. Should I use fish or flax oil? Some say that flax can have estrogenic side effects, but then I read where fish may be contaminated. Help!
A: Well, technically speaking, even flax seed could be toxic in terms of cyanogenic glycosides (linamarin, linustatin, neolinustatin), especially in the mucilage, forming hydrocyanic acid as a metabolite. Realistically however, there has never been any such toxicity observed in the literature. I just wanted to say that to make a point that many things can be construed as "toxic" but Ill go on a rant about that later.
Anyhow, while its true that the flax lignans (or rather their metabolites) may have some estrogenic activity, its a bit less clear as far as how estrogenic they are and which receptor subtype (alpha or beta) is affected to a greater extent. Some data demonstrates that they're weak agonists at both subtypes, while some indicate no activity at all or an antagonistic effect.
From the available data, I dont think its much of an issue simply because most of the data suggests weak agonistic activity, if at all, at the ER-alpha, the subtype more commonly associated with the unwanted side effects of estrogens. The same cant be said for some of the isoflavones found in soy.
However, I personally stick to using fish oil simply because it contains the active metabolites DHA and EPA, which is why we use products like flax seed oil in the first place.
On the other hand, I realize that some people are worried about mercury contamination. I personally dont think this is that big of an issue with many brands out there, particularly those that are more concentrated in terms of DHA/EPA. In other words, and this is purely my opinion, the more DHA and EPA per equivocal serving size amongst various products, the better.
There's also data out there demonstrating that when five brands were tested, the one with the highest concentration (even when taking six capsules at a time) only represented approximately 2.1% of the mercury consumed each day by the average American. This isnt to say that all brands are reflected by the five tested, but I think its safe to say that the potential dangers of fish consumption arent as prevalent when it comes to taking fish oil.
For those of you who are highly paranoid and dont trust scientific data like I do, perhaps try consuming flax oil for three months followed by fish oil for three months and repeating. (8-12)
Toothpaste Will Kill You! (And the Sky is Falling too!)
Q: Is fluoride safe? I keep hearing some people say that fluoride can damage the immune system and the musculoskeletal system, kill cells, damage genes and negatively affect the thyroid. Any truth to this, or are these folks being Chicken Littles?
A: Well, most toxicologists will laugh when people say such things. The fact is that just about anything can be toxic depending on the dose. This is where toxicologists use a dose-response curve.
In other words, at a certain relatively low dose, there may be no toxicity seen. At a higher dose, a small amount of toxicity may ensue and so forth until you reach a dose that causes death or a maximum amount of toxicity in the given tissue/organ or whatever's being evaluated.
Anyhow, I love to see peoples faces when I inform them that not only can too much of various OTC (over the counter) drugs like caffeine and aspirin kill you, but technically speaking, so can water or even oxygen. Obviously, toxicity isn't seen at the lowest end of the dose-response curve for water and oxygen, but rather it sustains our lives.
Moving on, fluoride is toxic, but again, just about any compound can be considered acutely or chronically toxic, depending on the dose received. The same can be said for any trace element or even more specifically, other halogens like (gasp) chlorine, which is also in your tap water.
Now, as far as the various "conspiracy theory" websites and the people who actually regurgitate what they read on these websites, I honestly dont know where to start. For one, I hear people say, "Well, dude, they have like references and stuff!" But if you actually stopped to look, youd see that many of the references are merely statements from people and other conspiracy theory books. Many include their own interpretations for the reader and are either idiotic misconceptions or downright lies. And the few actual scientific references available dont demonstrate one thing to a trained individual.
I love seeing these websites cite a reference that, for example, notes that a small percentage of the rats used in the study developed cancer, yet they forget to note that the control group, which received no fluoride, had a similar occurrence!
Let me give you an example of why thats so ridiculous. Lets say you have a drug given to one group and a placebo to another. The group receiving the drug experiences a side effect, but at no greater level of occurrence statistically significant from the placebo group. Lets say this side effect is nausea. What they're doing on such websites is akin to stating the active drug in our pretend study caused nausea, and neglecting to mention the placebo group experienced the same thing.
Or, even better, they cite a reference in which the authors own conclusions are "There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride in male or female mice receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or 175 ppm in drinking water for two years." Or how about, "Results from this study indicate that NaF is not carcinogenic in Sprague-Dawley rats." Or even better yet, lets cite a study with 130 children that had osteosarcoma, even though the actual study concluded that lifetime exposure to fluoride wasn't associated with the cancer and, in fact, seemed to have a protective effect in males. Yet these people use this as "proof" that fluoride is evil. Are they stupid or being deliberately deceitful?
In every one of the references involving humans and toxicity, they carefully leave out various wording and insinuate that these were average people, next door neighbors if you will, who walked in after experiencing fluoride toxicity. That way, it leaves you as the reader thinking, "Im probably experiencing toxicity and I dont even know it."
They even cite studies demonstrating "cytotoxicity in human leukemia cells" and hope people interpret that as being bad and that its truly toxic if it can destroy cancerous cells! Well, just to give you an example of how ridiculous that sort of reasoning is, you should understand that those beneficial flavones found in fruits and veggies exert the same cytotoxic effects via the same mechanisms. So in essence, dont eat too many fruits and veggies either!
Finally, anti-fluoride folks take data with a given concentration of fluoride in rats and hope that people dont stop to think about how extrapolation of a given dosage from a rodent to a human truly isnt accurate. It really is ridiculous.
Ill be the first to tell you that fluoride is toxic, at a given dose. Just to give you an example, sodium fluoride can interfere with calcium metabolism and enzymatic function, in addition to decreasing tissue respiration, oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production in muscle. It also can lower plasma calcium concentrations and can therefore act as an anticoagulant.
Guess what else can interfere with the function of enzymes necessary for respiration, electron transport, and ATP synthesis? Guess what can cause fibrin deposition, edema, alveolar hemorrhage, inflammation, nausea, dizziness and eventually, pulmonary edema and death? Oxygen! So again, I hope Im driving home the point of the dose-response curve for any future toxicologists.
Now, in terms of chronic toxicity, the National Academy of Sciences has reported that 20-80 mg/day or higher over prolonged periods of time is required. In terms of dental fluorosis, it may occur in those drinking tap water at concentrations of 4 mg/l or greater over a prolonged period of time, but again, the optimal level which is typically followed is only 1 mg/l. The US dietary reference intake for fluoride is 4 mg/day and 3 mg/day for men and women respectively, in order to prevent tooth decay. The tolerable upper level intake is 10 mg/day for adults.
As for skeletal fluorosis, it requires intake of 10 to 25 milligrams of flouride/day for 10 to 20 years for such an effect. There have also been statements made that fluoridated water contributes to osteoporosis and bone fractures when, in fact, fluoride is used to treat osteoporosis. In terms of bone fractures, a 20 year study evaluating women found that exposure to fluoridated water didnt increase the risk of fracture and may have had a protective effect.
As far as cancer goes, the vast majority of human epidemiology has concluded that fluoride isn't carcinogenic and studies have failed to establish a link between fluoride and cancer.
Last I checked, the American Dental Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, American Pharmaceutical Association, American Society of Dentistry for Children, Mayo Clinic, National Academy of Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Health Council, U.S. Public Health Service Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and National Institute of Health all endorse fluoridation.
Also, keep in mind that all water which is exposed to rocks and soil has some level of naturally occurring fluoride. Many of the foods and drinks you eat have fluoride as well. For instance, one cup of tea may contain 1-4 mg of fluoride and some mineral waters have been shown to contain up to 8.5 mg/liter.
Dont get me wrong; I'm not saying you won't experience negative effects if you spend your entire life consuming tons of fluoridated water, tea, soft drinks, and enjoy eating toothpaste while watching the big game. There may be repercussions, especially in the area of dental fluorosis, and maybe some mild side effects if calcium consumption is low. But I think the likelihood of that is rather low. If youre really worried, or in my opinion, unjustly paranoid, consume some milk or calcium carbonate (Tums) as that may help to bind some of the fluoride anion.
Just to demonstrate how the relative, acute toxicity isnt that great, keep in mind that out of 475 people who accidentally ingested < or = 8 mg/kg, 392 were able to be treated at home by simply drinking milk. Other cation-based antacids could be used as well (i.e., magnesium and aluminum). If it'll make you feel better, get a filter, drink distilled water, or drink water thats been through reverse osmosis like I do.
Also, just so I dont seem close-minded, Im open to review any data people may have to convince me otherwise, but the preponderance of data indicates this isn't an issue for the average American. However, to clarify, "data" isn't a statement from someone, a website, or someones conspiracy theory book. So no unsupported statements from quack doctors, okay?
Just some general advice, people who openly believe such things should take a closer look at the person making the claims. Does he have any vested interest? Is he looking for financial gain? Many of these people follow the same pattern: they try to convince you that everyone else has it wrong and that youre slowly but surely killing yourself. But, this can all be changed if you buy his book or supplements (or whatever) and youll soon be on the right track.
Remember Coral Calcium? I mean honestly, which is going to make your book, supplement or magazine a bestseller? Simply presenting all of the data and coming to an overall conclusion that supports what's currently thought by the majority of the scientific community? No, to sell a lot of books, you need to go completely against what the preponderance of data supports and present a small amount of "data" in a convoluted way and create hysteria.
Something else you should ask yourself is whether the person you're listening to has any sort of ties to various organizations. Yes, believe it or not, there are financially motivated people out there! Whats even worse is that often times, as time goes on, these people actually begin to believe in their own arguments. (13-67)
Summary: Go brush your teeth; fluoride won't hurt you.
The Scoop on Letrazole
Q: Have you learned anything new lately about letrazole?
A: While its not really "new" there is something that many people dont know in terms of just how potent letrozole is when it comes to suppressing estradiol formation and increasing LH. All too often, Ill see various "experts" on these steroid-related message boards espousing high dosages of letrozole each day. And all too often, people who listen to them end up suffering from symptoms of subphysiological estradiol levels.
Anyhow, with that in mind, a single, 20 microgram dose in healthy males decreases estrone by 70% as compared to baseline and estradiol 30% after 24 hours. Keep in mind that the normal dose is 2.5 mg!
Whats more interesting is that it took approximately five to six days for estrone and estradiol to return to baseline values. Furthermore, it also increased endogenous Testosterone production by 150% as compared to baseline at 48 and 72 hours and was still elevated above baseline three weeks later.
Again, this is after just one dose of 20 micrograms! Pretty cool! Furthermore, LH just barely returned to baseline before the three-week range. Just to throw in some additional info, 100 mcg decreased estrone and estradiol by about 70% and 50% after 24 hours respectively. Estrone still hadnt returned to baseline values after three weeks while estradiol returned to baseline after about a week.
Testosterone increased by approximately 150% and didnt return to baseline by three weeks while LH was still elevated at three weeks. For those who look closer, there are some underlying mechanisms for such effects which have yet to be elucidated.
In any event, its interesting data, which above all should reveal to you the high potency of this aromatase inhibitor. Last, for those who I can already hear saying, "But dude, they werent taking Testosterone so this data cant be applied 'n stuff," lets dig out our biochemical knowledge from our memory bank.
With letrozole, were inhibiting a great portion of the small amount of enzyme (aromatase) we have in the first place and what enzyme is left is essentially saturated with endogenous substrate (Testosterone) and thus, adding in more substrate will do little to increase estrogen levels, if at all. (7)
1. Gilman AG, Rall TW, Nies AS et al (eds): Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 8th edition. Permagon Press, New York, NY, 1990.
2. Sullivan LW: Vitamin B12 metabolism and megaloblastic anemia. Semin Hematol 1970; 7(1):6-22.
3. Garcia A, Paris-Pombo A, Evans L et al: Is low-dose oral cobalamin enough to normalize cobalamin function in older people? J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50:1402-1404.
4. Department of Drugs: AMA Drug Evaluations Subscription. American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, 1991.
5. Vansal SS, Feller DR. "Direct effects of ephedrine isomers on human beta-adrenergic receptor subtypes." Biochem Pharmacol. 1999 Sep 1;58(5):807-10.
6. Delbeke FT, Debackere M. "The influence of diuretics on the excretion and metabolism of doping agents: Part VI. Pseudoephedrine." Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1991 Jan-Feb;12(1):37-48.
7. Trunet PF, et al. "Open dose-finding study of a new potent and selective nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor, CGS 20 267, in healthy male subjects." J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993 Aug;77(2):319-23.
8. Saarinen NM, et al. "Hydroxymatairesinol, a novel enterolactone precursor with antitumor properties from coniferous tree (Picea abies)." Nutr Cancer. 2000;36(2):207-16.
9. Bisset NG & Wichtl M (eds): Lini semen. Herbal Drugs and Phytopharmaceuticals: A Handbook for Practice on a Scientific Basis. Medpharm Scientific Publishers, CRC Press, Stuttgart, Germany, 1994; pp 298-300.
10. Wang LQ. "Mammalian phytoestrogens: enterodiol and enterolactone." J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2002 Sep 25;777(1-2):289-309.
11. Mueller SO, Simon S, Chae K, Metzler M, Korach KS. "Phytoestrogens and their human metabolites show distinct agonistic and antagonistic properties on estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) and ERbeta in human cells." Toxicol Sci. 2004 Jul;80(1):14-25. Epub 2004 Apr 14.
12. Foran SE, Flood JG, Lewandrowski KB. "Measurement of mercury levels in concentrated over-the-counter fish oil preparations: is fish oil healthier than fish?" Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003 Dec;127(12):1603-5.
13. Hirano S, Ando M. Apoptotic cell death following exposure to fluoride in rat alveolar macrophages. Arch Toxicol 1996;70(3-4):249-51.
14. Anuradha CD, Kanno S, Hirano S. Fluoride induces apoptosis by caspase-3 activation in human leukemia HL-60 cells. Arch Toxicol 2000 Jul;74(4-5):226-30
15. Shen SC, Ko CH, Tseng SW, Tsai SH, Chen YC. "Structurally related antitumor effects of flavanones in vitro and in vivo: involvement of caspase 3 activation, p21 gene expression, and reactive oxygen species production." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004 Jun 1;197(2):84-95.
16. Chen YC, et al. "Flavone inhibition of tumor growth via apoptosis in vitro and in vivo." Int J Oncol. 2004 Sep;25(3):661-70.
17. Heifetz SB & Horowitz HS: The amounts of fluoride in self-administered dental products: safety considerations for children. Pediatrics 1986; 77:876-882.
18. Grandjean P: Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121:57-64.
19. Machle W & Barnes DP: Ind Med Surg 1966; 35:603.
20. CDC: Public health service report on fluoride benefits and risks. CDC: MMWR 1991; 40:2-6.
21. Augenstein WL, Spoerke DG, & Kulig KW: Fluoride ingestion in children: a review of 87 cases. Pediatrics 1991; 88:907-912.
22. Pak CY, Sakhaee K, Adams-Huet B et al: Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with slow-release sodium fluoride. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123:401-408.
23. Rich C & Ivanovich P: Response to sodium fluoride in severe primary osteoporosis. Ann Intern Med 1965; 63:1069.
24. Riggs BL, Hodgson SF, O'Fallion WM et al: Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in post-menopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 1990; 322:802-809.
25. Baselt RC: Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man, 5th ed, Chemical Toxicology Institute, Foster City, CA, 2000.
26. Phipps KR, Orwoll ES, & Mason JD: Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density, and fractures: prospective study of effects in older women. BMJ 2000; 321:860-864.
27. Spoerke DG, Bennet DL, & Gullekson DJK: Toxicity related to acute low dose sodium fluoride ingestion. J Family Prac 1980; 1:139-140.
28. Kiss E: Determination of inorganic fluoride with a fluoride ion-specific electrode. Clin Chem 1987; 33:253-255.
29. McIvor ME, Cummings CE, & Mower MM: Sudden cardiac death from acute fluoride intoxication: the role of potassium. Ann Emerg Med 1987; 16:777-781.
30. Gelberg KH, Fitzgerald EF, & Hwang SA: Fluoride exposure and childhood osteosarcoma - a case-control study. Am J Public Health 1995; 85:1678-1683.
31. ACGIH: Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices, 6th ed, Am Conference of Govt Ind Hyg, Inc, Cincinnati, OH, 1992, pp 657-659.
32. DHHS: Fluoridation of Water and Cancer: A Review of Epidemiological Evidence, Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS). Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, UK, 1985.
33. WHO. Fluorides and oral health: report of a WHO expert committee on oral health status and fluoride use. WHO Tech Rep Ser 846 1994.
34. Clemmesen J. The alleged association between artificial fluoridation of water supplies and cancer: a review. Bull WHO 1983; 61: 871-83.
35. Public Health Service report on fluoride benefits and risks. JAMA 1991; 266: 1061-2, 1066-7.
36. Bucher JR, Hejtmancik MR, & Toft JD II: Results and conclusions of the National Toxicology Program's rodent carcinogenicity studies with sodium fluoride. Internat J Cancer 1991; 48:733-737.
37. National Research Council; August 16, 1993; Report of the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, Committee on Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences; The Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride; National Academy Press; Washington, D.C.
38. Maurer JK, et al. "Two-year carcinogenicity study of sodium fluoride in rats." J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990 Jul 4;82(13):1118-26.
39. Fullerton SA, Samadi AA, Tortorelis DG et al: Induction of apoptosis in human prostatic cancer cells with beta-glucan (Maitake mushroom polysaccharide). Mol Urol 2000; 4(1):7-13.
40. National Toxicology Program. "NTP Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride (CAS No. 7681-49-4)in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies)." Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 1990 Dec;393:1-448.
41. Levi S, Zilberman L, & Frumin A: Exposure to fluoride in the chemical industry. Am J Ind Med 1986; 9:153-158.
42. Nowak A & Nowak MV: Fluoride concentration of bottled and processed waters. Iowa Dent J 1989; 75:28.
43. Flaitz CM, Hill EM, & Hicks MJ: A survey of bottled water usage by pediatric dental patients: implications for dental health. Quintessence Internat 1989; 20:847-852.
44. Stannard J, Rovero J, & Tsamtsouris A: Fluoride content of some bottled waters and recommendation for fluoride supplementation. J Pedodontics 1990; 14:103-107.
45. Wiatrowski E, Kramer L, & Osis D: Dietary fluoride intake of infants. Pediatrics 1975; 55:517-522.
46. Singer L & Ophaug R: Total fluoride intake of infants. Pediatrics 1979; 63:460-466.
47. Johnson J Jr & Bawden JW: The fluoride content of infant formulas available in 1985. Pediatr Dent 1987; 9:33-37.
48. McKnight-Hanes MC, Leverett DH, & Adair SM: Fluoride content of infant formulas: soy-based formulas as a potential factor in dental fluorosis. Pediatr Dent 1988; 10:189-194.
49. Clovis J & Hargreaves JA: Fluoride intake from beverage consumption. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1988; 16:11-15.
50. Smid JR & Kruger BJ: The fluoride content of some teas available in Australia. Aust Dent J 1985; 30:25-28.
51. Richmond V: Thirty years of fluoridation: a review. Am J Clin Nutr 1985; 41:129-138.
52. Lantz O, Jouvin MH, & De Vernejoul MC: Fluoride-induced chronic renal failure. Am J Kidney Dis 1987; 10:136-139.
53. Clancy C: Electrocardiographic Principles (Chapter 9). In: Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies, 7th ed. Editors: Goldfrank LR, Flomenbaum NE, Lewin NA, et al, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2002, pp 119-129.
54. Monsour PA, Kruger BJ, & Petrie A: Acute fluoride poisoning after ingestion of sodium fluoride tablets. Med J Aust 1984; 141:503-505.
55. Eichler HG, Lenz K, & Fuhrmann M: Accidental ingestion of NaF tablets by children. Report of a poison control center and one case. Internat J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1982; 20:334-338.
56. Gessner BD, Beller M, & Middaugh JP: Acute fluoride poisoning from a public water system. N Engl J Med 1994; 330:95-99.
57. Swanson L, Filandrinos DT, & Shevlin JM: Death from accidental ingestion of an ammonium and sodium bifluoride glass etching compound (Abstract). Vet Human Toxicol 1993; 35:351.
58. Glenn FB, Glenn WD, & Duncan RC: Fluoride tablet supplementation during pregnancy for caries immunity: a study of the offspring produced. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 141:560-564.
59. Knox EG: Community Med (Bristol) 1980; 2:190-194.
60. Erickson J: J Am Dent Assoc 1976; 93:981-984.
61. Hodge HC & Macgregor JT: Adv Perinat Med 1982; 2:1-46.
62. IARC: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Inorganic Fluorides, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1982, pp 341.
63. ACGIH: 2003 Threshold Limit Values (TLVs(R)) for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs(R)), American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, OH, 2003.
64. IARC: List of all agents, mixtures and exposures evaluated to date - IARC Monographs Overall Evaluations of Carcinogenicity to Humans Volumes 1-82, 1972-PRESENT. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lyon, France.
65. Slamenova D, Ruppova K, Gabelova A, Wsolova L. "Evaluation of mutagenic and cytotoxic effects of sodium fluoride on mammalian cells influenced by an acid environment." Cell Biol Toxicol. 1996 Feb;12(1):11-7.
66. Slamenova D, Gabelova A, Ruppova K. "Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity testing of sodium fluoride on Chinese hamster V79 cells and human EUE cells." Mutat Res. 1992 May 16;279(2):109-15.
67. Li Y, Dunipace AJ, Stookey GK. "Absence of mutagenic and antimutagenic activities of fluoride in Ames salmonella assays." Mutat Res. 1987 Apr;190(4):229-36.
© 1998 — 2004 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights Reserved.