Fluoride

[Ruby]

Because my parents shared the same diet and dental hygiene practices. The only difference was they didn't get fluoride when they were young.?

There would have been many generational differences between your diet and dental hygiene and those of your parents when they were growing up.

Because good diet and dental hygiene alone were not enough to prevent tooth decay in previous generations that grew up without fluoride.?

But they were, and they are. My own family is proof. Apart from my children, I had many contempories when I was growing up who had excellent teeth - no fluoride!

 

[Whiskers]

Because my parents shared the same diet and dental hygiene practices. The only difference was they didn't get fluoride when they were young.

If fluoride was the only difference, then the obvious conclusion is that they either had some mitigating circumstance like disease, diet or hygene. To deduce that a your father, a doctor cannot maintain good dental hygene without fluoride is very poor analyitical judgement for the reason I will discuss further below.

Because good diet and dental hygiene alone were not enough to prevent tooth decay in previous generations that grew up without fluoride.

That is an extremely extraudinary staatement! So, from that logic nobody would have had a full head of teeth for very long before Flouride tablets, fluoride tooth paste and fluoridation was introduced. That's absolute nonsense!

Even today, I could take you to parts of the world that have never even heard of fluoride, don't have it occuring naturally, but have very good teeth. The main thing they also don't have is a high sugar western diet.

Whiskers, when the right conclusion stares you in the face, why go looking for ways to try and prove it wrong?

Essentially, if you jump to what seems to be any aparently 'right' conclusion just because it seems to stare you in the face, without objectively analysing the facts, you will live in ignorant bliss never knowing you were wrong.

The scientific termonology is 'Subjective' decision making.

Do you use any Decision Matrix models in any of your decision making?

 

[Ferret]

There would have been many generational differences between your diet and dental hygiene and those of your parents when they were growing up.

Yes, there were a lot more sugary foods and drinks around for my generation!

But they were, and they are. My own family is proof. Apart from my children, I had many contempories when I was growing up who had excellent teeth - no fluoride!

Your family had no fluoride? I bet they have been brushing their teeth with a toothpaste containing fluoride. Something not available to earlier generations.

I’m sure there are many examples of people who have not had fluoride but have healthy teeth. I don’t believe fluoride is essential to avoiding tooth decay, but I do believe it helps. Similarly, I don't believe fluoride will prevent cavities in someone with a terrible diet and poor dental hygiene, but again I believe it will help.

In my case I believe the benefits of fluoride are clear. There is no reason why a connection must be wrong, just because it is simple.

 

[Ruby]

Your family had no fluoride? I bet they have been brushing their teeth with a toothpaste containing fluoride. Something not available to earlier generations..

No, strange as it apparently is to you, we did not use fluoridated toothpaste. Up until about 10 years ago I was able to source an unfluoridated supply. So, yes, cavity free teeth, all without fluoride!!!

 

[OzWaveGuy]

PR Hits the mark

Looking at some of the comments in this thread, I can only add that the propaganda campaign driven in the early days of fluoride indoctrination has worked very well and continues to work today - on those that must believe authority figures are always right because "I feel ok"

Unfortunately such beliefs or mindsets are hard to change even when sufficient evidence exists - even if it's from those very same authoritative figures.

It's the same story with vaccines (not that I want to go off topic), some are lethal to certain types of patients. One only has to search the National Vaccine Information Center Database in the US to see the effects of vaccines (mainly on young children).

Sorry, but the "I'm feeling fine, so it must ok" is a weak and useless argument that I have heard more from alcoholics.

 

[Ferret]

If fluoride was the only difference, then the obvious conclusion is that they either had some mitigating circumstance like disease, diet or hygene.

Where is the logic in this? The obvious conclusion is that the fluoride was the difference.

That is an extremely extraudinary staatement! So, from that logic nobody would have had a full head of teeth for very long before Flouride tablets, fluoride tooth paste and fluoridation was introduced. That's absolute nonsense!

Even today, I could take you to parts of the world that have never even heard of fluoride, don't have it occuring naturally, but have very good teeth. The main thing they also don't have is a high sugar western diet.

Please see my reply to Ruby. I haven't said that fluoride is essential for preventing cavities. Some people will have no decay without fluoride and fluoride is not a magic bullet preventing all tooth decay. But I am convinced it is a benefit.

Essentially, if you jump to what seems to be any aparently 'right' conclusion just because it seems to stare you in the face, without objectively analysing the facts, you will live in ignorant bliss never knowing you were wrong.

Whiskers, all you have come up with are maybes to dispute my conclusion and I have answered each one of them. You're welcome to your own view, but you haven't come up with an analysis of the facts I gave that proves me wrong.

 

[Whiskers]

Where is the logic in this? The obvious conclusion is that the fluoride was the difference.

I think you misunderstand.

If your father was a doctor and he had good hygene and diet why did he have tooth decay?

You surely can't accept just because he didn't have fluoride. You have already acknowledged "Some people will have no decay without fluoride and fluoride is not a magic bullet preventing all tooth decay."

So unless he didn't practice good hygene and diet, there must be some other reason why he had tooth decay, such as some sort of disease that affected his metabolism.

 

[Ferret]

Whiskers,

I don't know why he had tooth decay. I know he had good hygiene and diet and did not have any diagnosed disease. A genetic disposition to tooth decay would seem most likely.

 

[medicowallet]

medicowallet, can you eloberate here?

Are you referring to fluoridation or fluoride generally?

Also, have you missed my earlier query?

Do I really need to elaborate?

Is it not obvious what I mean in the context?

God, next thing you will all be arguing is that we should not use oxygen in anaesthetics as it is toxic.

Looking at the evidence in context is where I think the conspiracy theorists lack competence.

 

[medicowallet]

Re: PR Hits the mark

Unfortunately such beliefs or mindsets are hard to change even when sufficient evidence exists - even if it's from those very same authoritative figures.

What evidence?

... waits for link to conspiracy theorists site.

Come on, accept the challenge none of you can answer

SHOW ME A STUDY PROVING THAT THE COSTS OF FLUORIDE TREATMENT OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS

oh, you won't?

why not?

come on, post up some sensationalised propaganda from the conspiracy files, shown on some shock "news" tv station from the US.

 

[Whiskers]

+

Do I really need to elaborate?

Is it not obvious what I mean in the context?

No... because they are two very distinct and different processes... unless you don't see any difference between topical and ingested fluoride.

God, next thing you will all be arguing is that we should not use oxygen in anaesthetics as it is toxic.

No I wouldn't. Why should I?

But Oxygen toxicity is a recognised medical condition. Are you saying that there is no circumstance where fluoride can be toxic?

 

[medicowallet]

+

No... because they are two very distinct and different processes... unless you don't see any difference between topical and ingested fluoride.



No I wouldn't. Why should I?

But Oxygen toxicity is a recognised medical condition. Are you saying that there is no circumstance where fluoride can be toxic?

sigh

1. If you read my posts, and the studies that I refer to, then you would know, without a doubt what I was referring to.

2. If you truly think that I do not understand that fluoride can be toxic, then you surely did not read into the sarcasm of the post.

 

[Whiskers]

sigh

1. If you read my posts, and the studies that I refer to, then you would know, without a doubt what I was referring to.

2. If you truly think that I do not understand that fluoride can be toxic, then you surely did not read into the sarcasm of the post.

But you seem to have a lot of trouble admitting the toxic issues, let alone discussing them if only for the benifit of those who have alergic reactions to certain chemicals such as Fluoride... not to mention a responsible attitude to the use of it and respect for it's misuse.

Also you wouldn't want to give the wrong impression to any young kids that may be watching that fluoride is the panacea of tooth decay... would you?

I find your attitude unlikely that of a responsible medical professianal, certainly not one of the caliber that I see... just another blow hard advocate of all things fluoride.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

There is a Pommy Antique show on Austar where everyone who appears on it has bad teeth, presenters, contestants, auctioneers.

They even had a dog on it one night who had crook teeth.

Is this because Pommies don't have fluoride, or that they don't brush their teeth, or that they have free dentists who are no good?

gg

 

[Whiskers]

There is a Pommy Antique show on Austar where everyone who appears on it has bad teeth, presenters, contestants, auctioneers.

They even had a dog on it one night who had crook teeth.

Is this because Pommies don't have fluoride, or that they don't brush their teeth, or that they have free dentists who are no good?

gg

Lol... reminds me of 'antique' Steptoe (and Son).

 

[Julia]

Whiskers,

I don't know why he had tooth decay. I know he had good hygiene and diet and did not have any diagnosed disease. A genetic disposition to tooth decay would seem most likely.

Finally we have a sensible statement here.. Why do some people develop coronary artery disease, despite never being overweight, eating the good foods, exercising etc, while others who transgress every known advice, never have any problem?

Our genes, fergawdsake.

My main argument in this debate is not whether fluoride in the water is beneficial or not, or whether it causes potentially very damaging side effects, but rather simply the assault on our personal freedom to choose for ourselves.

I simply cannot see why those who want to ingest fluoride cannot do so by taking fluoride on an individual basis, thus leaving the water supply (something which is absolutely basic to our survival) free of the stuff for those of us who do not want to take it. Just exactly what is unreasonable or unfair about such an approach?

And it's not reasonable for those advocating the use of fluoride to say that those who don't want it must adopt the additional cost and responsibility of seeking another source of water than that which we all pay for. Why should people have to instal rainwater tanks or expensive filters to counteract some unnecessary additive to their basic water supply?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I sense desperation from some posters in the discredited argument for S6 poison in the water, Sockpuppet?

 

[medicowallet]

But you seem to have a lot of trouble admitting the toxic issues, let alone discussing them if only for the benifit of those who have alergic reactions to certain chemicals such as Fluoride... not to mention a responsible attitude to the use of it and respect for it's misuse.

Also you wouldn't want to give the wrong impression to any young kids that may be watching that fluoride is the panacea of tooth decay... would you?

I find your attitude unlikely that of a responsible medical professianal, certainly not one of the caliber that I see... just another blow hard advocate of all things fluoride.

lol.

Look, sometimes it is better to attack the person rather than provide evidence. I can see why you do not want to provide evidence, because there is none.

I love the S6 poison rubbish too. You can sell the community short with naive narrow minded uses of therapeutic agents. I'm sure if you had it your way, there would be no use for (in the old terminology) S4 or S8 medicines as well, since most are toxic if used incorrectly as well.

As a response to the professionalism of my approach:

It is much more professional to support proven, undisputed public health initiatives where the benefit of the program clearly outweighs the cost, than to burden our young ones with propaganda and hyperbole.

I have also provided the youth with links to two peer reviewed journal articles to help them determine who is correct for themselves.

and as usual NOBODY CAN PROVIDE PEER REVIEWED, PUBLISHED EVIDENCE THAT THE COSTS OF FLUORIDE OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS TO THE POPULATION and until anyone of you conspiracy theorists can, anyone with any reason or education in the matter will see through your arguments.

 

[IFocus]

Whiskers;619935]Thanks for sharing IFocus... and yes that was a typical anecdotal observation/report of the time and even now. But as a dentist, correct me if I'm wrong, he was not particularly qualified to notice any other health side effects from in this case indiscriminate fluoride dosage and diet... not to mention severe lack of medical and dental support in remote aboriginal areas to offsett the adverse effects of our (western) foods high in sugar and now recognised often low in nutrition that they were introduced too by us.

Cant comment on any side effects but would imagine there is plenty of scope that there could be for some people.

I never had fluoride and have a head full of fillings kids had fluoride not one filling

 

[medicowallet]

My main argument in this debate is not whether fluoride in the water is beneficial or not, or whether it causes potentially very damaging side effects, but rather simply the assault on our personal freedom to choose for ourselves.

I simply cannot see why those who want to ingest fluoride cannot do so by taking fluoride on an individual basis, thus leaving the water supply (something which is absolutely basic to our survival) free of the stuff for those of us who do not want to take it. Just exactly what is unreasonable or unfair about such an approach?

And it's not reasonable for those advocating the use of fluoride to say that those who don't want it must adopt the additional cost and responsibility of seeking another source of water than that which we all pay for. Why should people have to instal rainwater tanks or expensive filters to counteract some unnecessary additive to their basic water supply?

Julia,

A quick google scholar search will provide the evidence you need.

As for why? It is obviously known that as a public health initiative, benefits outweigh costs.

It is also an option for people to not have to drink fluoridated water, and on the other hand, why should I have to pay extra for other peoples cardiac and dental care etc ?