Fluoride

[medicowallet]

To Medicowallet and Billyb,

Please go to page 18 of this thread and watch the videos in post number #350. I have posted a video called "FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace" (which is broken up into 9 parts)

There are Professors, Doctors, people who have Masters degrees and so forth in human anatomy that appear in this video. Are they all "brain washed" or "conspiracy theorists" or "crackpots"? I guess you can only try to show people so much and they must decide for themselves.
Look, if you want to drink a industrial waste product (Incitec Pivot - Geelong plant, fertilizer waste product) that is "beneficial for your teeth", go for it. I don't and l don't have that choice without spending something in the order of around $1000. If countries like Norway, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, France, Austria, Netherlands, Japan DO NOT fluoridate their water and have the same rates of tooth decay, can you please explain to me what the benefit of drinking fluoridated water is??

Medicowallet and Billyb, can you please show me evidence that Fluoridated water has actually helped prevent tooth decay?? It's time for YOU to provide ME with evidence!

I have already addressed the flawed graph.

And the "documentary" written by a 25 year old boy who has no qualifications in the field.

I also know many professionals (professors in anatomy and dentistry) who love their fluoridated water and brush at least 3 times daily. Guess they are just crackpots eh? Either that or they actually look at the evidence in their field.

I have also posted peer reviewed journals showing tooth decay prevention effects, and also links to the WHO fluoride statement showing tooth decay presentation.

Where are your published conspiracy theory results?

 

[DB008]

I have already addressed the flawed graph.

And the "documentary" written by a 25 year old boy who has no qualifications in the field.

I also know many professionals (professors in anatomy and dentistry) who love their fluoridated water and brush at least 3 times daily. Guess they are just crackpots eh? Either that or they actually look at the evidence in their field.

I have also posted peer reviewed journals showing tooth decay prevention effects, and also links to the WHO fluoride statement showing tooth decay presentation.

Where are your published conspiracy theory results?

....

When the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) nominated water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century, it published a graph (see Figure 1), which showed the reduction of cavities in US children coupled with the increase in water systems that have been fluoridated since the 1960's. The CDC referred to the graph with the statement:

figure 1

"as a result [of water fluoridation], dental caries declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th century."

However, what the CDC failed to mention is that similar declines in tooth decay have occurred in virtually every western country, most of which do not fluoridate water (see Figure 2).


1) CDC....What....You have access to better data,references, graphs, than the CDC...LOL



2) Doesn't matter who did [came up with the idea for] the doco. It's the 'references' in the doco that matter. So a 12 year old is smarter than someone with a Doctorate/Masters etc etc..LOL. Can you really see someone with a Doctorate/Masters really putting their reputation on the line for BS? No, l can't either... Would you really study for 3-5 YEARS then do ANOTHER 3-5 years and put it all down the drain? Honestly, would you? No, l thought not. So, why would they? And how many people put their reputation on the line in that video, l would say no fewer than 5 people with doctorates/Masters/PH D's. More than you and BillyB.

Lets see, "Please drink my waste product from a fertilizer plant, it'll strengthen the enamel/prevent decayed/missing teeth"...LOL....or....."we'll buy it [Fluoride] from Belgium where they don't Fluoridate their water.

PLEASE, stop this childish behavior and wake up.....

 

[Billyb]

....
PLEASE, stop this childish behavior and wake up.....

I said it before and I'll say it again. Intelligent, non-biased people will not rely on one source or one summarised graph to tell them the facts, they will go out and have a read of a large sample of the available research and make up their own mind.

If you do this and you do it properly with an open mind, you may be surprised.

 

[DB008]

I said it before and I'll say it again. Intelligent, non-biased people will not rely on one source or one summarised graph to tell them the facts, they will go out and have a read of a large sample of the available research and make up their own mind.

If you do this and you do it properly with an open mind, you may be surprised.

Is that why in the USA they are DECREASING the amount of FLUORIDE they add to the water then? l'm just trying to put 2 and 2 together mate.

 

[DB008]

There used to be a time when Professor Paul Connett preferred to just teach environmental chemistry and toxicology at St Lawrence University in New York and never paid any heed to the hot fluoride debate going on.

But it had to change one day when his wife gave him some research papers along with a cup of tea. After reading those papers, he realized the gravity of the issue. He was shocked to know that how incredibly low fluoride is in mother’s milk as if it was necessary for children’s teeth then it should have been there in mother’s milk which is as low as 0.004 parts per million.

Showing his great belief and respect for nature’s chemistry and biochemistry, he added, “I had succumbed to the prevailing nonsense in the States that the people against fluoride were a bunch of crazies, and many people fear to get involved in the anti-fluoride movement because they don’t want to be tagged as loonies”.

Professor Connett, the writer of “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics” stated that there is hardly any difference between fluoridated countries and non-fluoridated countries and the evidence related to reduction of dental caries is weak in itself.

He blames it all on political hegemony and says that it’s his 14 years of frustration which made him write this book.

Then again, he's probably wrong on that front too and so am l......

 

[medicowallet]

....


figure 1

"as a result [of water fluoridation], dental caries declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th century."

However, what the CDC failed to mention is that similar declines in tooth decay have occurred in virtually every western country, most of which do not fluoridate water (see Figure 2).


1) CDC....What....You have access to better data,references, graphs, than the CDC...LOL



2) Doesn't matter who did [came up with the idea for] the doco. It's the 'references' in the doco that matter. So a 12 year old is smarter than someone with a Doctorate/Masters etc etc..LOL. Can you really see someone with a Doctorate/Masters really putting their reputation on the line for BS? No, l can't either... Would you really study for 3-5 YEARS then do ANOTHER 3-5 years and put it all down the drain? Honestly, would you? No, l thought not. So, why would they? And how many people put their reputation on the line in that video, l would say no fewer than 5 people with doctorates/Masters/PH D's. More than you and BillyB.

Lets see, "Please drink my waste product from a fertilizer plant, it'll strengthen the enamel/prevent decayed/missing teeth"...LOL....or....."we'll buy it [Fluoride] from Belgium where they don't Fluoridate their water.

PLEASE, stop this childish behavior and wake up.....

1. Where are the underprivilaged countries on that graph? Where is the differentiation between the less well to do areas versus affluent areas, or less educated vs highly educated.. I am sorry, but a graph like that means little without an explanation of the methodology.

2. Anything to get your name out there, good or bad, especially if you are mediocre.

 

[Billyb]

Is that why in the USA they are DECREASING the amount of FLUORIDE they add to the water then? l'm just trying to put 2 and 2 together mate.

If they are decreasing fluoride (note: not removing it, just reducing the concentration), then they are doing so because the latest evidence suggests optimal concentration to reduce the risk of fluorosis is about 0.7-1.0mg/L. Note they are NOT doing it because of any risk of medical diseases such as cancer or bone disease since there is no evidence of this risk.

Then again, he's probably wrong on that front too and so am l......

There will always be a few (maybe 1%) professionals against water fluoridation. Easy to forget that there are 99% of professionals out there who support it isn't it? Not to mention those in the 1% minority can release controversial books, videos etc that can make them big money.

1. Where are the underprivilaged countries on that graph? Where is the differentiation between the less well to do areas versus affluent areas, or less educated vs highly educated.. I am sorry, but a graph like that means little without an explanation of the methodology.

Agree it's a very misleading graph. To give Australia as an example, it differs a lot from other countries --> eg high numbers of low socioeconomic (aboriginal) communities, hot climate, poorly funded, highly dispersed public dental system and unaffordable private dental system, shortage of dentists in non-metropolitan areas, dietary differences, different oral health promotion programs and attitudes toward oral health etc etc.

 

[Billyb]

Just had a read through the beginnings of this thread. I feel I have posted here enough over the past 4 pages, but because I am a Dentist I feel it is my duty to at least do my best to ensure other readers here don’t read the incorrect information posted by the anti-fluoridist conspiracy theorists and believe it. Here is my summary for those readers who want to know the real facts:

1. Clearly, Australian governments would not fluoridate water unless there was evidence to support it's effectiveness and safety.
   
   
2. In Science, evidence is only credible if it is peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed means high quality, reliable, unbiased, credible evidence found in scientific journals. In fact, peer-reviewed evidence is so important that researchers will dismiss any reference as unreliable unless it is peer-reviewed . So don't accept the references that anti-fluoridists keep providing here unless it is at least peer-reviewed. Unsurprisingly, none of them have been able to provide any peer-reviewed articles, instead they usually provide links to news articles, summarized graphs, youtube videos, biased websites, comments from anti-fluorodist doctors etc. But always remember, this is all anecdotal, biased, low quality evidence that cannot be relied on.
   
   
3. Because there is no peer-reviewed evidence to support their claims, the anti-fluoridists will work around that in many ways. Eg Whiskers keeps using bold and colored text to entice people to his posts, he posts low-quality (non-peer reviewed) references, and discounts any real evidence posted by others by claiming that ‘the evidence has been manipulated by governments and dental organizations (conspiracy)’. Don't be tricked into this - please look at the peer-reviewed evidence and make your own mind up.
   
   
4. Because they can't find any actual evidence to back their claims, Anti-fluoridists in this thread will mention gross generalisations to mislead you. For example: They will say 'fluoride is a poison'. In actual fact, even oxygen is a poison at high concentrations. Fluoride is not a poison at the concentrations available in our water supplies, just like oxygen is not poison at the concentrations available in our air. Again, don't be tricked - read the peer-reviewed evidence and make up your own mind.
   
   
5. There is LOTS of peer-reviewed evidence to show that water fluoridation is EFFECTIVE at reducing dental decay in the population, as well as lots of peer-reviewed evidence to show that it is SAFE. Here are just a few that I found earlier.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20873281
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415937
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406153
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20156234
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20088224
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19627654
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19169572
Note: The above are abstracts of peer reviewed (i.e reliable) evidence. Ask the anti-fluoridists to give you peer-reviewed evidence- unsurprisingly they can’t find any.

 

[Judd]

Just had a read through the beginnings of this thread. I feel I have posted here enough over the past 4 pages, but because I am a Dentist I feel it is my duty to at least do my best to ensure other readers here don’t read the incorrect information posted by the anti-fluoridist conspiracy theorists and believe it.

Yes, it is difficult. Same type of hyped up claims about mercury in amalgam fillings - causes brain damage, Alzheimers, and all manner of things. Total rubbish unless you are inclined to scull a few grams of mercury each and every day. No I am not a health professional in any way shape or form - I simply associate with well educated people and listen to them but do not pretend that I have any of their skills or understanding.

The Dunning-Kruger effect reigns supreme, Billyb.

 

[DB008]

In actual fact, even oxygen is a poison at high concentrations.

O2 outside of 19.5% or 23.5% is dangerous. "WE" all breathe O2 @ 20.9% in "normal atmosphere". However, please continue with your passage that l should be drinking water with "untreated waste fluoride" from a "Fertilizer Plant", maybe one day when l'm 100 with no teeth l'll thank you...IMAO!

 

[DB008]

If they are decreasing fluoride (note: not removing it, just reducing the concentration), then they are doing so because the latest evidence suggests optimal concentration to reduce the risk of fluorosis is about 0.7-1.0mg/L. Note they are NOT doing it because of any risk of medical diseases such as cancer or bone disease since there is no evidence of this risk.

Litigation and Liability

 

[Julia]

I feel I have posted here enough over the past 4 pages, but because I am a Dentist I feel it is my duty.....

Um, why do you have to describe your occupation with a Capital D?
Wouldn't you find it odd if we talked about Politicians, with a capital P, or Garbage Collectors with initial caps?
I'm sure we are very impressed by the fact that you are a Professional (with very much a capital P) so that you really don't have to reinforce this with the Capital D.

1. Clearly, Australian governments would not fluoridate water unless there was evidence to support it's effectiveness and safety.

1. 
   Nonsense. If you really believe this, then ipso facto you are also believing that all governments in Australia only make wise decisions, based on good evidence.
   
   The facts, especially in the course of the last couple of years, are very much indicating the contrary.
   
   To suggest that governments always act in the best interests of the people is just a joke.

 

[medicowallet]

Um, why do you have to describe your occupation with a Capital D?
Wouldn't you find it odd if we talked about Politicians, with a capital P, or Garbage Collectors with initial caps?
I'm sure we are very impressed by the fact that you are a Professional (with very much a capital P) so that you really don't have to reinforce this with the Capital D.


Nonsense. If you really believe this, then ipso facto you are also believing that all governments in Australia only make wise decisions, based on good evidence.

The facts, especially in the course of the last couple of years, are very much indicating the contrary.

To suggest that governments always act in the best interests of the people is just a joke.

Wow Julia, why does a single capital worry you so, are you going off on a rant again?

Which facts are those you are referring to?

Or did you make that statement just to make us assume you have evidence?

Governments are held accountable, and this is a topic of interest for many people for and the few against. The few against would be jumping up and down like maniacs if they had any evidence against fluoridation (ie that the costs outweighed the benefits)

Please, show me that the costs outweigh the benefits. If you do I will happily advocate for the abolition of fluoride from water. Until then I will tow the line with the public health benefit. (btw I do believe that in the future cost will outweigh benefits, just there is no evidence of this atm)

 

[Billyb]

Um, why do you have to describe your occupation with a Capital D?

I didn't realise I even did it. I apologise for my poor grammar if I'm wrong in using it. But perhaps you are reading into it a little much though, Julia.

The facts, especially in the course of the last couple of years, are very much indicating the contrary.

Hmm, what facts?. Refer to my post #508. 'Facts' are not facts in a scientific debate until there is scientific research to prove it, otherwise it could just be hearsay/myth/conspiracy/opinion.

For example, at the start of the thread, you were claiming that the discoloration in your teeth occurred because you spent 1 month in a town with fluoridated water. The scientific evidence clearly shows that this is not possible, therefore what you were saying is just opinion/hearsay (and incorrect), that discoloration must have occurred at a different time and probably a different cause. This highlights the importance of DYOR - specifically of good quality evidence, not crap stuff.

 

[Spongle]

TLR

My 2c:

That are much worst things that find thier way into our systems in this day and age. Paracetemol for example concerns me much much more. Or hows about the prescribing of antidepressant drugs by GP's? Or my personal fave, Giving children amphetamines for ADD... (now that stuff really does ruin your teeth).

I'm 29 and am already missing 2 teeth and am on my 3rd root canal as of the other day. If it wasn't for flouride in the water reckon i'd have spent $15000 on my teeth by now instead of $5000.

I wouldnt worry bout flouride... all the lead in those old pipes cancels it out

 

[Whiskers]

There will always be a few doctors and professionals against fluoridation just like there will always be a few doctors out there who believe high salt intake has no effect on blood pressure.

Don't be swayed by them - be intelligent - look at all of the literature and form your own opinion. Do not be overly swayed by individual people (no matter what their qualifications) or any videos.

Good advice, especially anyone who includes "Conspiracy Theorists" in just about every attempted rebuttal of the concerns of historically corrupted science and public health policy eminating from the USA.

I will go with whatever the research and literature says. I am not biased!

Huh

... but as demonstrated earlier, you just have a lot of trouble interpreting data, reports and the Law.

1. Where are the underprivilaged countries on that graph? Where is the differentiation between the less well to do areas versus affluent areas, or less educated vs highly educated.. I am sorry, but a graph like that means little without an explanation of the methodology.

Yes, the methodology!

It's interesting that most US reports (esp. by dentists) use the 'Dean' standard of measure for carries created back in the mid 1900's. Dean didn't count fluorosis victims unless they had 2 or more teeth affected by fluorosis.

Not to mention, because of the previously powerful position of the corrupted American Dental Association in the US Public Health System, the official reports didn't accept that fluorosis from fluoridation was a health issue, it was only cosmedic... and then of no significance.

Gee that's a sure fire way to shortern the list of fluorosis victims and scuttle any research consideration of other health issues!

I'll provide the link after one of these dudes put their foot in it again. Their bias has probably repelled them from even looking at such official records.

If they are decreasing fluoride (note: not removing it, just reducing the concentration), then they are doing so because the latest evidence suggests optimal concentration to reduce the risk of fluorosis is about 0.7-1.0mg/L. Note they are NOT doing it because of any risk of medical diseases such as cancer or bone disease since there is no evidence of this risk.

The latest evidence is clearly saying that fluoridation is distrubiting Fluoride unevenly right through the food chain with an increasing multiplier effect especially on the young and more cumulative effect on the ageing. The US is recommending to lower fluoridation rates to the lower of the range, .7mg/l.

Also, this report was done late 2010 before the (US) ADA influence arm was demoted.

So watch out for much better reports of other adverse health findings in the future, because while gov was duped, bribed and corrupted into fluoridation in the early days as a cheap dental health measure, they are now starting to see the public fury from being told fluorosis was not a health issue and of no significance anyway. The people who were born as fluoridation was at it's peak in the US are ageing and starting to cost the health system a lot of money from a range of poor quality and toxic food inputs, including fluoridation.

There is research out there, previously 'gagged' or branded unfounded or Conspiracy Theoriest by the proponents of fluoridation, that the politicians are starting to take notice of because in the case of fluoridation, they were led to believe fluoridation was an efficient way to treat dental caries.

BUT the reports only say fluoridation is an eficent way to distribute fluoride to the masses... cheap and nasty mass medication. They do NOT say fluoridation is an efficient (holistic) economic health measure.

Agree it's a very misleading graph. To give Australia as an example, it differs a lot from other countries --> eg high numbers of low socioeconomic (aboriginal) communities, hot climate, poorly funded, highly dispersed public dental system and unaffordable private dental system, shortage of dentists in non-metropolitan areas, dietary differences, different oral health promotion programs and attitudes toward oral health etc etc.

As I pointed out previously, the US has officially recognised reports, although not mainstream yet, because of the corrupted influence of the US ADA, that black Americans are twice as susceptable to fluorosis, at least. We know race/genes have a huge effect on other mineral uptake and disease rates, BUT...

...where is the Australian research to prove Aboriginal Australians are not twice as susceptable like black Americans?

Without that research, Australian data also distort the true figures even more.

 

[Whiskers]

Yes, it is difficult. Same type of hyped up claims about mercury in amalgam fillings - causes brain damage, Alzheimers, and all manner of things. Total rubbish unless you are inclined to scull a few grams of mercury each and every day. No I am not a health professional in any way shape or form - I simply associate with well educated people and listen to them but do not pretend that I have any of their skills or understanding.

Well, if that's your perception of the the danger of mercury poisioning, then certainly...

The Dunning-Kruger effect reigns supreme, Billyb.

WITH YOU!

TLR

My 2c:

That are much worst things that find thier way into our systems in this day and age. Paracetemol for example concerns me much much more. Or hows about the prescribing of antidepressant drugs by GP's? Or my personal fave, Giving children amphetamines for ADD... (now that stuff really does ruin your teeth).

I'm 29 and am already missing 2 teeth and am on my 3rd root canal as of the other day. If it wasn't for flouride in the water reckon i'd have spent $15000 on my teeth by now instead of $5000.

Welcome to the discussion, Spongle.

Firstly, no amount of fluoride or fluoridation is going to totally eliminate tooth disease because there are just too many individual and enviornmental variables.

Just think about it. In the US when fluoridation first started under the leadership of ex ALCOA employees infiltrating senior decision making positions in US public health, there was plenty of fluoridation at 4 mg/l to 8mg/l and higher where injection accidents occurred.

Logically, if tooth decay was ever going to be eliminated or substantially reduced, it would have been then and for ever after. BUT, the unbiased research is seriously concerned that while topical fluoride has some value in decay protection, ingested fluoride is probably counter productive because it degrades the tooth from the inside via the fluoride intoxicated blood supply, causing fluorosis which leads to decay anyway... not to mention a number of bone and organ diseases.

I wouldnt worry bout flouride... all the lead in those old pipes cancels it out

In fact that should be more of a concern, because that corrusion loosens or exposes small particles of lead to the water supply and also causes more variation with individual fluoride doseage.

 

[Spongle]

Hmmm...

interesting

I have no sources to back up my claims... just me on my soap box really.

Re: high levels of flouride in the bloodstream leading; rather ironicly, to tooth decay, I would imagine those levels would need to be quite significant ie alot higher than is needed for general water flouridation (not too sure if thats a word haha) for the aim of preventing tooth problems.

That said that is purely an assumption on my part so I really can't say anything definitively

 

[Julia]

I didn't realise I even did it. I apologise for my poor grammar if I'm wrong in using it. But perhaps you are reading into it a little much though, Julia.

Not to do with grammar at all. I was just a bit amused about the assumed greater 'importance' usually ascribed to a word given an initial capital. But it was a silly, small thing, and I apologise for drawing attention to it.

Hmm, what facts?. Refer to my post #508. 'Facts' are not facts in a scientific debate until there is scientific research to prove it, otherwise it could just be hearsay/myth/conspiracy/opinion.

This is a misinterpretation of what I said. I wasn't referring to any 'facts' about fluoride. I don't doubt that it has been shown to reduce dental decay. My objection is on the basis of any government adding anything to the water supply which is not required for simply keeping that water clean, e.g. chlorine.

I just hate governments extending their reach into what should be an area of personal choice, particularly as this is one where those who do want to use fluoride can do so easily on a personal basis.

When I said 'facts', I was rather referring to the great mass of decisions governments have made which have been total stuff-ups and a waste of our tax dollars. Probably I should have better used a word like 'history' or been more specific about what I meant.

OK?

 

[DB008]

I'm 29 and am already missing 2 teeth and am on my 3rd root canal as of the other day. If it wasn't for flouride in the water reckon i'd have spent $15000 on my teeth by now instead of $5000.

WTF????

That is statement is wrong and l would say it is more towards poor dental care than not having Fluoride in the water. Can the 2 dentists please speak up (I'm surprised you haven't!)


I was born and spend the first 5 years of my infancy in a European country where there was no Fluoride added to the water. I am similar age to you. I brush at least 2 times a day, sometimes more and visit a dentist every 6 months. I have not had 1 filling, missing teeth or root canal, EVER. I have had one crown/root canal from a tooth that was knocked out, but that has nothing to do with this topic whatsoever.