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.