Fluoride

Whiskers said:

Youcannot use the term protect the public when 1/3 of children are likely to develop fluorosis which they do not want, nor would otherwise get, for the greater public good from forced mass medication (fluoridation), in a marginal at best attempt to achieve less caries in a small minority that don't practice good hygene.

Click to expand...

Firstly, In this post you refer to only dental fluorosis when mentioning possible side effects of WF, I note that you did not mention things like cancer or osteoperosis or IBS or any of the other (unproven) medical effects that anti-fluoridists claim. I'm glad.

You seem to have forgotten that Australia already has a fairly long history of fluoridation, QLD is not the first place. Many Australian towns and cities have been fluoridated for decades and there is no evidence (that I’m aware of) of anything close to the 1/3rd incidence of fluorosis in those towns/cities that you think will happen in QLD.

Retrospective studies in the future will show whether or not 1/3rd of children get fluorosis from QLD fluoridation like you claim, although I highly suspect this wont be the case. This is your opinion only and (I think – correct me if I’m wrong) you formed this opinion by taking figures from just one USA website link and applying it to the QLD situation – this is very unscientific, perhaps you need to accept that all you are doing is taking a bit of a wild guess here. In order to make your (shaky) argument more acceptable to other readers, you also failed to mention that 97% of the children who had fluorosis in that USA study had only mild or very mild fluorosis.

Look at the cost-benefit analysis. I don’t mind a few extra people with mild fluorosis if it saves a lot more of those disadvanataged people (eg aboriginal communities) coming into my surgery to have abscessed teeth taken out due to gross rampant caries.

People die from dental abscesses Whisker, including in Queensland. Dental caries is a mch bigger issue than mild fluorosis. Perhaps this should put the cost of ‘mild fluorosis’ (cosmetic problem only) into perspective a little more for you.

If you have a hammer, everything will look like a nail. You are just looking for anything to back up the anti-fluoridist belief/ideas, unfortunately none of the sources you use are peer-reviewed research and so I cannot accept it and neither would the scientific community. In other words, if you were trying to make a case, the experts wouldn’t even bother to give it a look. What you are then left with is just a small group of people. If this small anti-fluoridist group is right, we’ll find out in the future, but IMO I highly doubt it and I think pigs will fly first.

By the way, most of the research I referred to doesn’t use those indices, actually. If you want me to talk about indices, refer me to the particular research article I posted that uses them, and then I will gladly. THe photo you posted is obviously not mild, but what is more important is what is the cause of it - more than likely it is not due to (controlled) water fluoridation but more likely from toothpaste ingestion or fluoride tablets.

I then ask from your answers, why does most of Europe (and now it looks like USA will follow suit), decrease or simply to not put Fluoride into their water then?

COMET ASSAY OF DNA DAMAGE IN BRAIN CELLS OF ADULT RATS EXPOSED TO HIGH FLUORIDE AND LOW IODINE
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/383/files/383209-214.pdf

EFFECT OF HIGH-FLUORIDE WATER ON INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN
http://www.casociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/fluoride-research-report-china.pdf

Table 4. Fluoride studies: IQ and Behavioral Effects
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/epa-sf/table.4.iq.behav.pdf

In endemic fluorosis areas, drinking water fluoride levels greater than 1.0 mg/L may adversely affect the development of children’s intelligence.

Click to expand...

DB008 said:

COMET ASSAY OF DNA DAMAGE IN BRAIN CELLS OF ADULT RATS EXPOSED TO HIGH FLUORIDE AND LOW IODINE
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/383/files/383209-214.pdf

Click to expand...

Yes, fluoride is a poison at those sorts of crazy high proportions. You would die of oxygen too if you were to breathe it at such high concentrations. I'm not surprised by this study.

DB008 said:

EFFECT OF HIGH-FLUORIDE WATER ON INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN
http://www.casociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/fluoride-research-report-china.pdf

Click to expand...

Interesting.

Couple of comments.
This is only one study. We need to see more examples of studies like this (to reduce the influence of bias) or preferably a meta-analysis.
Secondly, the concentrations of fluoride in the water are quite high in that town, Australian concentrations are much lower.

The third reference is from a biased fluoride website so I might not need to comment on that one

DB008 said:

I then ask from your answers, why does most of Europe (and now it looks like USA will follow suit), decrease or simply to not put Fluoride into their water then?

Click to expand...

Europe's decision is based on ethical, not scientific reasons. So it's fair enough. Just because they're not doing it doesn't mean they are saying fluoride causes diseases.

Billyb said:

Secondly, the concentrations of fluoride in the water are quite high in that town, Australian concentrations are much lower.

Click to expand...

Depends.
What if you add in all the Fluoride that you ingest from other sources....and drink fluoridated water too...

Billyb said:

Look at the cost-benefit analysis. I don’t mind a few extra people with mild fluorosis ...

Click to expand...

Billy, just look at what you have said here. How egocentric! YOU 'don't mind' a few extra people with fluorosis.....!
No, I don't suppose you do. It's not you who is seeing ugly mottled teeth every time you open your mouth. Have a little empathy, for heaven's sake.

if it saves a lot more of those disadvanataged people (eg aboriginal communities) coming into my surgery to have abscessed teeth taken out due to gross rampant caries.

Click to expand...

So perhaps give more attention to getting aboriginal communities to take responsibility for themselves and take fluoride tablets.
I am so utterly sick of the whole population being affected by the failure of a few to take the responsibility they should. And the more we keep patronising and nannying them, the less incentive they will have to make any changes.

Maybe go and talk with Noel Pearson about the damage that patronising welfare is doing to his people.

Billyb said:

Firstly, In this post you refer to only dental fluorosis when mentioning possible side effects of WF, I note that you did not mention things like cancer or osteoperosis or IBS or any of the other (unproven) medical effects that anti-fluoridists claim. I'm glad.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to keep it a simple step by step process starting with some pictorial evidence of your classification of the degree of fluorosis... still waiting!

You seem to have forgotten that Australia already has a fairly long history of fluoridation, QLD is not the first place. Many Australian towns and cities have been fluoridated for decades and there is no evidence (that I’m aware of) of anything close to the 1/3rd incidence of fluorosis in those towns/cities that you think will happen in QLD.

Click to expand...

Well I would make the point I made earlier, there is none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Also, where is the research to "prove" that there is not significant fluorosis in these areas. No research is not proof of no fluorosis.

Retrospective studies in the future will show whether or not 1/3rd of children get fluorosis from QLD fluoridation like you claim, although I highly suspect this wont be the case. This is your opinion only and (I think – correct me if I’m wrong) you formed this opinion by taking figures from just one USA website link and applying it to the QLD situation – this is very unscientific, perhaps you need to accept that all you are doing is taking a bit of a wild guess here.

Click to expand...

You are wrong... It was a finding of the mainstream US Public Health System. check the link again.

In order to make your (shaky) argument more acceptable to other readers, you also failed to mention that 97% of the children who had fluorosis in that USA study had only mild or very mild fluorosis.

Click to expand...

Which brings us back to the point of what you and the Dean index consider as minor fluorosis. Show us the pictorial examples that you use.

Look at the cost-benefit analysis.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, that just shows that fluoridation is the cheapest way to distribute fluoride (mass medicate) to the whole population, nothing more.

You still haven't given any economic evidence that the cost of fluoridation is less than the long term effects or other forms of dental intervention.

I don’t mind a few extra people with mild fluorosis if it saves a lot more of those disadvanataged people (eg aboriginal communities) coming into my surgery to have abscessed teeth taken out due to gross rampant caries.

Click to expand...

Another example of misplaced dictatorial misjudgment.

So why should otherwise healthy people have to suffer any fluorosis when the fluoridation system doesn't reach those most disadvantaged aboriginal communities that don't have reticulated water let alone fluoridation now or in the future?

People die from dental abscesses Whisker, including in Queensland.
Dental caries is a mch bigger issue than mild fluorosis. Perhaps this should put the cost of ‘mild fluorosis’ (cosmetic problem only) into perspective a little more for you.

Click to expand...

Many, many more die from tobacco and alcohol disease, so by your mass medication fluoride logic we should mass medicate anti tobacco and anti alcohol drugs/chemicals too... at least before we mass medicate for dental caries.

Well, we'll never know what you mean by mild fluorosis if you never post an illustration.

But again, who are you to say people with otherwise healthy teeth and hygene should suffer a "(cosmetic problem only)" condition in a shot gun approach to catch the worst caries conditions.

Your logic is getting worse than the police example shooting into a crowd to get a shoplifter... you are now shooting into a crowd (general suburbia) to get an offender that is not even in that crowd, but lives in the bush.

THe photo you posted is obviously not mild,

Click to expand...

Obviously not mild, well finally that's a start.

...but what is more important is what is the cause of it - more than likely it is not due to (controlled) water fluoridation but more likely from toothpaste ingestion or fluoride tablets.

Click to expand...

...which comes back to DB008's issue of the safety of fluoride per se for children under two. If tooth paste or fluoride tablets are the most likely cause of this why don't you advocate more stringent safety warnings for fluoride products?

I suppose it's too obvious. It would enlighten more people about the risks of fluoridation.

Still waiting for those pictorial examples of the range of degree of fluorosis... especially your mild fluorosis.

Whiskers said:

Also, where is the research to "prove" that there is not significant fluorosis in these areas. No research is not proof of no fluorosis.

Click to expand...

You continually take the position whereby you must have all evidence of something that does not really matter.

Why would someone in Australia fund research into fluorosis in a particular area when the research already exists.

I have siad it before and I'll say it again:

ALL it takes is ONE study by the conspiracy theorists to SHUT DOWN the ENTIRE fluoridation system.

Why has this SINGLE study not been produced?

Show me a SINGLE cost > benefit study and I shall join your side and advocate for the abolition of fluoridation where this is the case.

medicowallet said:

You continually take the position whereby you must have all evidence of something that does not really matter.

Why would someone in Australia fund research into fluorosis in a particular area when the research already exists.

Click to expand...

It does matter in the logic of Billyb's arguement because he continually insists that overseas precedent regarding fluorosis (and other side effects) from long term exposure to fluoridation isn't relevant to the Qld fluoridation rate.

I have siad it before and I'll say it again:

ALL it takes is ONE study by the conspiracy theorists to SHUT DOWN the ENTIRE fluoridation system.

Why has this SINGLE study not been produced?

Click to expand...

That's a contradiction in terms. You and certainly the pro fluoridation proponents don't accept a 'study' if it comes from what you consider conspiracy theorists. An impossible request to satisfy.

Simply, there are studies and fluoridation is being shut down in the US and Canada where the long term net (financial and political) cost benefit is not being realised.

Show me a SINGLE cost > benefit study and I shall join your side and advocate for the abolition of fluoridation where this is the case.

Click to expand...

I mentioned in an earlier post that the Qld gov claimed in it's legislative process to have commissioned cost benefit report, BUT it is an unpublished report, which I haven't yet been able to see to determine whether it's a run of the mill cost of fluoridation v estimated cost savings of caries repairs, or a holistic economic study.

If you are a doc, you may have better luck than me in obtaining a copy so we can all see the truth of the Qld cost analysis.

Whiskers said:

It does matter in the logic of Billyb's arguement because he continually insists that overseas precedent regarding fluorosis (and other side effects) from long term exposure to fluoridation isn't relevant to the Qld fluoridation rate.



That's a contradiction in terms. You and certainly the pro fluoridation proponents don't accept a 'study' if it comes from what you consider conspiracy theorists. An impossible request to satisfy.

Simply, there are studies and fluoridation is being shut down in the US and Canada where the long term net (financial and political) cost benefit is not being realised.



I mentioned in an earlier post that the Qld gov claimed in it's legislative process to have commissioned cost benefit report, BUT it is an unpublished report, which I haven't yet been able to see to determine whether it's a run of the mill cost of fluoridation v estimated cost savings of caries repairs, or a holistic economic study.

If you are a doc, you may have better luck than me in obtaining a copy so we can all see the truth of the Qld cost analysis.

Click to expand...

Thankyou.

It is interesting to see that you have such firmly held views, with your self reported lack of information on the subject.

Perhaps in the US it is being shut down because of litigation instead of pubic health reasons - eg people can get heart failure from poor dental health and their insurance companies will pay for it, but IF they get fluorosis, it may be a $3 million payout. In Australia, at the moment, we have more humane policies, and I kind of like it that way, do you?

Latest news in my Email: Confirms my suspicions on the verasity of the representation of fluoridation research, in particular that part that is unpublished.

Note: Graph didn't reproduce in copy & paste but reproduced at bottom.

Please feel free to forward to your contacts and MPs

FAN-Australia drops a bombshell on Water Fluoridation.

Media Release: Brisbane, Australia 4th April 2011

Merilyn Haines, the director of the newly formed group FAN-Australia (Fluoride Action Network Australia), has found some startling statistics buried deep in official research material by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School) that could scuttle the water fluoridation program once and for all.

Haines has found in the ARCPOH statistics that the permanent teeth of children in largely unfluoridated (<5% before 2009) Queensland were erupting on average two years earlier than the children in the rest of Australia, which is largely fluoridated (see the figure below). A two-year delay would negate all the small reductions in tooth decay claimed by dental researchers since 1990. In other words fluoridation doesn't work. Any difference in tooth decay claimed to be due to fluoride is simply an artefact of the delayed eruption caused by fluoride.

Source – Published and unpublished data from 2003- 2004 Australian Child Dental Health Surveys
( unpublished data obtained by Freedom of Information application)


According to Professor Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, who is currently on a fluoride-tour of New Zealand, “Critics of fluoridation, like Dr. Hardy Limeback in Toronto, have long pointed out that any reduced tooth decay touted by promoters could easily be accounted for by the delayed eruption of the teeth. Even when this argument received strong experimental support from Komarek et al. in 2005, this has still has been ignored by those promoting fluoridation. But they cannot ignore it any longer: the figures of the dental department research team most associated with the promotion of fluoridation in Australia (and beyond) demonstrate that this delay is real.”

Less teeth erupted for any given age would mean less surfaces available for tooth decay to have taken place. A delayed eruption of one – two years would account for the small reductions claimed in ALL the US and Australian studies published since 1990 (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Slade et al., 1996; Spencer et al., 1996; Armfield et al., 2009; Armfield, 2010). These studies have found reductions ranging from 0.12 of one permanent tooth surfaces saved in Western Australia (Spencer et al., 1996) to 0.6 permanent tooth surface saved in the largest survey ever conducted in the US (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This is not very much when you consider that there are five surfaces to the chewing teeth and four to the cutting teeth, and by the time all the child’s teeth have erupted there are a total of 128 tooth surfaces. One tooth surface saved amounts to less than 1% of all the surfaces in a child’s mouth. Now even this small benefit has evaporated.

More on the history.

In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia’s peak Medical Research body, stated that, “evidence exists that tooth eruption is delayed in fluoridated areas. It has been suggested that a proper comparison of caries rates should involve children one year older in fluoridated areas than in non- fluoridated areas.”

In 2000, the York Review pointed out that none of the studies that they had reviewed had controlled for "the number of erupted teeth per child” (McDonagh et al., 2000, p.24).

In 2005, Komarek et al. did control for eruption of teeth and reported no difference in decay between children living in Belgium receiving fluoride supplements (and those who weren’t) that was relatable to fluoride exposure (as measured by the severity of dental fluorosis).

In 2009, Peiris et al. reported that children in largely fluoridated Australia had a delay in "dental age" of 0.82 years compared to children in largely unfluoridated UK. However, the authors did not discuss the possible reasons for this delay and the number of children involved in the study (about 80 in each country) was not very large.

2011. Now the bombshell – the delay has been found and it is in the official statistics. ARCPOH has failed to respond to several inquiries on this matter. According to Haines, “Surely, this must end water fluoridation. If it doesn't work what's the point of putting this toxic substance into the drinking water and what reason can they possibly have for forcing it on people who don’t want it?”

However, this isn't just about teeth. The finding could be even more significant than that. If fluoride causes a delayed eruption of the teeth then the most likely mechanism for doing so is fluoride's ability to lower thyroid function (see chapter 8 in the 2006 National Research Council review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water.” According to Connett, “Lowered thyroid function in infants would mean slower growth of their tissues and could explain the 24 studies that have found an association between lowered IQ in children and exposure to moderate levels of fluoride in China, India, Iran and Mexico.”

It also raises the possibility that millions of people in fluoridated countries suffering from hypothyroidism have had this condition caused, or exacerbated, by exposure to fluoridated water. Haines’ asks “If ingesting fluoride delays tooth eruption for 1 to 2 years what other effects is it having on our bodies?”

Meanwhile, if swallowing fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, why would any reasonable person, decision maker or regulatory official continue to sanction adding fluoride to the public water supply?

Australian media contacts mobiles - 0418 777 112 and 0403029077
Media Release sent by Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc

Click to expand...

What journal was this published in, so that I can analyse the methodology, sampling and bias myself.

eg did they control for Vitamin D etc. (You do realise that Vitamin D deficiency can result in delayed expression of teeth and that Queensland has a thing called sunshine?)

I doubt it.

No doubt it is another unpublished biased, unscientific study you are trying to peddle to the masses.

Whiskers said:

L atest news in my Email: Confirms my suspicions on the verasity of the representation of fluoridation research, in particular that part that is unpublished.]

Click to expand...

Here we go again... the anti-fluoridist-conspiracy theorist-groups are at it again...trying to twist anything around to help back up their weak arguments.

In ACTUAL fact, the reason for the earlier eruption in QLD children is because more QLD children are losing their deciduous teeth early due to dental decay than the other states (which are fluoridated). Early loss of deciduous teeth results in accelerated eruption of their permanent successors.

You guys love to beat up anything. Sometimes it makes me laugh.

medicowallet said:

ALL it takes is ONE study by the conspiracy theorists to SHUT DOWN the ENTIRE fluoridation system.

Why has this SINGLE study not been produced?

Show me a SINGLE cost > benefit study and I shall join your side and advocate for the abolition of fluoridation where this is the case.

Click to expand...

Exactly! This Whiskers fella can't even show one (peer-reviewed) study, and he says the reason he wont is because we'll brand him a conspiracy theorist. How convenient for him, hey?|!

Julia said:

YOU 'don't mind' a few extra people with fluorosis.....!
No, I don't suppose you do. It's not you who is seeing ugly mottled teeth every time you open your mouth. Have a little empathy, for heaven's sake.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about mild fluorosis. Only severe fluorosis has mottling. Mild fluorosis is a just a few specks of white on the teeth. Probably 99% of fluorosis in Australia is of the mild type (from what I've seen). Here's a photo of mild fluorosis

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/10/943/POA50053F1

The point I'm making Julia, is that I don't mind even 10 people suffering that mild degree of fluorosis if it means one person doesn't die from a dental abscess caused by decay.

Whiskers likes to take things out of proportion for the sake of arguing. No one's gonna get mottling fluorosis from the low concentrations of fluoride in QLD water. No one can drink that much water or else their stomach would explode. If they get mottling fluorosis, it'll be from eating toothpaste or too many fluoride tablets. For heaven's sake, this guy loves to exaggerate everything related to fluoride, almost a fear campaign he is running.

Well, we finally have a fluorosis picture from Billyb... from his above link. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...943/POA50053F1


Like so much of the adverse effects of fluoridation, he is a bit shy in sticking it out in the open, so I snipped it here, with my next question.

Billyb, explain the physiological process that is hypomineralisation with the associated minerals etc that is/causes dental fluorosis?

medicowallet said:

What journal was this published in, so that I can analyse the methodology, sampling and bias myself.

Click to expand...

That's the whole point, it wasn't published by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School).

You will recall in earlier posts I specifically noted some of the qualifications in their published research that the pro fluoridation lobby gloss over or ignore in misrepresenting the findings.

Last time I looked, ARCPOH was sponsored by and or otherwise associated with Colgate who was one of ALCOA's first allies to promote fluoride in the US. So even though they are the best source of statistics we have in Aus they can hardly claim pure impartiality in the fluoride debate.

eg did they control for Vitamin D etc. (You do realize that Vitamin D deficiency can result in delayed expression of teeth and that Queensland has a thing called sunshine?)

I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Lol lol... what you don't have sunshine down south!?

Show me any of your peer reviewed research that allows for Vitamin D, or more particularly proximity to equator, in determining the degree of fluorosis.

Billyb said:

In ACTUAL fact, the reason for the earlier eruption in QLD children is because more QLD children are losing their deciduous teeth early due to dental decay than the other states (which are fluoridated). Early loss of deciduous teeth results in accelerated eruption of their permanent successors.

Click to expand...

Lol lol again.

Even the ARCPOH research shows Qld 5 to 6 yo dmft mid range.

Thats deciduous (d)ecay, (m)issing, (f)illed (t)eeth (dmft)... NOT permanent teeth (DMFT).

http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf

Hasn't Vic, ACT and NT been fluoridated for 30 to 40 years... and where's NSW in the survey... oh, that's right, they couldn't comply with the survey.

Whiskers said:

That's the whole point, it wasn't published by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School).

You will recall in earlier posts I specifically noted some of the qualifications in their published research that the pro fluoridation lobby gloss over or ignore in misrepresenting the findings.

Last time I looked, ARCPOH was sponsored by and or otherwise associated with Colgate who was one of ALCOA's first allies to promote fluoride in the US. So even though they are the best source of statistics we have in Aus they can hardly claim pure impartiality in the fluoride debate.



Lol lol... what you don't have sunshine down south!?

Show me any of your peer reviewed research that allows for Vitamin D, or more particularly proximity to equator, in determining the degree of fluorosis.




Lol lol again.

Even the ARCPOH research shows Qld 5 to 6 yo dmft mid range.

Thats deciduous (d)ecay, (m)issing, (f)illed (t)eeth (dmft)... NOT permanent teeth (DMFT).

http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf

Hasn't Vic, ACT and NT been fluoridated for 30 to 40 years... and where's NSW in the survey... oh, that's right, they couldn't comply with the survey.

Click to expand...

1, So it isn't published, nor peer reviewed...

2. Was not referring to fluorosis (good try to get back onto that insignificant point you hold so dear), I was referring to age of tooth eruption.

I can also tell you that Australia has an interestingly increasing risk of osteoporosis due to the slip slop slap campaign, and lack of sun exposure. Of course this is higher in cooler areas where there are also less hours of sun per day. Hence, has it been controlled for that Queensland children would have higher Vit D levels, and/or southern Australian children may have subnormal levels of Vitamin D.

medicowallet said:

1, So it isn't published, nor peer reviewed...

2. Was not referring to fluorosis (good try to get back onto that insignificant point you hold so dear), I was referring to age of tooth eruption.

I can also tell you that Australia has an interestingly increasing risk of osteoporosis due to the slip slop slap campaign, and lack of sun exposure. Of course this is higher in cooler areas where there are also less hours of sun per day. Hence, has it been controlled for that Queensland children would have higher Vit D levels, and/or southern Australian children may have subnormal levels of Vitamin D.

Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3181285.htm

This hit the news lines last few days

Vitamin D Status is very much related to Latitude.. because it is UVB not UVA that makes Vitamin D... And Rickets is associated with age of Teeth Eruption ..

If there is a resurgence of Rickets in Australia that is just a Visible Tip of a wider
Vitamin Deficiency and Insufficiency Epidemic.

Teeth Health is Strongly associated with Vitamin D Status.

( Whiskers it is a Universal Cause and as such an Invisible one to most of these Studies on Fluoride refer last postings in the Vitamin D Thread )

Qld has clear advantages over Southern States
You would make some Vitmin D even with casual Sun Exposure
Maybe all through the Year at least in the middle of the Day
( Again the recent MS study )

For the babies though, it increases the risk of rickets and we're seeing a resurgence of rickets in Australia. Babies are being born with lower bone mass and some of the babies are having low calcium and in the women you mentioned who have very dark skinned or are veiled, some babies even have epileptic seizures from low blood calcium because they don't have any vitamin D.

Click to expand...

That Should Truly Amaze ( But not when you realize how important Vit D is )
A Resurgence of Rickets.



Motorway

medicowallet said:

1, So it isn't published, nor peer reviewed...

Click to expand...

I'm reluctant to enter the fray on this. However, that's a reasonable point to make.
But I'm not sure such a comment is always completely valid on the basis that many publications have their own agenda, and will refuse to publish what doesn't accord with that agenda. Ditto in some cases the peer review process.

I can also tell you that Australia has an interestingly increasing risk of osteoporosis due to the slip slop slap campaign, and lack of sun exposure.

Click to expand...

Very likely true but I suppose it's another example of benefits v risks in consideration of skin cancers. It could be argued that a melanoma is probably a greater risk than osteoporosis.
At least some of the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications prescribed for osteoporosis.