The fluoridation fraud is facing a strong rebellion in Qld

Whiskers said:

Just repeating what I said..."Secondly, while you deny the fact that the system is corruptable or at least able to be mislead by false research and advice, your "professionalism" is open to question by definition of history.

You have strongly implied a number of times that the advice of the health organisations and the research that they censor out and endorse is the only credible research and everything else is non credible rubbish... when there are numerous examples, a few of which I nominated such as asbestos, thalamide and tobacco where the health authorities were clearly in denial, misleading, unprofessional and corrupt.

Is it not unprofessional for a medical professional to get emotionally charged, ranting "insulting" and "distasteful" in flatly denying historically medical corruption and malpractice has happened and insist the health organisations are above reproach!?

Click to expand...

Sigh (for the want of a decent understanding/interpretation of what I posted)

OK, there are 2 points to be made.

1. I (that's me) agreed that there is the possibility of corruption.

2. I infer that it is up to YOU to provide an opinion as to why the medical profession should want to intentionally be deceiptful wrt safety / cost-benefits.

So go on, stop slandering, and provide some evidence.



You are trying to make a strawman argument. I stand by my totally consistent position, and note that in the quoted post, you have failed to answer the question as to why someone in the medical profession would want to harm someone with fluoride.

Whiskers said:

This is the misconstrued question the pro-fluoridation lobby peddles to try to promote a ridiculous answer.

The more reasonable question is...


to which the very logical and historically correct answer is...


The short explanation is two fold. Firstly, many dentists rely on advice and policy from the health organisations for indemnity from malpractice suits. So they follow the 'company' line.

Secondly, the American Dental Association carried out internal research to show that dentists made more revenue in fluoridated areas than unfluoridated... there was more money to be made treating fluorosis and associated effects from fluoridation than cavaties.

The cost of filling or removal of a tooth pales into insignificance compared to regular whitening every year or new veneers every 10 or 15 years, as the attached average dental charges for 2011 in Australia show. http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/healthinsurance/whatiscovered/averagedental.htm

The way they justified the 'greater good' arguement for mass fluoridation is exactly the same as the tobacco industry used with a policy of:

Although hygienic and physiological concerns continued to be voiced, clinical medicine claimed that individual assessment and judgment was required.17 During this era, there was a strong tendency to avoid altogether causal hypotheses in matters so clearly complex. There was””and would remain””a powerful notion that risk is largely variable and thus, most appropriately evaluated and monitored at the individual, clinical level. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/​

...to tell their patients that fluorosis or plaque or stain was something peculiar to them .

The bottom line... they make more money from the effects of fluoridation while untruthfully insisting that fluorosis and staining is a minor side effect to be suffered by the few for the greater good. Fluorosis increases with fluoridation to well over 30% of people according to recent surveys.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, now I am truly worried about your health.

Do you truly believe this diatribe?

Show me the link to this "study" with american dentists earning more in fluoridated areas, and it better be matched for income, education, age and other confounders. But I guess the conspiracy theory websites won't do that.

Your link to a fee structure is laughable, how does that prove anything??? really?

Sooooooo show me the evidence that fluoridation is bad again, because, as in the other thread, you cannot.

MW

PS this is quite fun actually.

As a person with teeth and children.

I reckon anyone who is against fluoridation is a nutter.

All the evidence is in.

The cost/benefit/harm analysis is compelling.

Let us move on.

gg

Yes the evidence is in and it's no strawman arguement or diatribe... unless you consider the likes of;


published in 2011, as diatribal strawmen. The graph shown below gives a better understanding of the increasing fluorosis rate in the USA. As mentioned, other reports talk about the rate increasing to over 30%.

The blue bars are the 1986/87 USA national survey and the green is the 1999 - 2004.

What is noticable is the considerable decrease of people unaffected or questionable and significant increase in mild to severe percentage of fluorosis... and this is not even from the beginning of fluoridation in the USA.

So, before I get drawn into the changing dynamics of the financials of dentistry with fluoridation, lets establish that fluoridation means a considerable increase of fluorosis to start with.

And this is what dental fluorosis looks like:




http://www.google.com.au/imgres?img...t5UUZSSD8i7kgW6sYGoCg&ved=0CEYQ9QEwAg&dur=585

Oh, and I should add - I'm not against fluoride - just don't think it's right to force it on to everyone when it can be taken in other ways. Like most additives, there can be side effects.

Whiskers said:

Yes the evidence is in and it's no strawman arguement or diatribe... unless you consider the likes of;

Chronic fluoride toxicity: dental fluorosis.

Denbesten P, Li W.

Department of Orofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of California, San Francisco, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21701193​

published in 2011, as diatribal strawmen. The graph shown below gives a better understanding of the increasing fluorosis rate in the USA. As mentioned, other reports talk about the rate increasing to over 30%.

The blue bars are the 1986/87 USA national survey and the green is the 1999 - 2004.

What is noticable is the considerable decrease of people unaffected or questionable and significant increase in mild to severe percentage of fluorosis... and this is not even from the beginning of fluoridation in the USA.

So, before I get drawn into the changing dynamics of the financials of dentistry with fluoridation, lets establish that fluoridation means a considerable increase of fluorosis to start with.

Click to expand...

Very nice article.

"Prevention of Dental Fluorosis

Dental fluorosis can be limited or prevented by following the ‘recommended limits for fluoride exposure’, suggested by US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [20]. The reference dose suggested by USEPA is 0.06 mg fluoride/kg/ day, which is the estimate of daily exposure that is likely to be without any appreciable risk of deleterious effects (any degrees of dental fluorosis) during a lifetime [20]."

" When the level of fluoride is above 1.5 mg/l (1.5 ppm) in drinking water, dental fluorosis can occur."

". In 2000, approximately 162 million people (65.8% of the population served by public water systems) received water that contained fluoride ranging from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/l (usually 1 mg/l), depending on the local climate."

"Even a small ‘pea-sized’ amount of toothpaste containing 1,450 ppm fluoride, would contain approximately 0.36–0.72 mg fluoride, which if consumed twice a day could contribute to fluoride levels that would increase the risk of dental fluorosis in children [26]. "

(excluding fluoride from other sources)

So a child drinking approx 1.5 L of water per day or brushing teeth twice per day (with inappropriate toothpaste).

Or an average sized adult drinking 4.2L of water per day..

To meet the limits specified in the study above... but hey, let's take Townsville, where some of our more esteemed participants grew up.

http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/resident/water/Documents/Fluoridation.pdf

Does that not say approx 0.6-0.7mg/L so that would be for an adult 6.5L of water per day.

MW

PS and this is using your favoured fluorosis as the endpoint, hardly that serious especially for the more minor categories (insert response as to the severity of fluorosis according to you (insert response about endocarditis etc by me))

Also,

check out: Fluoride and environmental health: a review
David L. Ozsvath Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2009) 8:59–7

I haven't bought into this arguement so far, very unlike me.

Well here we go.
Our children for the first few years grew up on a rural block with nothing but rainwater.
They had no tooth decay problems whatsoever and still don't.
My better half who has some qualifications in this field, believes tooth decay can be laid at the feet of sugar.

medicowallet said:

Very nice article.
http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/resident/water/Documents/Fluoridation.pdf

Does that not say approx 0.6-0.7mg/L so that would be for an adult 6.5L of water per day.

MW

Click to expand...

Actually, under section 6 of the Qld Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008, it says it's to be maintained at .7mg/l for Townsville and .8mg/l for all the south east of Qld.

PS and this is using your favoured fluorosis as the endpoint, hardly that serious especially for the more minor categories

Click to expand...

Not if you are one of the;

• 35 million americans with 'very mild' fluorosis
• 14 million with 'mild' fluorosis, or
• 7.2 million with 'moderate or severe' fluorosis.

sptrawler said:

Our children for the first few years grew up on a rural block with nothing but rainwater.
They had no tooth decay problems whatsoever and still don't.

Click to expand...

Same here sptrawler, grew up with, prefer and continue to use tank water with good teeth.

My better half who has some qualifications in this field, believes tooth decay can be laid at the feet of sugar.

Click to expand...

She is absolutely correct... but that brings me back to the point about being conditioned to an overly 'consumption' based economy and lifestyle. As individuals we need to rebell against the indoctrination that we need to keep consuming something extra like drugs or fluoride to cure our ill's, when more often the healthier, more sustainable solution is to consume less of what is causing our ill's, such as sugar, salt, fat, tobacco and alcohol.

Whiskers said:

Actually, under section 6 of the Qld Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008, it says it's to be maintained at .7mg/l for Townsville and .8mg/l for all the south east of Qld.



Not if you are one of the;

• 35 million americans with 'very mild' fluorosis
• 14 million with 'mild' fluorosis, or
• 7.2 million with 'moderate or severe' fluorosis.

Same here sptrawler, grew up with, prefer and continue to use tank water with good teeth.


She is absolutely correct... but that brings me back to the point about being conditioned to an overly 'consumption' based economy and lifestyle. As individuals we need to rebell against the indoctrination that we need to keep consuming something extra like drugs or fluoride to cure our ill's, when more often the healthier, more sustainable solution is to consume less of what is causing our ill's, such as sugar, salt, fat, tobacco and alcohol.

Click to expand...

1. at 0.8 it is equal to drinking 5.25L of water per day... so your argument is????

2. So please, explain to me how your millions have been proven to be due to fluoridation of water, and not other causes, such as toothpaste, or naturally occurring fluoride.

3. Please calculate how much fluoride needs to be added to a water supply with 5mg/L to make it 0.7mg/L..

4. I am glad that you think that your choice is the best for everyone, but the public health policy makers differ, base their decisions on best evidence, and don't condemn those less fortunate than themselves to poorer health outcomes on the whim of a fruity website.

MW

PS good try, but thanks for providing a study which clearly shows that water fluoridation at levels that we have is quite safe.. haha.

medicowallet said:

2. So please, explain to me how your millions have been proven to be due to fluoridation of water, and not other causes, such as toothpaste, or naturally occurring fluoride.

Click to expand...

You really don't get the obvious MW!?

The environment is becoming contimanated with fluoride from numerous sources that people often cannnot detect for themselves causing increased fluorosis.

The research also says fluoridation is the easiest to eliminate. In any case the health authorities must allow for fluoride exposure from other sources in their fluoridation rate.

Toothpaste: How often and prominently do toothpaste makers warn that children swallowing toothpaste causes dental fluorosis? Almost never.

Naturally Occuring Fluoride: Well if it's truly naturally occuring in the water supply, air or food chain, again, the responsibility is on the fluoridating authority to decrease the rate or stop adding fluoride completely where people are being over exposed to fluoride.

More often it's not naturally ocurring, but artifical fluoride contaminating the natural environment. Take the 98 or 99% of fluoridated water that is not ingested, ie goes to bath, garden and wash the car etc? It gets back into underground water and irrigation supplies and has a cumulative effect of contaminating the natural environment and food chain.

The bottom line is fluoridation is ultimately responsible for the 7.2 million extra people with severe fluorosis in the US from 1986 to 2004 and 49 million extra with mild or very mild fluorosis.

Equated to Australias population, that's well over 500,000 people who can look forward to severe fluorosis in the same circumstances and 3.5 million to mild or very mild fluorosis.


Next, using the costs from http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/healthinsurance/whatiscovered/averagedental.htm

• consider how many extractions and fillings you have and add up the cost
• Then assuming you were one of the unlucky ones who had fluorosis... tally the cost of annual or biannual whitening treatments for the same period as above.
• Thirdly, tally the cost of dental veneers every 5 and 10 years for the same period as above.

To be continued...

Whiskers said:

You really don't get the obvious MW!?

Click to expand...

No I don't get.

1. That fluoride naturally occurs in water supplies etc.
2. That the study you provided shows that toothpaste application exposes children to great fluoride burden.
3. That fluoride levels in water supplies are within acceptable limits for efficacy vs side effects.
4. That you blurt out figures with no causation evidence, and no epidemiological backing (heard of cause and effect, heard of comparing matched groups wrt fluorosis... and I mean matched groups)

gee, some of your last post claims are truly amazing, and unsubstantiated.

MW

http://docs.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/FC530C0F87F821F6CA257868007AD578/$FILE/US%20HHS%20proposal%20WEB.pdf

"the widespread use of low-fluoride children’s
toothpastes in Australia, which has markedly reduced
the prevalence of dental fluorosis (mottling of tooth
enamel) in Australia (the unavailability of these
toothpastes in the US is a significant reason for the US
proposal to reduce the fluoride level in water fluoridation
programs in the US)"

"Low-fluoride children’s toothpastes
In the early 1990s low-fluoride children’s toothpastes were
introduced in Australia for children aged under six years.3
These were introduced to reduce the prevalence of
dental fluorosis (mottling of tooth enamel), which can
sometimes occur if too much fluoride is ingested.3 Since
their introduction, low-fluoride children’s toothpastes have
significantly reduced the prevalence of dental fluorosis
in Australia, so that now, if dental fluorosis does occur in
Australia, it is almost always very mild or mild.4 Awareness
raising of appropriate toothpaste use by children (using
it under supervision, using a pea-sized amount smeared
over the brush, spitting out and not swallowing) has also
played a part in reducing dental fluorosis in Australia.4
Importantly, these low-fluoride children’s toothpastes
are not available in the US.5 Dental fluorosis is not
a public health issue in Australia because of the
very high proportion of children using low-fluoride
children’s toothpastes.4"

"High naturally occurring fluorides in some
US water supplies
All water supplies contain some natural fluoride.6
In Australia most water supplies have low levels of
natural fluoride that do not confer dental health benefits.7
In the US, however, a small but significant number of
people consume water that is naturally highly fluoridated8 –
sometimes several times the level used in water fluoridation
programs in Australia.
The low levels of fluoride in Australian drinking water
supplies is another reason why dental fluorosis is not
a public health issue in Australia."

"fluorosis, it is important to note
that studies reveal that development of dental fluorosis
is more closely related to fluoride toothpaste and tooth
brushing practices than to water fluoridation.14,15 In other
words it is more important to address toothpaste and
tooth brushing issues, rather than reducing fluoride
concentration in water fluoridation programs, in order
to tackle a reported increase in dental fluorosis."

Hmm...

That note in some research is fine, MW... but what is more important is what actually happens in the real world.

How often and prominently do toothpaste makers warn in their adverts or packaging that children swallowing toothpaste causes dental fluorosis? Almost never.

Whiskers said:

That note in some research is fine, MW... but what is more important is what actually happens in the real world.

How often and prominently do toothpaste makers warn in their adverts or packaging that children swallowing toothpaste causes dental fluorosis? Almost never.

Click to expand...

I have no idea how often an prominently makers advertise this fact.

But I do have an idea that fluorosis is linked to it, and that our drinking water levels are within acceptable levels.

I wonder if you are barking up the wrong tree, and perhaps it would be more prudent to have a go at toothpaste manufacturers and toothbrushing techniques and education?

MW

PS I am sensing a change in position?

medicowallet said:

I have no idea how often an prominently makers advertise this fact.

But I do have an idea that fluorosis is linked to it, and that our drinking water levels are within acceptable levels.

I wonder if you are barking up the wrong tree, and perhaps it would be more prudent to have a go at toothpaste manufacturers and toothbrushing techniques and education?

MW

PS I am sensing a change in position?

Click to expand...

You raised and started barking up the issue of incorrect toothpaste use as a cause of fluorosis.

I'm just re-construing your mischievously, misconstrued questions and points you've designed to advocate a silly conclusion, to keep the issue on point.


MW, do the exercise for us.

...using the costs from http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/heal...ragedental.htm

•consider how many extractions and fillings you have and add up the cost
•Then assuming you were one of the unlucky ones who had fluorosis... tally the cost of annual or biannual whitening treatments for the same period as above.
•Thirdly, tally the cost of dental veneers every 5 and 10 years for the same period as above.


To be continued...

MW, do the exercise for us.



•consider how many extractions and fillings you have and add up the cost
•Then assuming you were one of the unlucky ones who had fluorosis... tally the cost of annual or biannual whitening treatments for the same period as above.
•Thirdly, tally the cost of dental veneers every 5 and 10 years for the same period as above.

additionally

consider the cost of valvular heart disease
consider the cost of poor nutrition
consider the cost of training extra oral health practitioners

etc etc

Sorry, but your economic study misplaces not only a vast majority of the positives of fluoridation, but also many of the negatives.

Back to the drawing board for you.

MW

MW, you are behaving like the class twit... pay attention!

The case-in-point atm is how dentists could gain from the changing dynamics of services because of increased fluorosis with fluoridation.

Do, you assigned homework like a good boy.

...using the costs from http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/heal...ragedental.htm

•consider how many extractions and fillings you have and add up the cost
•Then assuming you were one of the unlucky ones who had fluorosis... tally the cost of annual or biannual whitening treatments for the same period as above.
•Thirdly, tally the cost of dental veneers every 5 and 10 years for the same period as above.


To be continued...

Click to expand...

Whiskers said:

MW, you are behaving like the class twit... pay attention!

The case-in-point atm is how dentists could gain from the changing dynamics of services because of increased fluorosis with fluoridation.

Do, you assigned homework like a good boy.

Click to expand...

But Mrs Whiskers, the homework is flawed and you know it.

I know, after the schooling I just gave you above, that you are just playing now.

How about letting go of your poorly chosen position, and acknowledge that your theories are just fantasy land stuff designed by nutters..

Once again... show me ONE good study supporting your position, and I will be convinced... because you have only provided ONE good study, and it supported mine lol.

MW