Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Propaganda Bolsters Fluoridation - Not Science
No valid evidence exists proving that fluoridation reduces tooth decay, lament researchers. Proponents sell fluoridation to legislators with money, power and strategy fabricated by well-paid advertising agencies which influence media and local groups with one sided information like sales pitches on late night TV. Buyer beware!
After reviewing all available fluoridation studies, the independent and trusted UK-based Cochrane group of researchers could not find any quality evidence to prove fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” Neither could they find valid evidence that fluoride reduces adults’ cavity rates nor that fluoridation cessation increases tooth decay.
Fluoridation may reduce cavities in children (2 primary teeth or 1 permanent tooth). But Cochrane cautions these studies have “high risk of bias” and were mostly done before preventive measures were widespread, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste and sealants.
Diverting attention away from Cochrane, the Centers for Disease Control, which indirectly funded the Cochrane Review, and the American Dental Association defended fluoridation recommending instead the 2013 U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force’s Fluoridation Recommendation.
But the Task Force also admitted it couldn’t evaluate how race, ethnicity and total fluoride intake influenced fluoridation effectiveness because of limited data. “Few studies provided data on socioeconomic status, and most studies had measurement issues; many didn’t blind examiners and there was a lack of consistency among indices used to measure caries."
Unlike the ADA and CDC Foundation, the Cochrane Group is “unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.” Cochrane answered its critics here.
Newsweek reports that scientists, who were assigned to review fluoridation research, are shocked at the lack of valid fluoridation-supporting evidence. Government agencies have a long history of minimizing reviews critical of fluoridation science.
Dentist Bill Osmunson weighs in on how fluoridation research can and should be done here.
Fluoride supplements, first recommended based on the theory that fluoridation prevents tooth decay, unsurprisingly, also are mostly ineffective. In 2011, Cochrane “rated 10 trials as being at unclear risk of bias and one at high risk of bias, and therefore the trials provide weak evidence about the efficacy of fluoride supplements.”
People need to get the special interests out of their water supply. Here's how: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/take-action
The billion dollar Pew Foundation uses its private wealth to interfere with public democracy. According to Pew, "In New York, Pew successfully advised the Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy (SCAA) on legislative options for preserving and expanding community water fluoridation. SCAA drafted language – known as the Health Teeth Amendment – that was included in the New York state budget and passed by the legislature on March 31, 2015" The amendments, in the name of "transparency" requires legislative bodies to newly "jump through several hoops" before they can end fluoridation; but they didn't include the same transparency when legislators want to start fluoridation.
Pew provided New York organizations with training in social media, media relations and developing messaging around community water fluoridation.
Pew also admits it hired PR agents to lobby Arkansas legislators to pass a fluoridation mandate law quickly and quietly before those opposed to fluoridation had a chance to be heard. See:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdhp-fluoridation/CDHP_FlouridationAdvocacyReport_FINAL.pdf
References: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/no-valid-evidence-exists-to-prove-fluoridation-works-say-researchers-300115959.html;
Fluoridation may reduce cavities in children (2 primary teeth or 1 permanent tooth). But Cochrane cautions these studies have “high risk of bias” and were mostly done before preventive measures were widespread, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste and sealants.
Diverting attention away from Cochrane, the Centers for Disease Control, which indirectly funded the Cochrane Review, and the American Dental Association defended fluoridation recommending instead the 2013 U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force’s Fluoridation Recommendation.
But the Task Force also admitted it couldn’t evaluate how race, ethnicity and total fluoride intake influenced fluoridation effectiveness because of limited data. “Few studies provided data on socioeconomic status, and most studies had measurement issues; many didn’t blind examiners and there was a lack of consistency among indices used to measure caries."
Unlike the ADA and CDC Foundation, the Cochrane Group is “unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.” Cochrane answered its critics here.
Newsweek reports that scientists, who were assigned to review fluoridation research, are shocked at the lack of valid fluoridation-supporting evidence. Government agencies have a long history of minimizing reviews critical of fluoridation science.
Dentist Bill Osmunson weighs in on how fluoridation research can and should be done here.
Fluoride supplements, first recommended based on the theory that fluoridation prevents tooth decay, unsurprisingly, also are mostly ineffective. In 2011, Cochrane “rated 10 trials as being at unclear risk of bias and one at high risk of bias, and therefore the trials provide weak evidence about the efficacy of fluoride supplements.”
People need to get the special interests out of their water supply. Here's how: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/take-action
The billion dollar Pew Foundation uses its private wealth to interfere with public democracy. According to Pew, "In New York, Pew successfully advised the Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy (SCAA) on legislative options for preserving and expanding community water fluoridation. SCAA drafted language – known as the Health Teeth Amendment – that was included in the New York state budget and passed by the legislature on March 31, 2015" The amendments, in the name of "transparency" requires legislative bodies to newly "jump through several hoops" before they can end fluoridation; but they didn't include the same transparency when legislators want to start fluoridation.
Pew provided New York organizations with training in social media, media relations and developing messaging around community water fluoridation.
Pew also admits it hired PR agents to lobby Arkansas legislators to pass a fluoridation mandate law quickly and quietly before those opposed to fluoridation had a chance to be heard. See:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdhp-fluoridation/CDHP_FlouridationAdvocacyReport_FINAL.pdf
References: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/no-valid-evidence-exists-to-prove-fluoridation-works-say-researchers-300115959.html;
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$225.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
p 2 "A total of 155 studies met the inclusion criteria; 107 studies provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis."
p 2 "There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.
There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels.
No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria."
p 3 "Researchers from the Cochrane Oral Health Group reviewed the evidence - up to 19 February 2015 - for the effect of water fluoridation. They identified 155 studies in which children receiving fluoridated water (either natural or artificial) were compared with those receiving water with very low or no fluoride. Twenty studies examined tooth decay, most of which (71%) were conducted prior to 1975. A further 135 studies examined dental fluorosis."
p 14 "Five studies were funded by research grants from research organisations, health authorities and government organisations, one study was funded in collaboration with members of the committee pro-fluoridation, while the other studies [on caries] did not state their funding sources."
p 17 "We judged that all the 20 studies included for the caries outcome (including disparities in caries) were at high risk of bias overall."
p 17 "We found all studies to be at high risk of bias for confounding. We considered confounding factors for this outcome to be sugar consumption/dietary habits, SES, ethnicity and the use of other fluoride sources."
p 28 "Whilst these [fluoridated] areas tend to have low to very low DMFT, there are many other parts of the world where fluoridated water is not widespread that also have low caries levels. Equally, there are areas with relatively high distribution of water fluoridation and moderate caries levels (e.g. Brazil)."
p 30 "The quality of the evidence, when GRADE criteria are applied, is judged to be low."