top
US
US
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Fluoride Safety & Efficacy is Not Settled, Researchers Report

by NYSCOF
Declarations of fluoride safety are not backed by science. Fluoride, neither a nutrient nor essential, is a drug with adverse side effects.
Water Fluoridation safety and efficacy science is not settled, according to researchers, Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz ( Journal of Risk Research, August 2016).

Fluoride chemicals are deliberately added to US public water supplies in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers. It is not added to purify the water

Three expert committees (NRC, SCHER, YORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, they report.

Similar to US fluoridationists, Israel’s policy-makers and public health officials pushed through a country-wide artificial fluoridation mandate in 2016 while ignoring or denying valid evidence, produced by experts in their fields and respected science groups, showing that fluoridation safety and efficacy science has not been settled, they report

The Israeli researchers further report that “A [UK] Cochrane systematic review (2015) “concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis [white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth].”

They report that “policy makers themselves …[carry] out what they accuse others [fluoridation opposers] of doing. They share only partial, biased information in order to support their [pro-fluoridation] case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.”


The same is true in the US where the US FDA says fluoride is an unapproved drug which has never been tested for safety or efficacy.

From the beginning, respected US scientists and physicians criticized fluoridation but were ignored (i.e., Waldbott). Voices of opposition were suppressed since the early days, according to Chemical and Engineering News.

Criticism persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Social Scientist Brian Martin PhD; investigative reporters in Scientific American, Chemical & Engineering News, Newsweek and ABC-TV.

In fact, US public health bureaucrats ignore their own published evidence of fluoride’s potential harm i.e. New York State Department of Health and Virginia Department of Health.

The ignored 1990 NYS Department of Health report alerted bureaucrats about fluoride's potential harm to kidney patients, diabetics and the fluoride hypersensitive even at optimal levels.

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz explain that some studies, including recent ones, show no benefit from fluoridation; some even report adverse effects and that those studies were ignored by officials.

Today’s well-paid PR gurus coach fluoridationists to avoid mentioning risks because then “opponents are likely to win.” And they disallow fluoridation opponents from partaking in fluoridation discussions, which occurred in New York State. The public health dentist listserv routinely removes dentists who oppose fluoridation - one censored dentist was a promoinent fluoride researcher, public health dentist and university professor.

Coming on the heels of evidence showing that fluoridation is useless and more harmful to the poor, researchers continue to report that fluoridation's tooth decay reduction is still not scientifically proven.

“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016).

Swedish researchers, in PLOS one, February 2015, reported a “systematic review concerned the caries-preventive effect of water fluoridation [McDonagh]… was graded as low.”

In July 2012, Cagetti, et al. reported “Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs… these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable”

In 2011 the West Virginia University Rural Health Research Center reported "...it was found that fluoridation rates were not significantly related to the measures of either caries or overall condition of the teeth for urban or rural areas."

Even respected dental researchers have reported in dental textbooks that fluoridation is based more on unproven theories than scientific evidence.

Countries that do not fluoridate the water have experienced a dramatic decline in tooth decay. See chart.

Most dentists prefer to treat the water of and not the teeth of low-income folks. Organized dentistry successfully lobbied to have dental care removed from Medicare. 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients.

Those with insurance have a hard time meeting out-of-pocket expenses.
So 130 Million Americans are without dental insurance and many are suffering.

At the same time, fluoride-damaged teeth are becoming more common. 58% of US adolescents are afflicted with dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. More info here

Dentists make a lot of money covering up fluoride damage teeth and have no qualms advertising these services as dentist advertisements show. This added income allows dentists to ignore those who need them the most.
nyscof – The scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective has not changed in over 70 years. In order to change the scientific consensus, legitimate scientific evidence must be presented. During the entire 70+ years, fluoridation opponents (FOs) have been completely unable to provide a single confirmed, convincing, legitimate, reproducible, scientific study to support their claims that drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW) is ineffective or harmful to health. The scientific consensus is the reason over 100 of the most reputable science and health organizations (and their many thousands of members) in the world continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation. These organizations include The WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association. There are no such reputable organizations that support the anti-F propaganda.
~> Search on “ada fluoridation facts compendium” and “I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say?”

How do you explain those facts?

The only way you can state that the “expert committees (NRC, SCHER, YORK) revealed ‘that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation’” is to ignore the actual findings. The 2006 NRC Fluoride in Drinking Water review for example did not conclude there was ANY REASON to lower the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level of fluoride ions in drinking water of 2.0 ppm (nearly three times the optimal level).

The Israeli fluoridation debacle was orchestrated by former Health Minister Yael German based on her unsupportable anti-F paranoia and opposed by Israeli public health and dental experts. She is gone now, and the current Health Minister is working to restore fluoridation.

You whine that the few US scientists and physicians who criticize fluoridation were ignored. They weren’t ignored; they simply did not provide sufficient evidence to prove their opinions on fluoridation were valid and that the benefits of reducing dental decay were not greater than any risks. In fact, as noted in my other comment, less than 0.02% of health professionals have publically signed the FAN anti-F petition.

The opinions of the “legal scholar”, “historian” “social scientist”, and various “reporters” you mentioned are simply unsupportable repeats of standard anti-F propaganda.

You apparently have no compunction about posting blatant lies. Either that or you have never actually read the 1990 NYS DoH report “Fluoride: Benefits And Risks of Exposure” and blindly accept the lies of others. The study concludes, “The preponderance of evidence indicates that fluoride can reduce the incidence of dental caries and that fluoridation of drinking water can provide such protection.” The report stated, “NO evidence of an increased frequency of kidney disease or renal dysfunction has been observed in several studies on U.S. populations exposed to up to 8 mg/l fluoride (over ten times the optimal level) in drinking water when compared with non-fluoridated areas.” Possible hypersensitivity to fluoride was discussed, but significant study flaws were noted (selection bias, lack of controls, etc.), and there have been no subsequent studies which prove a sensitivity to optimally fluoridated water. The report made absolutely no claim that fluoridation caused harm to diabetics. I suggest you read the review and report conclusions in context – but that is apparently too much to ask of someone desperate to prove an unsupportable position.
Read the 2008 American Public Health Association report “Community Water Fluoridation in the United States”.

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz provide their anti-F opinions which ignore the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence that supports the benefits and safety of fluoridation and focus on a few studies that can be “adjusted” so they appear to support the anti-F agenda. Again, if the studies actually proved there was any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water, why would that information be completely ignored by members of all science and health organizations which are committed to protecting and improving the health of citizens???? Are all these health professionals too uneducated, lazy or dumb to understand what you seem to believe is obvious evidence of harm? If so we are in deep trouble. Do all these health professionals actually understand the anti-F claims and believe fluoridation causes the catastrophic harm fluoridation is alleged to cause and continue to support a practice they KNOW is poisoning their fellow citizens – the ones they are committed to help? If so, we are in deep trouble.

I believe the rational explanation is that the overwhelming majority of science and health experts are, in fact, committed to improving and protecting the health of citizens, they understand the 70+ years of evidence on the benefits, risks and costs of fluoridation, and have concluded that the benefits far outweigh any known risks.

The lack of evidence that fluoridation is harmful is why FOs provide opinions to support their opinions. nyscof attempts to discredit the many hundreds of studies on fluoridation by misinterpreting the conclusions of reviews that stated the studies were “graded as low” or “these studies are regarded as low in quality”. FOs apparently don’t understand that these classifications are related to the fact that it would be virtually impossible to conduct high-quality, randomized, controlled, double blind clinical trials on the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation over the lifetime (or even a few years) of treatment and control groups – think about it. The 70+ years of evidence that supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation is not irrelevant, it simply does not (and cannot) provide the level of evidence provided by a randomized, controlled double-blind clinical trial and was excluded from those reviews which required extremely strict (and admittedly unobtainable) conditions for population studies.
Search on -- Cochrane fluoridation review, Most research ignored, Open Parachute – for a detailed description of why these anti-F claims are deliberate misrepresentations of the actual study conclusions. Ken Perrot’s Open Parachute blog has provided one of the most comprehensive review of anti-F tactics available, and his comments are well worth considering.

nyscof continues to make meaningless statements like, “countries that do not fluoridate the water have experienced a dramatic decline in tooth decay” which completely ignores everything in different countries than can influence tooth decay rates and ignores the hundreds of studies which have shown that in optimally fluoridated communities/regions tooth decay rates are lower compared with similar communities/regions that drink water with lower level of fluoride ions.

nyscof concludes with a completely unsupported lie that “58% of US adolescents are afflicted with dental fluorosis [fluoride-damaged teeth] – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth.” If that claim were even remotely true, it should be obvious to the majority of scientists and health professionals unless they are complete incompetent idiots or they are knowingly part of a diabolical conspiracy to damage the teeth and health of citizens worldwide.

Again, nyscof, how do you explain the outlier status of the anti-F activists (< 0.02% of professionals) and the support of fluoridation by over 100 recognized national and international science and health organizations and their many thousands of members?
by Register Peace & Freedom or Green
Thank you NYSCOF for the latest news on the anti-fluoridation front. I have always wondered why I have so many dental cavities, now root canals and extractions, when I was not allowed candy or soda pop as a child and always had plenty of milk, cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese, dark green leafy vegetables and other sources of calcium and Vitamin D. I have always lived a healthy lifestyle, cannot and will not consume alcohol, and the like. The religion called fluoridation is a likely cause.

The credibility of the profiteering American medical organizations is ZERO. In a country where profits are primary, we have no serious medical care, and that is certainly true with dentistry. It is amazing that anyone would even cite any American medical organization for their false claims for fluoridation since all we get is grief from private profit medicine, and in the case of those who cannot afford $2,000 to $3,000 for each root canal and crown, no dentistry.

The story on today's children suffering from fluoridation is at:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fed-data-reveals-fluoride-is-damaging-childrens-teeth-300454090.html

Here are more links on this issue:
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2018/03/01/18807073.php
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2016/12/04/18794399.php

Here are some anti-fluoridation groups with far more credibility than proud promoters of private profit medicine:

Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, and Moms Against Fluoridation.

And here is the list of countries and regions that have socialized medicine, guaranteeing higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality, and that medicine must include dentistry.
All of Europe, Israel, Rwanda, Cuba, Canada, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, China, Taiwan, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand.

HR 676, expanded Medicare for All, does include dentistry in Section 102. See
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676/text
You will notice that there are 121 co-sponsors in a congress of 435 members, and one of the NON-sponsors is San Francisco's Democrat Nancy Pelosi. That is why we vote Peace & Freedom or Green, the only socialized medicine parties on the California ballot. You can register online at https://covr.sos.ca.gov/?language=en-US
Peace & Freedom Party’s candidate for governor is Gloria LaRiva. For more on her and other P&F candidates, see
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/national/election-2018/candidates-2018
The Green Party candidate for governor is Josh Jones. See:
http://www.josh4gov.org/
There are other Green Party candidates. See http://www.gp.org/2018_candidates
For more information, see
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/
http://www.cagreens.org/
http://www.gp.org
RP&FoG – So, you, like nyscof, are unable to answer my questions or provide any legitimate scientific evidence to prove your anti-F paranoia is based on anything besides opinions of others, which you seem unable to understand. Your “references” are all to anti-F sources, unsupported comments and political links with absolutely no relevance to the safety or effectiveness of fluoridation. Your statement about “The credibility of the profiteering American medical organizations” pretty much says it all. You apparently trust nothing about science or health organizations or recognize the improvements in health care over the past 150+ years. Hopefully your idealized “socialized medicine” alternative will not be as dismissive of the scientific consensus in various areas of health care as you seem to be.
by i do not consent
Forced medication of an entire population is unethical (unless maybe your view of ethics is in line with Dr. Josef Mengele).

I do not consent.

Most of the rest of the developed world has rejected this practice of force medicating their citizens by contaminating their drinking water supplies for profit. Modern dental hygiene is all that is needed, and eliminating unnecessary sugars from the diet will only help. I do not consent to being force-medicated to compensate for YOUR bad habits and bad parenting skills.

by Randy Johnson
Idonotconsent – drinking water fluoridation, like disinfection is a public health measure to protect the health of citizens. There is not a shred of evidence that fluoridation is any form of medication except in the fevered imaginations of fluoridation opponents who don’t have any legitimate scientific evidence to support their irrational paranoia of fluoride ions and must fabricate arguments to con the public into fearing a beneficial water treatment method.

If fluoridation=medication, how do you explain the fact that the FDA regulates bottled water which can contain the same levels of fluoride ions as optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) as a "Food for Human Consumption" - NOT a medication. Any child can purchase cases of fluoridated bottled water without a prescription, and no warning labels of possible over exposure are required. Your entire fluoridation=medication argument is false, misleading and irrelevant.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=165.110
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 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.

IMC Network