Where do teeth come from? The stork theory

Seems some prominent campaigners against fluoridation must advocate the stork theory, or something similar, to explain where  teeth come from. Apparently they do not understand that teeth develop in the jaw before eruption.

Here’s a Twitter message from the “Girl Against Fluoride” – (a leader of the anti-fluoride movement in the Republic of Ireland who is known for getting her gear off for the “cause”) sent to Alex White, the Minister of State for the Department of Health in Dublin.

1960s propaganda told people that adding to our tap was good for our teeth BUT…


Where the hell does she think babies teeth come from? Do they suddenly appear fully formed by magic, or delivered by a stork.

Of course not, they develop in the jaw – the model from Tooth Development shows permanent teeth developing under the baby teeth in this case.


This photo from Wikipedia (see Tooth eruption) also shows how teeth develop before eruption.


My previous article Ingested fluoride is beneficial to dental health described how research (Cho et al., 2014) showed ingestion of fluoride in the first 4 years of life reduces the incidence of tooth decay in later life – even when fluoridation stopped after age 4.


11-year-old children who had received fluoridated water in first 4 years show better oral health than children who hadn’t.

The graphic above presents the data of Cho, H.-J., Jin, B.-H., Park, D.-Y., Jung, S.-H., Lee, H.-S., Paik, D.-I., & Bae, K.-H. (2014). Systemic effect of water fluoridation on dental caries prevalence. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Check out my article or the paper for details.

Similar articles

5 responses to “Where do teeth come from? The stork theory

  1. And she sent that to the Department of Health in Dublin. wow Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Mind, Could be another Declan Waugh theory.


  2. It’s easy to see how she got there, she bought the “fluoride only works by topical application” fallacy that anti-fluoridation cheerleaders push.


  3. Again Chris and Richard engage in vitriol and obfuscation as usual. They apparently haven’t read the study Ken refers to. If they had they should acknowledged the limitations therein.
    The first limitation of this study is that the fluoride
    mouth-rinsing (FMR) program had been carried out
    for 2 or 3 years prior to this survey in theWF-ceased
    area. Thus, the topical effect from the FMR program
    could be mixed with the systemic effect of water fluoridation.
    The caries-preventive fraction of the FMR
    program was reported to be approximately 20–50%
    (37–40). However, the effect of the FMR program
    seems to be much less than the systemic effect of
    water fluoridation in the present study, for two reasons.
    First, the DMFT ratio for 8-year-olds was only
    0.924 (Table 1) even though both 8-year-olds and 11-
    year-olds were exposed to the FMR program. The second
    reason that the effect of the FMR program in the
    WF-ceased area may be lower than expected is that
    the fluoride mouth-rinsing was only performed once
    a week and was occasionally suspended due to school
    vacations. In addition, the FMR program was not conducted
    well in Korea because many children and
    teachers were not compliant with the program (41).
    The second limitation of this study is that it has a
    cross-sectional design, preventing the determination
    of cause and effect. In addition, there might
    have been a selection bias, as the convenience sampling
    method was used in this study. Hence, we
    analyzed data without sampling weights. However,
    the authors tried to select schools with similar
    economic levels and adjusted monthly family
    income and other confounders to reduce potential
    bias. Thirdly, as this study was conducted in only
    one part of Korea, the external validity of this
    result may be limited. Further prospective and
    well-designed studies on the systemic effects of
    water fluoridation are needed.


  4. Bojangles, I congratulate you on actually accessing the paper and reading at least part of the text. However, you seem to have been highly motivated and activated by the word “limitations” – sort like clutching at straws by a drowning person, even though the boyancy of the straws will not save that person.

    All scientific studies have their advantages and limitations and it is good to see more and more authors referring to the limitations (your may have noticed that Broadbent also referred to limitations of his study in his paper – or did you not read the copy I passed over to your little group 🙂 last week?) The intelligent reader takes these into account when reading papers and of course they form an unbiased and balanced view from reading all that they practically have available on the subject.

    I suggest you have simply jumped on anything you could find to cast aspersions on the paper. In fact you have not achieved anything by this copypasta except to expose your own motivation and “limitations.”



  5. I didn’t know babies needed fluoride. interesting


Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s