Fluoridation: My podcast with with Howard Farran

This is a bit embarrassing.

I really don’t like seeing myself on video or listening to myself on audio And this one is even worse as the interviewer makes some extreme over-the-top complimentary statements at the beginning. But if you can get through that we do have a sensible discussion and cover most of the topical issues related to community water fluoridation.

The interviewer, Howard Farran, is  a leading light in the US dental community group Dentaltown. As part of the group, he operates a blog/podcast Dentistry Uncensored. It seems to be very active – this podcast is number 347.

So, I was really very honoured when he approached me to request an interview.  Also gratified that my attempts here to debunk the misinformation and distortions promoted by anti-fluoride campaigners has come to the notice of dentists in the USA. Howard also asked all the right questions – he has been active in campaigning for community water fluoridation in the US and in the process has debated Paul Connett from the Fluoride Action Network. So he knows what the issues are.

Sorry for the length (46 min) but we cover a lot of material. Most of it scientific – although we do end up discussing New Zealand’s attraction to sensible tourists.

Similar articles

32 responses to “Fluoridation: My podcast with with Howard Farran

  1. Do you think the human body cares whether the fluoride comes from toothpaste, mouthwash, tobacco, tea, air pollution, lettuce, imitation dairy, powdered eggs, pesticides on foods, or tap water? If so, why? How much can a rat, or the human body, tolerate of this known neurotoxin? It’s all cumulative in the body. Forever. Slow kill.

    The real surprise was the level of fluoride in powdered eggs at 900 ppm. That level nearly rivals toothpaste at 1450 ppm. The high level of fluoride in powdered eggs is due to the use of a Dow Chemical product called ProFume used in sanitizing food handling areas. Instant tea, non-dairy creamer and powdered eggs contained the highest levels of fluoride.

    There is no need to add any fluoride, or “fluoride ions” to our drinking water. It’s just another con job. There was never a reason to add it to drinking water at all. Period. You absorb fluoride through your gums and from under your tongue every time you brush your teeth with a fluoridated toothpaste, or use a fluoridated mouthwash. Just like sublingual Vitamin B-12 or nitroglycerin tablets for your heart. There is no lab work anywhere on this planet demonstrating a population just wasn’t getting enough fluoride. Furthermore, simply counting cavities is subjective and prone to error. It’s pseudoscience. The whole thing was a scam from the get-go.

    Fluoride bio accumulates in the body from all sources you are exposed to. Not just from your tap water. You might know the dosage of fluoride the tap water is getting because its measured. But it isn’t measured in the human body with lab work so you have no clue how much fluoride the human body is getting. Don’t pretend you know how much fluoride the human body is getting by what’s added to tap water. That would be ridiculous!!


  2. Ken, you’re damn right your efforts have come to the notice of dentists in the US. I, for one, am a big fan of your work and constantly refer people to your site in order to obtain accurate, knowledgeable information on fluoridation and to read your excellent explanations of the manner in which Connett and co. constantly manipulate and skew scientific literature and data. Keep up the great work. It is definitely making a difference.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS


  3. Steve Slott

    Ima Skeptic

    1. The human body “cares” about total amount of fluoride it receives, how often it receives it, and the manner in which it receives it. Fluoridation provides a steady, yet small concentration of fluoride which is incorporated into the developing teeth, thereby making them more resistant to dental decay. Additionally, it provides a steady, consistent amount of low concentration fluoride which becomes incorporated into saliva. This saliva then bathes the teeth all during the day in that low concentration of fluoride, a very effective method of dental decay prevention. While the sources you note do provide fluoride, it is of inconsistent levels, and does not provide the day long bathing of the teeth as does fluoridated water. Too, fluoridation does not depend on the inconsistent compliance of adults and children, as do your sources. Fluoride is automatically provided each time a glass of water fluoridated water is consumed.

    2. The United States Institute of Medicine has established the daily upper limit of fluoride intake for adults, before adverse effects, to be 10 mg. The US CDC has estimated that of the total daily fluoride intake from all sources, 75% is from water and beverages. A simple math equation demonstrates that in the absence of exposure to abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride, before adverse effects could occur in association with optimally fluoridated water, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

    3. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects from bio-accumulation of optimal level fluoride in the water……..as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.

    If I honestly believed even a portion of the unsubstantiated nonsense antifluoridationists spew about fluoridated water I would not get within a mile of it, much less freely drink and otherwise use it. I would use rain water, or boil water from rivers and streams if necessary. Given that most antifluoridationists freely consume fluoridated water, probably including you, either they are all stark raving mad or they don’t believe their fabricated junk any more than do intelligent people. Probably one of the funniest anecdotes I’ve heard is from one who debated Connett in a live forum. This fellow stated that he personally watched Connett drink 4 glasses of fluoridated water while Connett stood there and spun his tales about all the “horrors” of fluoridated water. Hmmmmm……..

    4. Your personal opinion on what should or should not be done in regard to the prevention of dental disease is obviously unqualified and meaningless.

    5. In regard to how much fluoride “the human body is getting”, see my item #2 in this comment. Total fluoride intake is determined with a simple math equation. There is no more convincing evidence of the validity of the CDC and IOM figures than hundreds of millions of individuals having consumed fluoridated water over the past 71 years, with no proven adverse effects.

    6. That which is “ridiculous” is uninformed antifluoridationists deluding that they have a better understanding of healthcare than the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS


  4. Ima Skeptic

    Steve Slott,
    Fluoridation is a disease masquerading as it’s own cure. Fluoride causes rotting teeth in Russia but protects teeth in the USA?
    Read “Russia’s Population Sink”
    “In the former heart of the Soviet empire, deaths are far outpacing-births.”

    “In Nadvoitsy, a small Russian town near the Finnish border, an estimated 4,000 children have been poisoned by fluoride, which replaces calcium in the body, leaving its victims with blackened, rotting teeth and weakened bones. Although the town’s aluminum plant no longer dumps fluoride into unlined landfills, the contamination persists because neither the authorities nor the company can afford a full-fledged clean-up. Today, 5 to 10 percent of the town’s kindergartners continue to exhibit signs of fluorosis.” (Note that in the USA, over 41% of 12 to 15 year-old children now have dental fluorosis per the CDC. This is fluoride-induced dental damage).

    If it weren’t for fluoride, people like you would be out of a job.


  5. Imma – it is dishonestly pathetic to propose an argument relying on an example of extreme industrial pollution to attempt to discredit a social health policy where fluoride concentrations are infinitely lower.

    Similarly your use of US figures for dental fluorosis is also dishonest because there is very little difference between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. In simple language – community water fluoridation is not the cause of the figures you cite.


  6. Ima Skeptic

    Ken, only a swindler, or dentist practicing “woo-woo”, would use a flawed “math equation” instead of lab work to determine the fluoride levels in the human body. What kind of pseudoscience are you practicing??


  7. Ima, a little thought would show that it is possible to measure the “fluoride levels” in an individual. But when we are dealing with populations we used such recorded information together with dietary information, excretion ratios, etc., to estimate average levels of intake etc.

    Perfectly good science – when we have to deal with populations , not individuals.


  8. Ken, your math equation doesn’t even include fluoridated toothpaste, fluoridated mouthwash, tea, tobacco, powdered eggs, fluoridated pesticides used on our foods, etc, etc. It’s a flawed equation and in reality you really have no clue how much fluoride anyone is getting. There is no lab work done on any population on this planet demonstrating the people just aren’t getting enough fluoride in their diet. Furthermore, fluoride is useless in preventing tooth decay. Fluoride can disintegrate teeth. And that’s great for the dental industry.


  9. Ima – I don’t have a “math equation” – so your comment is irrelevant. But in practice, health experts make estimates based on measured intakes for individuals and they do include all sorts of dietary inputs and toothpaste.

    You can make baseless declarations like “there is no lab work” and “fluoride is useless in preventing tooth decay” but the facts don’t support you. I have only to present one study (eg A 4-year assessment of a new water-fluoridation scheme in New South Wales, Australia) or a review (eg Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidence) showing that community water fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay to shoot such thoughtless and baseless assertions out of the water.

    Come on, if you want to participate in the discussion here then what about some evidence and backing up of claims.


  10. Ken – If there is even one exception to a theory, it can no longer be considered valid. And since it’s now clear water fluoridation doesn’t work, why do it? Isn’t it a waste of money? On PubMed.
    “Caries frequency before and after discontinuation of water fluoridation in Kuopio, Finland”

    “In spite of discontinued water fluoridation, no indication of an increasing trend of caries could be found in Kuopio. The mean numbers of fluoride varnish and sealant applications decreased sharply in both towns between 1992 and 1995. In spite of that caries declined.”
    On PubMed
    “Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation” [Canada]

    “The prevalence of caries (assessed in 5,927 children, grades 2, 3, 8, 9) decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community.”
    On PubMed
    “Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation La Salud, Cuba”

    “In the past, caries has usually increased after cessation of water fluoridation. More recently an opposite trend could be observed: following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for 6-9-year-olds and to decrease for10/11-year-olds. In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease.”
    On PubMed
    “Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany”

    “In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed. This corresponds to the national caries decline and appears to be a new population-wide phenomenon. There is still no explanation for the pattern.”
    On PubMed
    “…dental caries in 12-year-old children residing in cities with and without fluoridated water supply…” [São Paulo, Brazil]

    “There was no statistically significant difference between DMFT in municipalities of the same size, regardless of the presence or absence of fluoride in the water supply… Prevalence of caries in the region was ‘high’, with a DMFT of 4.82, thus failing to reach the goals set for the year 2000.”
    On PubMed
    “The fluoride content of drinking water and caries experience in 15-19 year old school children in Ibadan, Nigeria”

    “955 students aged 15-19 years randomly selected from eleven secondary schools in Ibadan metropolis were examined for dental caries. The fluoride level of the different water sources was between 0.02 and 0.03 ppm. [Only] Forty-four (4.6%) of the children had dental caries. In conclusion, both the fluoride level and caries prevalence were low.”
    On PubMed.
    “Prevalence and severity of dental caries in adolescents…” [Mexico]

    “In an analysis of caries severity (DMFT > or = 4), both adolescents with very mild/mild and moderate/severe dental fluorosis have higher caries severity. Fluoride exposure (measured through fluorosis presence) does not appear to be reducing the caries prevalence (DMFT > 0) or caries severity (DMFT > or = 4) in these high-altitude communities.”
    On PubMed
    “The effects of a break in water fluoridation [11 mos.] on the development of dental caries and fluorosis” [Durham, North Carolina]

    “It was concluded that while the break had little effect on caries, dental fluorosis is sensitive to even small changes in fluoride exposure from drinking water, and this sensitivity is greater at 1 to 3 years of age than at 4 or 5 years.”
    On PubMed
    “New evidence on fluoridation”

    “A review of recent scientific literature reveals a consistent pattern of evidence– hip fractures, skeletal fluorosis, the effect of fluoride on bone structure, fluoride levels in bones and osteosarcomas– pointing to the existence of causal mechanisms by which fluoride damages bones. In addition, there is evidence, accepted by some eminent dental researchers… that there is negligible benefit from ingesting fluoride…”.


  11. Ima – this claim of yours “If there is even one exception to a theory, it can no longer be considered valid.” is just plain stupid. One must always look at the context of any study.

    I notice you refuse to discuss the single study I linked you to or the review. I could be equally stupid and claim that these single cases show your claims are not valid – but I am willing to discuss these even if you aren’t. Meanwhile, I take your refusal as an acceptance that this study and the review are valid and you cannot refute them.

    As for your links to studies you claim show cessation of CWF does not lead to any decline in oral health – I discussed all of these in my article What happens when fluoridation is stopped? In this I concluded:

    “So when we actually read these cherry-picked reports we find that, while no increases in tooth decay were found after fluoridation stopped, in all 4 cases this was attributed to the existence of other sources of fluoride and fluoride dental treatments. This is a similar situation to that I reported about one of Colquhoun’s papers in my recent article Fluoridation: what about reports it is ineffective? In that case all children from non-fluoridated areas had been given six-monthly dental fluoride treatments whereas most children from fluoridated areas had not. So the lack of an effect due to fluoridation is hardly surprising.”

    I also said in that article:

    “This underlines the need to always read the scientific literature critically and intelligently, doing our best to avoid confirmation bias and cherry-picking. Perhaps that was Connett’s mistake – he was just selecting reports supporting “

    I suggest you attempt to understand what I mean by this.


  12. Ken – what do know for sure is that fluoride destroys teeth and bone. Look to nature to see what fluoride does. No peer-reviewed study needed. Whenever there is a volcanic eruption, you will find that it is always the fluoride in the ash that causes the teeth of wildlife and farm animals to CRUMBLE and FALL OUT. It is only the fluoride that is to blame for this damage. It causes bones to break. But somehow dentists believe if you put this bio accumulative poison in a toothpaste tube or in tap water it becomes a miraculous substance that benefits everyone’s teeth. How STUPID do they expect everyone to be?

    See online article, “Toxic Ash Threatens Iceland Animals ”
    “It [fluoride] also binds with calcium in the blood stream and after heavy exposure over a period of days makes bones frail, even causing teeth to CRUMBLE.”

    See online article, “Volcanic Ash Could Hover For Days Over Europe”
    “The ash is toxic – the FLUORIDE causes long-term bone damage that makes TEETH FALL OUT and bones BREAK.”

    H. Trendley Dean was the father of fluoridation. To paraphrase Dean’s findings, “As children’s teeth disintegrate, they may have fewer cavities”. Trendley Dean admitted under oath on a witness stand that his early data gave ZERO evidence that increasing fluoride concentration in the water supply reduced tooth decay.

    H. Trendley Dean: Proceedings, City of Oroville vs. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Oroville, California, Oroville, California, October 20-21, 1955.)… also… (See 4-1: “Fluoridation Benefits – Statistical Illusion.” Testimony of Konstantin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, Mar. 6, 1957).

    Really? As children’s teeth DISINTEGRATE? Sounds wonderful for children’s teeth!!!


  13. Ima – you are refusing to engage on any point – instead you Gish gallop onto something new – or not so new in this case.

    Again you are using ash from volcanic eruptions – well know for producing toxic levels of several elements. This is completely irrelevant to CWF where the F concentrations are infinitely lower.

    F does not “destroy teeth and bones. it is a normal and natural constituent of bioapatites – teeth and bones. In fact, our teeth and bones would have problems without F as they would be weaker and more soluble.

    Calcium and phosphorus are also natural constituents of bioapatites. But, like anything, excessive intake of fluoride, calcium or phosphorus can produce problems.

    It is very telling that instead of engaging with the studies relevant to community water fluoridation you instead rely on information from extreme pollution or extreme natural events like volcanic eruptions. This tells me tyou cannot actually find anything sensible to support your tirade against CWF.

    Can you find a single study – any evidence at all, to support your claim tat CFWF causes children’s teeth to disintegrate??

    No – I thought not.


  14. Ken – fluoride is not “natural” or “normal” for anyone’s teeth or bones.
    Isn’t fluoride a fluorine compound? It seems too much of it will cause you to loose your teeth. Is it in our foods too? “Fluorine as a factor in premature aging”.
    “Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition [tooth loss] in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds.”
    Is this why we have to bathe in it every day? For our teeth?
    Effects of the fluoride on the central nervous system”. On PubMed.
    “INTRODUCTION: Fluoride (F) is a toxic and reactive element, and exposure to it passes almost unnoticed, with the consumption of tea, fish, meat, fruits, etcetera and articles of common use such as: toothpaste additives; dental gels, non-stick pans and razor blades as Teflon. It has also been used with the intention of reducing the dental cares.

    DEVELOPMENT: Fluoride can accumulate in the body, and it has been shown that continuous exposure to it causes damaging effects on body tissues, particularly the nervous system directly without any previous physical malformations.

    BACKGROUND: Several clinical and experimental studies have reported that the F induces changes in cerebral morphology and biochemistry that affect the neurological development of individuals as well as cognitive processes, such as learning and memory. F can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects they are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident.

    CONCLUSION: The prolonged ingestion of F may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system. Therefore, it is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain F, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of F.”

    Did you even know that there were loads of “fluoride ions” in tobacco and tea? Why is it never mentioned? They make everyone think it only occurs in toothpaste and tap water. Why the deception?


  15. Ima – You claim “fluoride is not “natural” or “normal” for anyone’s teeth or bones.”

    Can you produce any evidence for that? Can you produce any analytical study showing no F in bioapatite – our teeth and bones? No you can’t.

    Here is a section from my debate with Paul Connett about the fact that F is a normal and natural component of bioapatites:

    “I briefly referred to the nature of apatites and the occurrence of fluoride as a natural constituent. Paul seems not to get this as he again refers to fluoride as something external, and not a natural, normal, part of apatites. He is mistaken in his belief that I claim “that fluoride is needed to react with our bio-apatites and make them stronger, less soluble and in the case of teeth less vulnerable to tooth decay.” (My stress).

    I don’t claim that at all. I argue that apatites, including bioapatites, are not pure end members such as hydroxylapatite, but naturally (and normally) contain species like F and carbonate as part of their structure. isomorphous substitution of these species for phosphate and oxygen occur during formation of the apatite compounds. This isomorphous substitution of F for O strengthens the apatite and lowers it’s solubility compared with the hydroxylapatite end member. Carbonate substitution for phosphate can have an opposite effect – things are never simple so there is a balancing act which makes isomorphous substitution of fluoride even more important. The bioapatites in our body contain both F and carbonate as normal, natural components (see figure below). The incorporation of ions like fluoride into bioapatites can change their solubility product by several orders of magnitude according to Driessens (1973). Planer at al (1975) attributes the improved stability of bone to “the isomorphous substitution of fluoride in the apatite structure.”

    (None of this denies the the negative effects of excessive fluoride intake on our bones and teeth).


    This is why Wopemka and Pasteris (2005) argue “the apatite phase in bone should not be called hydroxylapatite.” This is also the reason why there are “limitations to the use of the stoichiometric mineral hydroxylapatite as a mineral model for the inorganic phase in bone.” I second this and find unfortunate the simplification we often see in more general texts where bioapatites are discussed as if they were the end members hydroxylapatite or fluorapatite rather than an intermediate hydroxyl-carbonate-fluoroapatite of somewhat variable composition.

    The fluoride we ingest is involved in the formation of bioapatites right from the beginning. This is why we see increased risks of weakened bones and teeth when dietary fluoride intake is insufficient. It can also be lost from actively growing bones and other bioapatites when fluoride intake is reduced. See Kurland et al (2007) for an example of the reverse of fluorosis (probably caused by surreptitious ingestion of toothpaste) once fluoride inputs had been reduced.”

    Now – can you engage with this point instead of wildly citing studies referring to high, toxic, levels of F intake not relevant to CWF


  16. Ima Skeptic

    Fluoride seems to be carcinogenic too. Hmm? I’m wondering why fluoride isn’t considered in violation of the Delaney clause? The Delaney clause was a provision in the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 which said that if a substance were found to cause cancer in man or animal, then it could not be used as a food additive. If it’s added to tap water and used as a pesticide on our foods, it will be in our foods. And fluoride seems to cause cancer. On PubMed.
    “Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on WHO data…”

    “…cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary organs were positively associated with Fluoridated Drinking water (FD). This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. Brain tumors and T-cell system Hodgkin’s disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma of the skin and monocytic leukaemia were also correlated with Fluoridated Drinking water.”
    US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health website
    “Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States).”

    “We explored age-specific and gender-specific effects of fluoride level in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma. …”

    “Our exploratory analysis found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females.”
    US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health website
    “Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan”

    “The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities.”
    US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health website
    “Is there a need of extra fluoride in children?”

    “Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate, disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea, causing disruptive effect on tissues in the body. It inhibits antibody formation, disturbs immune system and makes the child prone to malignancy. Fluoride has been categorized as a protoplasmic poison…”
    US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health website
    “Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells”

    “NaF [sodium fluoride] is known to induce chromosome aberrations at these concentrations in human cells, but not in most rodent cells. The results showed that the clastogenicity [chromosome damage] of NaF [sodium fluoride] was limited to human and great ape cells.”
    US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health website
    Why was Dr. Dean Burk ignored? Was it too big of an opportunity for the cancer industry to pass up?
    “FLUORIDE ‘amounts to public murder on a grand scale’ Dr. Dean Burk National Cancer Institute “.


  17. Ima – you are Gish galloping again. Your refusal to engage on any point and attempt to divert to another point you will refuse to engage on just indicates that you cannot back up your claims.

    A warning – because of your continued Gish galloping I am placing your comments in the moderation queue and only allowing them through when they engage properly with the discussion.

    Now – can you go back and engage, please.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Steve Slott


    Ken has already clearly demonstrated that you have no clue as to what you’re talking about. Just for the fun of it, though, here’s my reply I saved from the last time some uninformed antifluoridationist copy/pasted that list of cessation studies from “fluoridealert”:

    1. Finland 1998: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9758426

    Actual title: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998 Aug;26(4):256-62.
    Caries frequency in permanent teeth before and after discontinuation of water fluoridation in Kuopio, Finland.
    Seppä L1, Kärkkäinen S, Hausen H.

    From the abstract in complete and proper context:

    Results: “In 1992, the mean DMFS values were lower in the fluoridated town for the two older age groups, the percentage differences for 12- and 15-year-olds being 37% and 29%, respectively. For the two younger age groups no meaningful differences could be found. In 1995, the only difference with possible clinical significance was found in the 15-year-olds in favor of the fluoridated town (18%). In 1995, a decline in caries was seen in the two older age groups in the nonfluoridated town. In spite of discontinued water fluoridation, no indication of an increasing trend of caries could be found in Kuopio. The mean numbers of fluoride varnish and sealant applications decreased sharply in both towns between 1992 and 1995. In spite of that caries declined.”

    As expected, in 1992, the incidence of decay was significantly lower in the fluoridated town. The younger children were prior to decay prone years.

    The effects of fluoridation are for a lifetime. It would not be unexpected to see no increase in caries incidence in those who had already benefited from water fluoridation, after only 3 years. Given the “halo” and other uncontrollable variables, there was no way of ascertaining how much fluoride intake had actually been incurred by those in the non-fluoridated town. How many in the non-fluoridated town worked or schooled in fluoridated towns? How many in the non-fluoridated town had moved there from fluoridated towns? There are far too many variables to have drawn any conclusions, whatsoever, from a decrease in caries incidence in a non-fluoridated town.

    2. Canada 2001: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562

    Actual title of study: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001 Feb;29(1):37-47.
    Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation.
    Maupomé G1, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J.

    Conclusions of Maupome and Levy in complete and proper context:

    “Our results suggest a complicated pattern of disease following cessation of fluoridation. Multiple sources of fluoride besides water fluoridation have made it more difficult to detect changes in the epidemiological profile of a population with generally low caries experience, and living in an affluent setting with widely accessible dental services. There are, however, subtle differences in caries and caries treatment experience between children living in fluoridated and fluoridation-ended areas.”

    3. Cuba 2000: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780

    Actual title: Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba.
    Künzel W1, Fischer T.

    From the abstract:

    “while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased from 4.8 (1973) and 33.3 (1982) up to 55.2%. A possible explanation for this unexpected finding and for the good oral health status of the children in La Salud is the effect of the school mouthrinsing programme, which has involved fortnightly mouthrinses with 0.2% NaF solutions (i.e. 15 times/year) since 1990.”

    4. East Germany 2000: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014515

    Actual title: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2000 Oct;28(5):382-9.
    Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany.
    Künzel W1, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Brühmann S.

    “Additional surveys (N=1017) carried out in the formerly-fluoridated towns of Spremberg (N=9042) and Zittau (N=6232) were carried out in order to support this unexpected epidemiological finding. Pupils from these towns, aged 8/9-, 12/13- and 15/16-years, have been examined repeatedly over the last 20 years using standardised caries-methodological procedures. While the data provided additional support for the established fact of a caries reduction brought about by the fluoridation of drinking water (48% on average), it has also provided further support for the contention that caries prevalence may continue to fall after the reduction of fluoride concentration in the water supply from about 1 ppm to below 0.2 ppm F. ”

    “The causes for the changed caries trend were seen on the one hand in improvements in attitudes towards oral health behaviour and, on the other hand, to the broader availability and application of preventive measures (F-salt, F-toothpastes, fissure sealants etc.). There is, however, still no definitive explanation for the current pattern and further analysis of future caries trends in the formerly fluoridated towns would therefore seem to be necessary.”

    A 48% reduction caries reduction brought on by fluoridation, with the continued decrease after cessation being attributable to improved attitudes and broader availability and application of preventive measures.

    5. North Carolina 2000: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10728978?dopt=Abstract

    Actual title of study:

    J Dent Res. 2000 Feb;79(2):761-9.
    The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis.
    Burt BA1, Keels MA, Heller KE.
    Author information

    This is a study by researcher, Brian Burt, which antifluoridationists have repeatedly attempted to twist into seeming support for their position….exactly as has Ms. Spencer done here.

    The following is a statement from Dr. Burt in regard to the misrepresentation of his study by a local Durham, NC antifluoridationist…..exactly as Ms. spencer has done here:

    “Our Durham study was designed to take advantage of a naturally-occurring break in fluoride exposure, a “natural experiment,” in a design that could not be set up in a lab. Mr. Sturmer has misunderstood the results, which I think have been stated clearly enough in the Discussion section of the report.

    I do not support the conclusions reached by Mr. Sturmer. The results with respect to caries incidence are only in the Durham children for a short period of fluoridation non-exposure, whereas fluoridation has its best effects when children and adults are exposed continuously.

    So I clearly cannot support the twist on our data that is being used in Durham.

    Brian A. Burt, BDSc, MPH, PhD
    Professor Emeritus
    University of Michigan
    School of Public Health
    home: 1752 Kestrel Way
    Ann Arbor, MI 48103-9377


    Your “New Information on Fluoridation” study is that 20 year old nonsense from the good old, long since discredited antifluoridationists Colquhoun, Diesendorf, Spittle, etc, etc, etc.

    It’s always funny that antifluoridationists talk about some “new emerging science” then trot out nothing but the same decades old junk that all other antifluoridationists trot out, with none of you having even read a word of any of it.

    If “fluoridealert” suddenly disappeared, all of you puppets would immediately go limp and fall to the floor. I’ve heard that Connett is so masterful that he can even drink a glass of fluoridated water while you’re “talking”……..


    Liked by 1 person

  19. Ima, your last comment is in moderation. It is another Gish gallop so I won’t release it.

    Could you please not Gish gallop – stick to the discussion at hand. That is the only way to have a genuine discussion.

    If and when you can discuss things in the normal way and stop your Gish galloping I will remove moderation from your comments.


  20. David Fierstien

    I see Dr. Dean Burk, formerly of the National Cancer Institute has been resurrected. It is odd that people keep citing him in spite of the fact that the National Cancer Institute completely disagrees with Burk’s conclusons:

    “After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water . . ”

    ” . . the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer.”

    “Recently, researchers examined the possible relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in a new way: they measured fluoride concentration in samples of normal bone that were adjacent to a person’s tumor. Because fluoride naturally accumulates in bone, this method provides a more accurate measure of cumulative fluoride exposure than relying on the memory of study participants or municipal water treatment records. The analysis showed no difference in bone fluoride levels between people with osteosarcoma and people in a control group who had other malignant bone tumors”

    –The National Cancer Institute Webpage http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/myths/fluoridated-water-fact-sheet


  21. Ima,

    In your very first comment: “But it (fluoride) isn’t measured in the human body with lab work so you have no clue how much fluoride the human body is getting.” Completely wrong.

    See http://www.labnet.health.nz/resources/file/biochemistry-specialist/SFl%20interpretation.pdf for how to interpret serum fluoride levels as measured in a New Zealand laboratory.

    It’s an 18 year old .pdf, the same age as some of your Gish gallop references, so there is no reason for you not to know about it. …especially since it’s the second result (out of 691,000) that comes up when I Google “serum fluoride level”.

    Just because you cherry pick your articles to read is no reason to believe that other people, especially scientists, do the same.


  22. Ima Skeptic

    When was the last time a medical doctor or dentist checked the fluoride levels in your body with lab work before recommending fluoride? Too much fluoride can cause a loss of teeth. Why aren’t dentists concerned about that with their dental patients? Why aren’t fluoride levels checked in their patients? There are many sources of fluoride. Not just your drinking water.


  23. Ima,

    Wow, an acknowledgement from an anti-fluoridationist that serum fluoride levels can be measured!

    Although you then demonstrate your lack of understanding by asking “When was the last time…?”

    Ken has already pointed out that the test is not suitable for population screening. Obviously you haven’t been reading his replies to your tropes/echoisms. Serum fluoride testing is used for diagnostic purposes only.

    P.S. if we followed your own line of reasoning – since too much sugar can cause loss of teeth, we can ask when did your dentist last measure your blood glucose? The answer is just the same: never, because it’s not an appropriate test to use for population screening in dentistry.


  24. Ima Skeptic

    When I go to a dentist, I expect individual screening. Not population screening.


  25. So, Ima, does your dentist measure your blood glucose or blood/urine fluoride.

    I would have thought you would insist on such tests. 🙂

    My article about the WHO recommendation that fluoride tests are not suitable for individual assessment of intake but are for group or population assessment is Anti-fluoridation campaigner, Stan Litras, misrepresents WHO


  26. Ima Skeptic

    My dentist doesn’t believe in fluoride. Period.


  27. Does she believe in glucose, Ima? 🙂

    Mind you – fluoride is a fact – refusing to believe it exists doesn’t change that fact.

    But if you really mean your dentist is opposed to fluoride then she should be monitoring it – as you are demanding here. Why don’t you insist she does? 🙂


  28. Ima Skeptic

    If my dentist insisted I use fluoride like you do, I’d find a different dentist.


  29. Ima, you are intentuionally avoiding the issue. You said:

    “When I go to a dentist, I expect individual screening.”

    Now it appears that your dentist does no individual screening at all.

    Aren’t you being hyprocritcal? 🙂


  30. Ima Skeptic

    If a dentist or even a medical doctor really cared about you keeping your teeth, they would be doing lab work at least once every 5 to 10 years to make sure you weren’t being overexposed to fluoride. Not to mention the fact that fluoride is a rat poison people are consuming. But in reality, no one really cares. Not even for the toothless infants. Fluoride is passed on from mother to infant. An infant can be overexposed to fluoride before they are even born. Does anyone care? No. Nice scam you are running.


  31. Ima Skeptic

    Keep destroying everyone’s teeth with fluoride. Great idea!!


  32. Ima,

    Fluoride exists, whether your dentist believes in it or not. Fluorine took its place on the periodic table in 1886. Specifically dental research into fluoride started about 1909.

    If your dentist doesn’t believe in fluoride (“Period”!), then they are demonstrably ignoring at least a century of dental research. I would recommend changing them at once.☺

    If you mean that your dentist is opposed to fluoride use in dentistry, then they are denying at least a century of dental research. I would recommend changing them at once.☺

    “When I go to a dentist, I expect individual screening.” Since it would be impolite to ask what your most recent serum fluoride was during the individual screening, could you please enlighten us to the cost of your most recent serum fluoride test? If it’s used as a screening test and not for diagnosis, then it has to be paid for privately.

    Or doesn’t your dentist do the “individual screening” that you expect? Maybe it’s because they don’t “believe in fluoride. Period.”?

    Or, most probably, your dentist is up to date, following DCNZ guidelines about fluoride and fluoridation, and just humouring your beliefs whilst keeping your teeth healthy? In that case, there’s no need to change dentist.😀


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