Debunking anti-fluoridationist’s remaining 12 reasons for opposing fluoridation

New Zealand anti-fluoride campaigners have whittled their list of objections to community water fluoridation (CWF) down to 12 reasons. Maybe that’s progress – they used to tout a list of 50 reasons!

Let’s go through that list one by one and see if any stand up. I am responding here to each reason given in the Fluoride Free New Zealand’s (FFNZ) document Top 12 Reasons why Fluoridation Should End.

You can download a printable version of my responses.


1: Fluoride works by a surface reaction with existing teeth but research shows that it has a beneficial systemic effect with developing teeth.

The document asserts that “Fluoride promoters now claim that if there is any benefit from fluoride it is from contact with the surface of the tooth” and cite as their authority a High Court judge (incidentally, from a ruling that went against anti-fluoride campaigners). A High Court Judge is hardly an authority on scientific matters

Yes, the surface or “topical” action at the tooth surface is understood to be the predominant mechanism for existing teeth. The US Center for Disease Control illustrates this in its figure from the document Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States).

But, I pointed out in my article Cherry-picking and misinformation in Stan Litras’s anti-fluoride article, research also suggests fluoride is incorporated into the developing teeth of children and this helps provide protection.

Newbrun (2004), for example, stressed in a review of the systemic role of fluoride and fluoridation on oral health:

“The role of systemic fluoride in caries prevention is neither “minimal” nor “of borderline significance.” On the contrary, it is a major factor in preventing pit and fissure caries, the most common site of tooth decay. Maximal caries-preventive effects of water fluoridation are achieved by exposure to optimal fluoride levels both pre- and posteruptively.”

Cho et al (2014) presented data showing that children exposed to CWF during teeth development retained an advantage over those never exposed to it. Systemic fluoride may not play a role with existing teeth but it does during tooth development – even if it is difficult to determine the relative contributions of systemic fluoride and “topical” or surface fluoride to lasting oral health.

2: Too much fluoride causes dental fluorosis but this is not relevant to CWF.

Some children from both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas do exhibit dental fluorosis. This is thought to be due to excessive consumption of fluoridated toothpaste and one important factor used in determining the optimum concentration of fluoride used in CWF is to prevent the development of dental fluorosis.

Anti-fluoride propagandists usually cite horrific figures for dental fluorosis because they incorporate all forms of dental fluorosis, from the mildest to the most severe, into their figures. For example, they will cite Ministry of Health Oral Health Survey data to claim that New Zealanders have a prevalence of 45% dental fluorosis caused by fluoridation. In fact, the dental fluorosis of concern (the severe and moderate forms) is very rare and the NZ Oral Health survey (from which this data is taken) showed no difference between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.

3: Fluoride is not a neurotoxin (or neurotoxicant) at concentrations used in CWF.

Sure, animals studies show effects at high concentrations and there are studies of possible negative cognitive effects from areas of endemic fluorosis where drinking water concentrations of fluoride are relatively high. However, studies from areas where CWF is used (Broadbent et al, 2014) or natural levels of fluoride in drinking water are similar (see More nails in the coffin of the anti-fluoridation myths around IQ and hypothyroidism) do not show any negative effect on cognitive ability. In fact, the research suggests that fluoride may actually improve cognitive ability and improve chances of employment and income in adults (see the last link).

The Lancet article cited by FFNZ did not classify fluoride as a “neurotoxin” and the only discussion of fluoride in that article related to the poor quality studies from areas of endemic fluorosis referred to above. Scientific journals publish research findings and reviews – they don’t pass regulations or get into classifications.

4: FFNZ’s reference to dose is simply an attempt to claim evidence from high concentrations studies is relevant to CWF. It isn’t.

All the research indicates that the optimum recommended concentrations used in CWF are high enough to help reduce tooth decay but low enough to have no negative health effects. Only very mild dental fluorosis. which is often judged positively by teenagers and parents, is a possible result of such low concentrations.

The US National Toxicology Review referred to will simply extend previous reviews of animal studies to include human studies. This research programme also plans to include some animal studies using low fluoride concentrations – precisely because most former studies have used high concentrations unrepresentative of CWF.

The fact that new research like this commonly occurs is a good thing as it helps guarantee that social health measures like CWF are safe and they provide confidence to the public that there is continuous monitoring that would pick up any formerly unseen problems.

5: Skeletal and dental fluorosis occurs in parts of the world with high drinking water fluoride concentration but this is not relevant to CWF

The World Health Organisation recommends that drinking water fluoride concentrations should be in the range  0.5 – 1.5 mg/l. High enough to support dental health but low enough to prevent skeletal fluorosis or dental fluorosis of any concern.

Anti-fluoride campaigners commonly refer to the negative health effects in areas of endemic fluorosis (eg., China, India, and Senegal) where drinking water fluoride concentrations are much higher than used for CWF. But those facts are completely irrelevant to the situation in countries like New Zealand. And they are irrelevant to CWF which uses much lower drinking water concentrations.

6: There is no credible evidence to suggest that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor at concentrations used for CWF

A number of animal and human studies have produced conflicting results for endocrine effects of fluoride. These studies suffer from the use of high or unspecified fluoride concentrations. Effects have sometimes been seen for human in areas of endemic fluorosis. Studies have often been confused because of confounding effects due to iodine deficiency (known to cause thyroid problems), calcium and water hardness.

This means that it is easy to cherry-pick individual studies to support claims of harm from fluoride but these are usually for areas of high fluoride concentration or the studies are flawed by the problem of confounding effects.

The authoritative 2014 New Zealand Fluoridation Review (Eason et al. Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence) considered “alleged effects of CWF on health outcomes  . . . including effects on reproduction, endocrine function, cardiovascular and renal effects, and effects on the immune system. “ It concluded:

“The most reliable and valid evidence to date for all of these effects indicates that fluoride in levels used for CWF does not pose appreciable risks of harm to human health.”

7: Bottle-fed babies do not receive harmful amounts of fluoride.

The FFNZ claim they do is a common anti-fluoride misrepresentation of the health recommendations concerning CWF and bottle-fed babies. These recommendations advise that use of fluoridated water to reconstitute baby formula is not harmful. They simply suggest that parents who are concerned should occasionally use non-fluoridated water for that reconstitution – a peace of mind thing.

For example, the American Dental Association advises:

“Yes, it is safe to use fluoridated water to mix infant formula. If your baby is primarily fed infant formula, using fluoridated water might increase the chance for mild enamel fluorosis, but enamel fluorosis does not affect the health of your child or the health of your child’s teeth. ”

Where parents want to reduce the risk of dental fluorosis they:

“can use powdered or liquid concentrate formula mixed with water that either is fluoride-free or has low concentrations of fluoride.”

Arguments based on low concentrations in human breast milk simply rely on the naturalistic fallacy – the claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural). There are common concerns about deficient levels of some beneficial elements in human breast milk and recommendations for using supplements. See, for example, Iron and fluoride in human milk.

8: Fluoridation chemicals are not contaminant-laden waste products.

For example, fluorosilicic acid, the most commonly used fluoridation chemical in New Zealand, is a by-product of the fertiliser industry. When used for water treatment it must pass rigorous restrictions on contaminant levels. Certificates of analysis are required.

contaminants-hfa

With these regulations and checks for water treatment chemicals, the concentration of any contaminant introduced into tap water by their use is much lower than the concentration of those contaminants already naturally present in the source water used. See Chemophobic scaremongering: Much ado about absolutely nothing for data based on a typical certificate of analysis for fluorosilicic acid and the natural concentrations of contaminants for the source water used by Hamilton City. The concentration of contaminants introduced into drinking water is well under 1% of the levels already naturally present in the water source (see graph).

9: Fluoridation is not a medicine and it does not violate human basic rights.

That was determined in High Court rulings – cases brought by anti-fluoride campaigners financed by the “natural”/alternative health industry. All appeals so far against those rulings have been rejected.

10:   Community water fluoridation is not suitable or necessary for many countries

A claim that only 5% of the world uses community water fluoridation is not relevant. Consider that just over 10% of the world do not have access to safe clean water so their people have more pressing concerns that water fluoridation. Many countries like China, India, and parts of North Africa use drinking water with fluoride concentrations that are excessive – fluoride removal or searches for alternative sources are their priority.

Even many developed countries or regions do not have reticulation systems which enable cost-effective fluoridation. This may be the case in Christchurch where the use of a number of bores may mean fluoridation of much of the city is not cost-effective.

Many countries already have natural concentrations of fluoride in their drinking water that are near optimum – making any supplementation unnecessary.

A recent review (O’Mullane et al., 2016) summarised the numbers of people around the world with access to beneficial levels of fluoride in their drinking water:

“General estimates for the number of people around the world whose water supplies contain naturally fluoridated water at the optimum level for oral health are around 50 million. This means that, when the numbers of people with artificially (369.2 million) and naturally fluoridated water supplies (50 million) at the optimum level are added together, the total is around 437.2 million.”

11: The effectiveness of community water fluoridation in reducing tooth decay is well established.

This fact is very often misrepresented by anti-fluoride campaigners. For example, in the FFNZ document, a recent New Zealand study is cited to argue that “there is no difference in decay rates between non-Māori children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.” In fact, the authors of that study warned that the data for “non-Māori” children were misleading because it included data for Pacific Island children who have generally poorer dental health than other ethnic groups and are concentrated in fluoridated regions, thus distorting the data for non-Maori. When the data for all ethnic groups are considered separately it clearly shows the beneficial effects of community water fluoridation. This figure shows the non-Māori data corrected by removing the data for Pacific Island children. iut confirms that there is a difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated area.

Comparison of data for “other” (non-Māori/non-Pacifica) children in fluoridated (F) and unfluoridated (UF) areas. 5-year-old New Zealand children. dmft = decayed, missing and filled teeth.

FFNZ claims about the Cochrane Review and data from the District Health Boards and Ministry of Health are also incorrect. While the Cochrane Review did specifically exclude most recent studies because of its selection criteria it still concluded:

“Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. These results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in both children’s baby and permanent teeth.”

12: Community water fluoridation is only one part of successful dental health policies

These included regular fluoride varnishes, regular dental examinations, registering children into dental programmes, education measures such as guided toothbrushing, presenting children with toothpaste and toothbrushes, the involvement of parents in dental health and plaque checking and in dental health programmes generally. Health professionals see all these elements, including water fluoridation, as complementary. There is absolutely no suggestion that community water fluoridation means no other social dental health programme is used. However, in areas where community water fluoridation is not available health professionals will often introduce extra measures, such as wider use of fluoride dental varnishes, to help protect child dental health.

FFNZ misleads when it claims other aspects of a dental health programme can simply be substituted for water fluoridation. All parts of these programmes are complementary, one cannot normally be substituted for another.

Conclusions

So, none of the 12 reasons given by FFNZ for their opposition to CWF stand up to critical scrutiny.

Having whittled their original list down from 50 to only 12 reasons perhaps they should bite the bullet, face the facts, and continue whittling it down to zero.

That would then conform to the scientific information available.

Similar articles

Advertisements

21 responses to “Debunking anti-fluoridationist’s remaining 12 reasons for opposing fluoridation

  1. The most common Endocrine Disruptor in use today is taken by millions of individuals with no lasting effects. And what would that be?The birth control pill.
    “Overall,it appears weird how the supporters of the ED hypothesis appear
    to be mesmerised by the idea that a handful of weakly acting chemicals
    that involve produce little or negligible human exposure must be somehow
    responsible for a range of hypothetical adverse effects on human reproduction or other human health problems”

    Endocrine disruption:
    Fact or urban legend?
    Gerhard J. Nohynek A,∗,Christopher J.Borgert B,Daniel Dietrich c,Karl K Rozman.

    Like

  2. “10: Community water fluoridation is not suitable or necessary for many countries” I suspect you do not have a list of countries where water fluoridation is not suitable, and you probably do not have a list of countries where it is not necessary.

    “Many countries like China, India, and parts of North Africa use drinking water with fluoride concentrations that are excessive – fluoride removal or searches for alternative sources are their priority.” That does not mean they could not practice fluoridation if they wanted to in the areas with less than recommended amounts in the water. But they choose not to. China tested fluoridation and rejected it. India had a debate over fluoridation and then rejected it.

    “Many countries already have natural concentrations of fluoride in their drinking water that are near optimum – making any supplementation unnecessary.” Do you have a list of such nations? Just like the people your criticize, it seems you make generalizations unsupported by evidence.

    Like

  3. I refer you to my article Fluoridation: New scientific review of fluoride and oral health This does have a list and refers to the review article which goes into details. A little checking ion your part will show there is evidence out there – and I refer to it in my articles. This specific article, however, is a response to, a debunking of, an article promoted by Fluoride Free NZ which is full of misleading and distorted information. It is significant that you are unable to show any of my debunking to be incorrect.

    Now, could you cite and link to your sources for your claims “China tested fluoridation and rejected it. India had a debate over fluoridation and then rejected it.”

    The fact is that many, if not most, regions in India and China suffer from endemic fluorosis. I am aware that China has some areas where fluoride deficiency is a problem, Fluoridated milk has been used and fluoridated water advised. But I imagine few reticulation systems in China and India would be suitable for cost-effective water fluoridation.

    But they are huge countries and do have dental health problems.

    By the way, your claimed web site National Fluoridation News does not exist. What is the story there?

    Like

  4. I scanned the review article by written by scientists and dentists who promote fluoridation before I made my comments. I also looked at your new article. Yes, there is a list of nations with water and salt fluoridation. But that is not the same thing as a list of nations where fluoridation is not suitable or necessary. I doubt it anything like that is in the review article, or anywhere else. I’ve never seen such a list.

    Yes, countries and cities have made the decision to not practice water fluoridation due to the expense. That judgement call is not clear cut, and debates about whether the expense is worthwhile have occurred since the beginning. But I think water fluoridation can be done in any nation that has water treatment plants. It can be done with very small water systems.

    I’m sorry, but I do not have a link to the Chinese water fluoridation study or studies done by the communist government. They found too much fluorosis and not enough benefit. And I do not have a link to the debate that happened in India several decades ago when dentists advocated for water fluoridation in India. These things are not easily found with web searches. But they happened.

    I chose your statements to comment on that were questionable, and I’m not inclined to debate all the other stuff or get into your debunking.

    One day I made a comment to you through Facebook, and that associated me with a website I produced. It’s not easy to find.

    Like

  5. The website you claim is https://nationalfluoridationnews.wordpress.com/ – it contains nothing. So why use it? Why not use a name?

    OK – I call you out on the situation in CVhina and India. I don’t believe either of your claims – and the fact you are unable to back them up underscores that.

    What a strange assertion – “I doubt it anything like that is in the review article, or anywhere else. I’ve never seen such a list.” Is this all you have to go on? A feeling about the content of an article you haven’t read?

    Sure fluoridation can be done with small systems – but it is not cost effective to do so. That is basically why Christchurch is not fluoridated.

    The countries and regions not suitable for fluoridation will, of course, be made on a case by case basis. I am aware, for example, that Switzerland and France do not have suitable reticulation systems. Other countries culturally rely on bottle water (where excessive F concentrations can be an issue) rather than tap water.

    Any list of countries with reticulation systems not suitable for fluoridation will be bound to be incomplete. Hell, as I have already pointed out, parts of New Zealand are in that situation – whereas you would probably not put NZ on such a list.

    You claim my point 10 is “questionable” – implying you accept all the other 11 points. Yet all you have asked for is a probably non-existent complete list instead of the logical and referenced arguments I presented. You actually have not questioned my argument at all.

    Like

  6. Fluoride is a poison, and forcing people to drink it is a crime.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity

    I understand that the fluoride added to water comes from industrial processes (essentially waste), that costs a lot to dispose of in other ways. So a cheap way to dispose of it, “let’s put it into the water supply!” Awesome idea.

    My main gripe with water fluoridation is that people are not given a choice. If you live in an area that is fluoridated, you can either drink it or buy bottled water. This is a crime in my view. I guess some could think; cheap disposal of industrial waste into water supplies and an increase of bottled water sales, sounds good.

    Instead of poisoning everyone and the environment, why not put money into dental care or give out free toothpaste; at least people get a choice.

    Like

  7. John – do you not bother reading the articles you link to? The Wikipedia article starts with “Although safe and good for dental health at low concentrations . . . ” It is scaremongering to suggest that the known problems of high intake levels are at all relevant to community water fluoridation.

    If you are gullible enough to believe that community water fluoridation is simply a way of disposing of waste then let me tell you about a bridge I can sell you.

    In this country, community water fluoridation is only introduced with the support of the communtiy. Nothing is forced on anyone. There are cheap alternatives for anyone who has a hangup against such a safe and effective social health policy. In a democracy, the majority decision is usually adhered to and the minority make other arrangements.

    Community water fluoridation is not a poison – you have been misinformed. Nor is it an alternative to dental care – it is a complement – and a cheap one at that.

    Because of the decline in saliva concentrations over a relatively short time, it has been established that community water fluoridation has a beneficial effect above and beyond the benefits of fluoridated toothpaste.

    Like

  8. People should have a choice to put a chemical poison into the body or not (even in apparently healthy quantities :-)). Why not sell fluoridated water that people can buy, rather than infect a total supply?

    You inspired me to look at gene expression data sets for fluoride, to see what molecular pathways are perturbed with the addition of fluoride. So I find the mouse data set of
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE57224
    Titled “The effects of fluoride on the gene expression of enamel forming ameloblasrs”

    I took the secretory cells, and compared the control cells to the sodium fluoride treatments cells in a gene set enrichment analysis, looking for an enrichment of genes in KEGG metabolic pathways (http://software.broadinstitute.org/gsea/index.jsp and http://www.genome.jp/kegg/).

    I did this quickly, but prelim results show sodium fluoride effects/activates metabolic pathways, cancer pathways, immune system pathways and some paths associated with infection (all statistically significantly).

    Kegg pathway id, description, enrichment score of control vs_NaF secreted cells
    MMU01100 Metabolic pathways -3.7997499
    MMU04740 Olfactory transduction -3.779749
    MMU05200 Pathways in cancer -3.6051815
    MMU04151 PI3K-Akt signaling pathway -3.5816333
    MMU05206 MicroRNAs in cancer -3.5211706
    MMU04144 Endocytosis -3.5202034
    MMU04080 Neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction -3.5168567
    MMU05166 HTLV-I infection -3.514775
    MMU04060 Cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction -3.50754
    MMU04010 MAPK signaling pathway -3.4883444
    MMU05203 Viral carcinogenesis -3.465137

    I will prefer to do this properly, with a human cell line, and test for gene expression differences with and without fluoride. I can guess cells will not like fluoride much but the experiment will need to be done for proof.

    Based on this quick scan of science and gene expression, fluoride still seems like a poison to me (metabolism, cancer and immune system pathway activation). I will not like all these pathways activated every time I drink water (surely that is not healthy).

    Like

  9. John, again you are completely ignoring the concentration of fluoride used in your hypothetical study – why do you continue to do this? It isn’t exactly competent or honest, is it?

    More importantly, community water fluoridation has been used for many years now – without any credible report of harm. It is dishonest to rely on reports from areas of naturally high fluoride concentrations. You do not enhance the credibility of your claims by your inability to cite a single example of harm from community water fluoridation

    As for choice – whenever have you been denied choice? When have you been held down and had water, fluoridated or otherwise, poured down your throat? You are simply scaremongering by claiming poisoning based on irrelevant and non-existent studies.

    And why do you not address the subject of my article instead of using this comment section n for your own irrelevant platform?

    Like

  10. John,

    “Based on this quick scan of science…”

    I take it that you are now going to spend the next thirty years becoming an expert on those metabolic pathways so that you can tell us exactly what the effect of drinking optimally fluoridated water is on them?

    Or maybe you could do a “quick scan” of the more than seventy years of epidemiological research into CWF and cite any published evidence that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes harm to either individuals or to populations.

    Like

  11. I think I already told you and provided scientific evidence. If you click the above links, they are real studies with real data.

    To make better proof, it would only take <1 year to provide robust gene expression evidence that fluoride activates cells in a poisonous like manner.

    My study directly measures the effects, with and without fluoride, in a controlled environment. Cancer and immune pathways show activation; it's that simple. In contrast, epidemiological research may have confounding factors (it is not a controlled environment). Some people my die or be ill related to fluoride, but it may be put down to something else.

    It is a basic common sense, don't add poison to a water supply. Why do the people who put the fluoride into the water supply, have to wear safety equipment? Absolute lunacy.

    Like

  12. John, you talk about “my study.” What study? Where is it published?

    Hell, you do not provide a full name so it is impossible for me to search your publications.

    You claim to have measureed the prevalence of cancer, etc., comparing populations with and without fluoridation? Is that right? Well, show us the evidence. Cite your publications p\on this.

    But, in the end, ypou reveal that you are simply an anti-fluoride propagandist talking about poisoning a water supply and people wearing safety equipment!

    That is simply naive rubbish.

    Like

  13. Did I say I had published it?

    If you read carefully, you will understand my study was the analysis of public available gene expression data, the link is here (as it is above).
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE57224
    This is downloadable data that anyone can use. I have a PhD and my day job involves analyzing such types of data. It took me about an hour to do on a computer, to see what molecular pathways are effected by fluoride.

    In any case, it appears (according to the daily mail online), that many European countries have already rejected water Fluoridation, based on health grounds (weaker bones being the most prominent as I read it and cancer).
    See;
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-180567/Is-fluoride-good-health.html

    Quote; “Last year the Belgian government outlawed the sale of fluoride tablets and chewing gum. This was based on fears that it might increase the risk of osteoporosis. France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have also rejected mass water fluoridation. There has also been mounting opposition to it in Ireland.”

    “Cancer: In 1992, a study by the New Jersey Department of Health in the U.S. found a strong link between fluoridation and bone cancer ( osteosarcoma) in young males. They reported that osteosarcoma rates were three to seven times higher in fluoridated areas than non-fluoridated areas.”

    This seems consistent with my analysis (cancer pathways activated).

    For anyone else reading this, there are cited publications in the online article (so others see bad things from fluoride).

    So again, fluoride is a poison and should NOT be added to everyone’s water supply!

    Are you a scientist? If not, how are you qualified to say fluoridation is safe?

    Like

  14. John, you say:

    ” my study was the analysis of public available gene expression data, the link is here (as it is above).”

    Are you Denbesten or Zhang? If not, how can you describe this as your study?

    Looking at that link provides the information I requested from you a while back (and which you did not provide) – the concentration used. In this case, 50 ppm F. Do you not realise such studies at these high concentrations are just not relevant to community water fluoridation?

    (Incidentally, they also reported that the differences they observed were not significant).

    This is a common trick of anti-fluoride propagandists – to use irrelevant animal studies where high concentrations are used.

    It does not matter what your day job is, or what degree you have, such an approach is just dishonest.

    Nor is it honest to use a newspaper article instead of peer reviewed literature. And no – it is not sufficient to say “there are cited publications in the online article.” Especially when there isn’t.

    A scientific approach requires one to actually read the literature and critically analyses it intelligently. You are not doing that.

    And you end with this little gem “Are you a scientist? If not, how are you qualified to say fluoridation is safe?”

    Come off it, my professional research background is no secret. You can check it out and check out my scientific publications ( think I have 4 on fluoride). And you can easily peruse the many articles I have here where I have applied a sensible and critical scientific analysis to the literature on community water fluoridation.

    Incidentally, researchers ion this field do find community water fluoridation to be safe and effective. Instead of a biased opinion piece in the Daily Mail, you could start with this review article:

    Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence.

    Like

  15. Here is an honest scientific article, based around the West Midlands, shows a link between fluoridation and hypothyroidism. Published by a professor.

    https://news.kent.ac.uk/app/uploads/2015/02/Flouride-research.pdf

    Another honest article, is the following, that shows a more alarming link between a lower IQ in children exposed to fluoride.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/
    and another showing that IQ level was negatively correlated with fluoride levels in drinking water for children.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285601/

    I am sure I will not like my children to drink fluoridated water; if teeth really are stronger with fluoride, is it worth it at the price of a lower IQ?

    Do you see the theme that is appearing and keeps re-appearing? fluoride is a poison.

    It is scary that people promote the fluoridation of water supplies with all the evidence and publications showing its dangers.

    Like

  16. soundhill1

    Ken that Eason review. The IQ study it depends on is the Broadbent et al. one. Its 99 control subjects consumed water with an unspecified amount of nitrate. Nitrate can affect thyroid metabolism and so it could affect IQ. Broadbent is cagey about the water the control subjects drank. He would only say they were on the outskirts of Dunedin. The wells of Mosgiel have 5 mg/litre.

    Also Broadbent et al. fail to acknowledge that the level of iodine in the environment in Dunedin is much more adequate than for example in Canterbury.

    In a further discussion in AJPH Broadbent fails to acknowledge a difference between the symmetrical diffuse dental opacities caused by fluoride and the more demarcated ones caused by other trauma, both labelled as “dental fluorosis” because of their similar look until you look more carefully.

    Like

  17. John, you are now simply searching and cherry-picking.

    I am familiar with the articles you link to.

    You might be impressed with Stewart Peckham (a “professor) – are you aware that he is a well know anti-fluoridation activists – a former leader of one of those groups? He has a very limited publication record on fluoride (his other paper was in a shonky journal (see Anti-fluoridation propagandists promoting shonky “review”).

    Peckham’s hypothyroidism paper has been roundly criticised. The most obvious problem is that he does not include iodine deficiency in his statistical analysis – that stands out like a sore thumb because of the role of iodine in the thyroid.

    I wrote about that paper in my article Paper claiming water fluoridation linked to hypothyroidism slammed by experts but here is a good published critique of that paper Foley, M. (2015). Fluoridation and hypothyroidism – a commentary on Peckham et al. British Dental Journal, 219(9), 429–431.

    The Choi et al paper is well known – and those authors specifically say their findings are not directly applicable to community water fluoridation. The paper is a review of largely poor quality Chinese studies made in areas of endemic fluorosis. There are well-known health problems, including cognitive deficits, in such areas.

    The same goes for the Aravind et al (2016) another study in an area of endemic fluorosis. While on this paper, it found a statistically significant association of IQ deficits with drinking water fluoride concentrations – and quite a few other workers have similarly reported this for areas of endemic fluorosis. But a correlation does not mean causation – and there are other possible factors which are not considered. Have a look at my paper “Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits” for some discussion of this. I develop the discussion a bit further in a paper currently under peer review – but you can see an early version of it at “CRITIQUE OF A RISK ANALYSIS AIMED AT ESTABLISHING A SAFE DAILY DOSE OF FLUORIDE FOR CHILDREN.”

    Incidentally, notice that the relationship found by Aravind accounts for only 4% of the variance in IQ – a sure indication that other factors are involved and a multiple regression including these factors could show absolutely no relationship with drinking water F.

    So, none of the studies you cite regarding IQ are relevant to community water fluoridation. However, there are several studies which have checked this out in situations where community water fluoridation is used or in areas where there are similar natural levels of fluoride in drinking water (eg Sweden). Have a look at:

    Broadbent, J. M., Thomson, W. M., Ramrakha, S., Moffitt, T. E., Zeng, J., Foster Page, L. A., & Poulton, R. (2014). Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 72–76. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857

    Barberio, AM. (2016) A Canadian Population-based Study of the Relationship between Fluoride Exposure and Indicators of Cognitive and Thyroid Functioning; Implications for Community Water Fluoridation.

    Aggeborn L, Öhman M. (2016) The Effects ofFluoride in the Drinking Water.2016

    As I said – you are simply cherry-picking to confirm a bias. The proper scientific approach is to consider these articles intelligently and critically – and also consider the rest of the literature on the subject.

    Like

  18. Brian, put your money where your mouth is and write a critique of the Broadbent paper While you are at it fo the same for the Choi et review and the papers or articles they covered. 

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  19. John,

    CWF has been around for more than seventy years.

    Millions of people have received the well documented benefits of CWF in that time.

    Epidemiologists have been studying the populations with CWF for all that time, searching for any harm that may have been caused by CWF in the real world.

    It is noteworthy, in spite of your talk of “poison”, that you, just like those thousands of epidemiologists, have been unable to cite a single incidence of harm caused by drinking optimally fluoridated water in the more than seven decades that it has been available.

    Like

  20. Why is it so easy to find evidence that fluoride is a poison?

    Here, I see a report that states Fluoride is officially a neurotoxin.
    http://wakingscience.com/2016/02/fluoride-officially-classified-as-a-neurotoxin-in-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journal/

    I will search out this lancet journal and post it when I get time.

    When I get some more time, I will find some additional honest and peer reviewed journals, highlighting the dangers of water fluoridation.

    Is there a saying, “there is no smoke without fire”? From a neutrals point of view, I would be noticing quite a lot of evidence of the dangers of fluoride.

    My view is, people should get a choice, and if someone believes it is OK, then they can drink fluoride from bottled water. I think polluting our own water supplies with one of the most dangerous chemicals around is immoral.

    Like

  21. John – the answer to your question “Why is it so easy to find evidence that fluoride is a poison?” is obvious. Simply because it is – at high concentrations.

    Water is also toxic at high consumption – and let’s face it there are plenty of peop[le reported dead from drowning every year – but none from consuming fluoridated water.

    Why do you find it so difficult to understand that concentration is an important factor?

    As for your Lancet citation – don’t bother. We are all familiar with it. (Although instead of just citing references like this you should actually read this paper and just see what all the false claims are based on). Have a read of my article about this paper – Repeating bad science on fluoride

    You say “From a neutrals point of view, I would be noticing quite a lot of evidence of the dangers of fluoride.” Then please notice that the reports you cite come from areas of endemic fluorosis – not from areas where community water fluoridation is used. And appreciates that all beneficial elements are toxic at high concentrations.

    Water is one of the world’s most toxic chemicals as death statistics show – yet you are complaining about a beneficial micro-element present in water at extremely low concentrations. An element which is a normal and natural component of all bioapatities – and plays an important role in their structural and chemical integrity.

    Your view on choice is a personal ethical or values view – not a scientific one. You are welcome to it (and I can understand as my city faced the problem of our democratically expressed choice of having a safe and beneficial social health policy (fluoridated water) denied us by undemocratic actions of our elected council – a decision they were forced to back down on). But you might have noticed my blog is not about politics or a propaganda vehicle for a political action. It is about supporting science and exposing or debunking the misrepresentations and distortions of science.

    Your Gish-galloping and inability to actually defend the claims you are making illustrate to me that you have nit read any of the papers you cite – let alone the ones I have cited. You are simply searching for anything to confirm your bias and, because you don’t bother reading the articles, you are simply forced to move on to the next one as I refute each claim. You are unable and unwilling to stand your ground and properly defend your assertions.

    Now, you claim to have a PhD. Did that education never train you to read scientific articles critically and intelligently?

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s