No relationship of bone cancer to fluoridation – another new study the anti-fluoride brigade will attempt to ignore

Anti-fluoride activists claim that water fluoridation causes nine cancer proved wrong, yet again. Image credit: Four myths about water fluoridation and why they’re wrong

A new study confirms, yet again, that osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer, is not associated with community water fluoridation (CWF). This the seventh such study since a 1990 report of an animal study suggested such a link.

The 199o study exposed rats to very high concentrations of fluoride so the results were not relevant to CWF. But, of course, this did not stop anti-fluoride campaigners using the study to argue that CWF causes osteosarcoma.

The citation for this new study is:

Kim, F. M., Hayes, C., Burgard, S. L., Kim, H. D., Hoover, R. N., Osteosarcoma, N., … Couper, D. (2020). A Case-Control Study of Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma. Journal of Dental Research 1.

This was a hospital-based study where patients diagnosed with osteosarcoma were compared with control patients diagnosed with other bone tumours or different conditions. This figure summarises the findings.

The only statistically significant effects show a reduced likelihood of osteosarcoma diagnosis for people living in fluoridated areas – compared with those living in non-fluoridated areas (the red triangles in the figure). These were for people who never drank water and people who had lived in fluoridated areas for 0% to 50% of their lives. It is likely the effects for people who did drink bottles water and those who had lived in fluoridated areas for 50% to 100% or 100% of their lives are not statistically significant because of the smaller numbers involved (The green circles in the figure).

It’s been a bad week for the anti-fluoride crowd – the science keeps proving them wrong. Perhaps that is why they are silent about these new studies.

Similar articles

 

4 responses to “No relationship of bone cancer to fluoridation – another new study the anti-fluoride brigade will attempt to ignore

  1. James Reeves

    Most countries avoid fluoridation like the plaque.

    The truth is spreading and people everywhere are learning that fluoride in drinking water is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health (brain, thyroid, brittle bones, kidney). With any drug, we all deserve freedom of choice and not being forced to consume it.
    Consider that 95% of the world rejects fluoridation:
    In the US, 74 % fluoridated (more than the rest of the world combined).
    In Europe, only 3%.
    In the world, only 5%.
    In Canada, now 30% — down from 45% in seven years.
    China, India and Japan have rejected it years ago.

    Like

  2. James, why do you place an irrelevant comment here and ignore completely the article you comment under?

    That sort of opportunistic commenting violates my comment policy and I will have no hesitation placing you in moderation if you do this again.

    I welcome comments on my articles – but please stop the opportunistic use for personal propaganda.

    Like

  3. Janet Nagel

    The scientific method cannot prove a negative. This study did not find an association, but a number of other studies have. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

    Like

  4. Sure, Janet, one can not prove a negative. Also one must be very conscious that correlation is never proof of causation.

    Scientists must always look at the evidence critically and intelligently.

    If fluoridation caused osteosarcoma then we would expect a study like this to show a significant positive Odds Ratio. It doesn’t. Nor have the other six of the seven studies since the NTP rat study which used high F concentrations.

    The sensible, intelligent, critically thinking person can conclude from that the overwhelming evidence is that fluoridation does not cause osteosarcoma.

    If you disagree then you have an obligation to present your evidence for critical examination. You say that “a number of other studies” have reported an association. Please cite these studies and argue the case for them.

    I welcome a proper scientific discussion of these.

    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 )

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