Fluoridation: A Belief - Not Science, Medical Textbook Reveals

[nyscof]

New York -- April 3, 2005 -- Fluoridation is based more on unproven theories than scientific
evidence, according to a dental textbook by leaders in the field.


According to "Dentist, Dental Practice, and the Community," by prominent researchers and dental university professors, Burt,
Eklund, et al. and based on pages of scientific references:


* Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It isn't even a nutrient


* Fluoride incorporated into developing teeth does NOT reduce tooth
decay but does increase fluorosis. Alleged beneficial effects occur
topically.


* There is no evidence that "optimal" intake inhibits cavities. In
fact, the authors suggest "optimum intake" of fluoride be dropped from
common usage.


* Near universal fluoridation in the U.S.A. hasn't leveled out tooth
decay rates, instead fluorosis has spread and increased.


* Not every possible hypothesis regarding fluoride and human health was
tested before beginning fluoridation.


* "No clear reasons for the caries (cavities) decline (in the U.S.)
have been identified"


* At between 3 and 4 times "optimal," fluoride causes tooth decay


* A 1943 estimation that .05 mg ingested fluoride per kilogram of body
weight could reduce cavities was misinterpreted, over time, as the
"optimal" fluoride dose, a level never scientifically verified.


* "Dental fluorosis cannot be classed as a public health problem in the
United States ... It would be a mistake, however, to assume that it
could not become so."



Dentists convinced the public, the media, and their legislators that 1 part per million (ppm) fluoride, an essential nutrient -- they claim,
injected into drinking water is "optimal" to reduce children's tooth decay without bad side effects such as dental fluorosis (white-spotted or
dark-stained teeth) or skeletal fluorosis, a crippling bone disease.

At the beginning of the last century, dentists discovered wealthier, healthier Americans who drank natural calcium-fluoridated water had fewer cavities but more discolored teeth. The tooth yellowing culprit was fluoride. So they assumed fluoride also made teeth resist cavities.

Now over 2/3 of Americans drink artificially fluoridated water using either sodium fluoride or silicofluorides and virtually 100% consume a fluoride laced diet. Yet tooth decay is a silent epidemic, according to the U.S. Surgeon General and dental fluorosis rates have soared, according to the Journal of the American Dental Association.



For more information, contact:


New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
Web site:
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
nyscof@aol.com

 

[Chairman_meow]

so what?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Either you’re very deluded or are guilty of deliberate deception. Either way, I hope your first post on this subject will be your last. Like all anti-fluoridation and anti-immunization barrow-pushers, you constantly talk about “science” and what has been “scientifically proven” and what has not been “scientifically proven”, yet your post contains not a single reference to any scientific source to support your contentions (other than your own biased website). On your biased website, your scientific “references” constitute popular newspaper articles, blogs and other personal non-peer-reviewed websites. No science to be had there. One of the genuine scientific references you do have is actually the CDC who support and recommend fluoridation! But this is not surprising given that selective misquotation and misrepresentation are prime tools of the barrow-pusher. I’m not going to even bother addressing any of your nonsense other than to point out that.....

Yet tooth decay is a silent epidemic, according to the U.S. Surgeon General

Oh really? Perhaps you could give us a link to this statement from the SG so that we can see it in its true context? There is no epidemic of tooth decay. Tooth decay has declined dramatically since the middle of the 20th century. This is an easily obtainable fact. Surprise surprise, this coincides with the introduction of fluoridation.

dental fluorosis rates have soared, according to the Journal of the American Dental Association.

Please supply the journal reference so that we can verify this statement. Actually, there is no need as I know that this is a blatant attempt at misrepresentation of a scientific fact. Dental fluorosis is a slight mottling of the tooth enamel due to the presence of fluoride in the water. It is purely cosmetic and does not affect tooth integrity at all.

For anyone who wants real facts and info on tooth decay and water fluoridation, go to....

American Dental Association: Fluoride & Fluoridation<P>

 

[duendy]

hahahaha...what, you mean the very people that endorse iot and make a mint from doing so?!

i fuly agree with the nyscof. i became activist about this issue over threee years back when i heard our town was gonna have flouride added to the water, WITHOUt our permission, which is a breach of human rights--medicalizing the individual without her/his consent. i DID read scientific reports that proved fluouride is crap, but was dismissed by corrupt government officals --also gona e makg prft ut f msery as USUAL. as theyHAVe dont and do from promoting crap food and crap drink, even for CHILDREN. eveil mtha fkers them!

i resent your bullying attitude directed at theat poster and anyone who sees fit to want to speak out about this corruption. but that attitude Is typical. VERY unfortunately

i now drink bottled mineral water, and touch wood they aint flouridated our water system yet

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

hahahaha...what, you mean the very people that endorse iot and make a mint from doing so?!

<img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif">

Yeah, you’re right. That is funny (in a sad pathetic kind of way). Why don’t you think about that statement a little bit, eh? Does the ADA own Colgate? Do dentists stand to gain financially from a decreasing rate of tooth decay?

As for the rest of your post – more references to supposed “scientific reports” and “corruption” and government conspiracies. No actual science to be seen. And you actually talk about companies making a profit in the same paragraph that you mention that you drink only bottled water! Oh my, the irony is too much. I really should buy more shares in bottled water companies. With people like you out there, I’ll be retiring in style.<P>

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Actually, I will address nyscof’s lies and deliberate misrepresentations.

* Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It isn't even a nutrient

So? What’s your point? Most the drugs and pharmaceuticals we put into our bodies do not play a natural role in our physiology. That doesn’t mean that it cannot be beneficial.

* Fluoride incorporated into developing teeth does NOT reduce tooth
decay but does increase fluorosis. Alleged beneficial effects occur topically.

That’s an outright misrepresentation. It has <B>always</B> been stated that the benefits are topical. Systemic fluoride incorporation occurs in the outside enamel of the tooth, not throughout the tooth. Fluoride incorporation in the enamel increase enamel strength and resistance to decay.

* There is no evidence that "optimal" intake inhibits cavities.

A blatant lie.

* Near universal fluoridation in the U.S.A. hasn't leveled out tooth
decay rates

A blatant lie.

* Not every possible hypothesis regarding fluoride and human health was tested before beginning fluoridation.

The same can be said for every drug and pharmaceutical that is available. What’s your point?

* "No clear reasons for the caries (cavities) decline (in the U.S.)
have been identified"

Give us the reference. I’ll bet this is a blatant out-of-context misquotation.

* At between 3 and 4 times "optimal," fluoride causes tooth decay

Reference to back this assertion?


All my statements can be easily verified at the American Dental Association where they supply genuine scientific references.<P>

 

[duendy]

<img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif">

Yeah, you’re right. That is funny (in a sad pathetic kind of way). Why don’t you think about that statement a little bit, eh?

d))look my friend. i not only 'think about the staement'..i've done it and bought the friggin TSHIRT yeah. i've dont all this over 3 years back. i have stuff about it, but i am not a static person, i have lots of other interests. i came to here cause of your uninformed, yet typical raction, which i am oh SO familiaaar with. yes sirreee!

Does the ADA own Colgate? Do dentists stand to gain financially from a decreasing rate of tooth decay?

d)))The D. association do promote it of course, and gain from doing so. look dude ...get real. when orgs put much effort in promoting some thing, some product in THIS world. you can BET therer is some form of profit--the papaer variety involved. am i right or am i right?
In our country people--poor people cant FIND a fukin dentists. know why? cause they've nearly all gone where the money at. private!

As for the rest of your post – more references to supposed “scientific reports” and “corruption” and government conspiracies. No actual science to be seen.

d))WHOSE science, huh? haven't you got it? they have their own science that is backed up by corportations. rather look at the ACTUAL. what MONEY is involved. do some research about sugar....about the pushing of shite food, even for CHILDREN. YES! Children. them not giving a shit about children's health in their sorry quest for mo money. and THEN have the nerve to puch vile useless flouride to add to poor childrens misery, etc
you people always shout conspiracy as though you are blind.

And you actually talk about companies making a profit in the same paragraph that you mention that you drink only bottled water!

d)))Errrrr. i get local Buxton water from underground springs. you can actuall get a container and get it free. i dont have time as its too far etc, so i buy it. so.....?

Oh my, the irony is too much. I really should buy more shares in bottled water companies. With people like you out there, I’ll be retiring in style.<P>

yes. i am sure YOU would like that!

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

WHOSE science, huh? haven't you got it? they have their own science that is backed up by corportations. rather look at the ACTUAL. what MONEY is involved.

You just don’t get it, do you? Water fluoridation is the most studied public health measure in history. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that financial backing of research by a for-profit corporation is something to be wary of, instances of this represents only a tiny fraction of the data that is out there. Peer-reviewed scientific journals are not owned by corporations. Corporate execs do not sit on the editorial boards and do not review the submissions. These journals are their own businesses that are run by scientists, for scientists. Thus, scientific integrity is maintained. Scientists submitting papers to these journals must sign declarations of competing interests. Submissions are reviewed by multiple independent reviewers. Trying to brush off (literally) hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies that conclude that fluoridation is a safe and effective health measure as being “....science that is backed up by corporations....” is foolish and deluded to the extreme.<P>

 

[invert_nexus]

d)))The D. association do promote it of course, and gain from doing so. look dude ...get real. when orgs put much effort in promoting some thing, some product in THIS world. you can BET therer is some form of profit--the papaer variety involved. am i right or am i right?
In our country people--poor people cant FIND a fukin dentists. know why? cause they've nearly all gone where the money at. private!

And so this is your 'proof'? Because dentists and scientists say that fluoride prevents tooth decay it must be a lie and they must be somehow profiting off of it?

Guess your case is pretty much unshakeable. Just give up, Hercules. He's got you pegged.

Science is nothing but a bunch of liars and cheats. Duendy has proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Time to go back to the true means of gathering knowledge. Blowing it out your ass.

 

[duendy]

hmmmmmmm...one of the hells of this life is this: you go through this again and again, and then someone comes along that repeats what you have challnged...ad nauseum. listen--with repspect--this isn't my thread. dont know what's happened to the originator (that actually pisses me off also, when someone sets down a thread then disappears not discussing), but he should have the info you are asking for (i dont have time and researching other stuff)--though i somehow dont think you will accept. which seems to be the pattern

Regarding your naiveity about science, i also have been into this, and have much in my notes. but....they aren't indexed. i am just starting to index my notes which are genralist and its labourious.
so i am gonna come from another angle.....

ok. you are backin up the flouridaTION industry. a huge part of the propaganda here where i live is to do with the fact that many children's teeth in POOR areas are rotting. So, they have decided that THE answer is flurodation of the water system. Thus subjecting everyoe to their fascist intention, yeah?

now. let me askk you. what are your thoughts on S U G A R?

 

[invert_nexus]

huge part of the propaganda here where i live is to do with the fact that many children's teeth in POOR areas are rotting. So, they have decided that THE answer is flurodation of the water system. Thus subjecting everyoe to their fascist intention, yeah?

A people should have the right to have rotten teeth if they want to. Is that what you're saying. I suppose you're right on that.

You're from England, right? Aren't you tired of being ridiculed by the world as having some of the worst teeth in the civilized world?

 

[duendy]

A people should have the right to have rotten teeth if they want to. Is that what you're saying.

d))) No. That is definately NOT what i am saying. Suppose you haven't read what i've said.

I suppose you're right on that.

d)))You seem to decide on what YOU believe. not what i believe.

You're from England, right? Aren't you tired of being ridiculed by the world as having some of the worst teeth in the civilized world?

I feel very much for children brought up in poor areas, where parents are pushed shit fioor and crap drink, and have had no info about foods and drink that dont rot teeth and the necessity to brush teeth, and how you dont need fluoride toothpaste.
And how systems fixed sos people on low income go into them fukin supermarkets and
get pushed 'special deals' and 'free offers' of crap food and drink, and that good food is more expensive, and that the media also pushed these crap sugar saturated products at people, and even children. stickin pics of the corporate sponsored kiddie cartoons on fronyt of crap products at child eye level, sos they will harrass mum to get thm. mum being suked into the propaganda doe. childrens teeth are rotting....you think i LIKe this friggin set-up??

 

[zyncod]

Just to clarify: many (but not all) journals are owned by corporations (ie, Elsevier, Nature, etc.). But it is true that corporation executives for the most part are not on editorial boards. No-one is really arguing that corporate ownership is affecting scientists' ability to get controversial research published, but it is affecting the ability of scientists to read about this research (given the astronomical costs to buy even one journal article). It is for this reason that "open-source" movement is gaining momentum in the sciences.

 

[Maddad]

You just don’t get it, do you? Water fluoridation is the most studied public health measure in history.

My sisters and I were the benificiaries of some of the first available fluoridated water. Fifty years later all four of us have very few cavities. While our examples are not statistically valid by themselves, the incidence of cavities dropped dramatically after fluoridation was introduced.

nyscof's claims puzzled me, so I checked out his link. It's his link, not a link to any reputable researcher. It's just a page that he put up on the net, unassociated with anything other than his curious axe to grind.

one of the hells of this life is this: you go through this again and again, and then someone comes along that repeats what you have challnged...ad nauseum.

Yeah, than happens quite a bit.

My guess is that this is a one time hit. He's going to spam as many forums as he can find without returning to see the results.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Just to clarify: many (but not all) journals are owned by corporations (ie, Elsevier, Nature, etc.).

Well yes, I realize that the journals are owned by <B><I>publishing</I></B> corporations. What I was getting at was that they are not owned by corporations that have a vested financial interest in supplying fluoride products to either governments or consumers. That is precisley what duendy is implying - that all the evidence in favor of fluoridation is biased in this way.<P>

 

[duendy]

i am more saying--also, that the whole push for flouride is based on ignorance......you didn't answer me about sugar Hercules.....

look. for a start. i do not want flouride in my water. THAt is my right, and freedom. and it's everyone's right and freedom

can you not see the duplicity and donwright ignoreance?

on one hand govermnents are getting huge donations from big food which pushes sugar saturated products that ROT TEETH of children

and on the other you got them wanting to 'tackle the problem' by flouridating the water system.......! i am sorry, but if you cant see this utter fkin farce...then you are blind

and the funny thing is. someone starts this thread -an activist, and then does a runner, and i am having to do his job for him......

but ps......i am telling you. as i have told the suits. i do not want fluoridated water coming through my taps. end of

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Regarding your naiveity about science...

<img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/roflol.gif">

Hmmmm let’s see. One of us is a professional research scientist, the other an “artist”. Don’t lecture me on how science is practiced; you’re just making yourself appear foolish.

Of course I respect your right to decide that you do not want fluoridated water. If that’s all you were doing there would be no problem. But you’re also talking a load of rubbish as well. You have actively tried to support the nonsense in the original post. You are spouting conspiracy theories and a bunch o’ bullshit about the science behind it all, something which you clearly know nothing about. So surely it’s not so surprising that there are people who take exception to such ignorance?

And the reason I have not answered your inquiry regarding sugar is because it is irrelevant to a discussion on the safety and efficacy of fluoride as a dental treatment.

ok. you are backin up the flouridaTION industry.

Above I outlined in simple terms why this <B><I>is not</I></B> the case. You're either (a) too illiterate/uneducated/unintelligent to comprehend it or (b) displaying willfull/deliberate ignorance. Either way, I'm done and I'll waste no more time.<P>

 

[zyncod]

I'm not even going to take sides in this debate, but, for all the anti-fluoridationists out there: you have no particular "right" to unfluoridated water. The government subsidizes water distribution as a public service. Just as you have no particular "right" to 240 V electric service so you can run your Czech appliances without an adapter, you either drink the fluoridated water in the taps, drill a well, or buy bottled water.

 

[duendy]

<img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/roflol.gif">

Hmmmm let’s see. One of us is a professional research scientist, the other an “artist”. Don’t lecture me on how science is practiced; you’re just making yourself appear foolish.

d)))look, hercules rockefellah (your name suits you)...one thing i cant stand is an arrogant 'scientist' with his head up his arse. which you are showing yourself to be

Of course I respect your right to decide that you do not want fluoridated water. If that’s all you were doing there would be no problem. But you’re also talking a load of rubbish as well.

d))in your opinion. and the freedom NOt to have you clowns having our water systems contaminated with flouride is central

You have actively tried to support the nonsense in the original post. You are spouting conspiracy theories and a bunch o’ bullshit about the science behind it all, something which you clearly know nothing about. So surely it’s not so surprising that there are people who take exception to such ignorance?

d))all i can hear is a load of hot-air-text, with of course the ad hominem attacks. sooo used to this from the likes of your sorry mindset dude. vote for Bush too? must be a mind reader huh?

And the reason I have not answered your inquiry regarding sugar is because it is irrelevant to a discussion on the safety and efficacy of fluoride as a dental treatment.

d))ohhh sweet shit. and you are callin ME a fool?




Above I outlined in simple terms why this <B><I>is not</I></B> the case. You're either (a) too illiterate/uneducated/unintelligent to comprehend it or (b) displaying willfull/deliberate ignorance. Either way, I'm done and I'll waste no more time.<P>

good. ....offf