12 Reasons Why We Need to End Water Fluoridation
With more and more countries choosing not to fluoridate their water, we have to ask why cities across the US still routinely add fluoride to their drinking water supplies. Dr Paul Connett, who is the director of the Fluoride Action Network, and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride, has put together a comprehensive argument supporting the need for citizens who care for their health to challenge this.
1. Fluoride has no nutritional value - the human body does not require fluoride to meet any of its dietary needs.
2. Fluoride levels in breast milk is very low. Babies fed with formula made with tap water receive as much as 175-250 times as much fluoride than breast-fed babies.
3. Children in countries who fluoridate their water are being over-dosed with fluoride; there is a high incidence of dental fluorosis -- in the US, 41% of children between the age of 12-15 have been diagnosed with dental fluorosis.
4. Fluoride is a known toxin -- even low levels of exposure can pose health risks.
5. When drinking water is treated with fluoride authorities cannot control the dosage people receive -- everyone who drinks the water is exposed, no matter what their age or weight may be, and regardless of their health status or nutritional needs.
6. Adding fluoride to public drinking water equates to forced medication, and violates a basic human right as no consent has been given by each and every individual affected.
7. Fluoride that is ingested with drinking water builds up in the calcified tissue within the body and can cause calcium poisoning over time. Victims typically experience symptoms very similar to arthritis, and bones may also become brittle making them prone to fracturing more readily.
8. Many countries have opted not to fluoridate their drinking water, and according to WHO, the incidence of tooth decay in children is dropping at the same rate or faster in countries that don't add fluoride to their water compared to countries that do.
9. There have never been any randomized control trials conducted that effectively demonstrate that ingesting fluoride will reduce the likelihood of tooth decay.
10. There is very little evidence to support the notion that orally ingesting fluoride will prevent dental cavities, and the little evidence there is, is very weak.
11. Oral health practitioners around the world agree that the benefits fluoride offers in terms of dental health is achieved through topical application as apposed to systemic absorption of fluoride.
12. Fluoridation of drinking water was initiated to combat a disease (dental cavities), yet fluoride has never been officially approved as a drug by the US Food and Drug Administration, who still have it classified as an "unapproved drug".
-
Regular price From $302.00 USDRegular priceUnit price per
-
Regular price $234.00 USDRegular priceUnit price per
-
Sold outRegular price From $305.00 USDRegular priceUnit price per -
Regular price $327.00 USDRegular priceUnit price per
-
Sold outRegular price From $367.00 USDRegular priceUnit price per -
Regular price From $408.00 USDRegular priceUnit price per
-
Regular price From $451.00 USDRegular priceUnit price per
As for the dosage reply, you are again ignoring that other organizations in the medical community have set lower limits on fluoridation in addition to the fact that water is NOT the only source of fluoride intake into the body. I was referring to your #7, where you state "The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else." So, again my point is that if this committee thinks 4.0ppm is flirting with "severe" danger, and I mention my intake would get up around there given my lifestyle, why would I feel comfortable consuming at these levels?? And I'll restate again, this 4.0PPM is much higher than the WHO and other large countries feel is a safe limit. They cap it at 1.5mg/l! Is your argument that these "qualified health professionals" who "oversee water fluoridation" are just wrong?
And what of all the countless other dentists, physicians, and experts worldwide who do NOT support water fluoridation. I assume they don't possess the education, training, experience and knowledge to understand this issue like you do? The anti-fluoridation movement is not only fueled by common citizens who may lack the education you speak of (I'll agree there is a large majority of that), the movement is also fueled by licensed and authorized dentists and physicians worldwide. Connett may be notorious, but he is just one of many. Countries like Israel, recently banning fluoridation this past August, also seem to agree. The trend is away from fluoridation across the world, not towards. You can dismiss and ignore all the mounting evidence highlighting the toxicity of fluoride at low levels all you want, but it doesn't refute it.
And to suggest that having a medical license gives someone supreme knowledge in the understanding of drug interactions is again, just plain false. With so many prescribed pharmaceuticals, the taking of supplements, various diets, etc., one of the biggest challenges in the medical community right now is trying to get a better handle on these multiplier interactions. Your average physician, dentist, etc has had limited to no school tracking on this subject (even pharmacists are screaming for higher level courses), and once they begin practicing, most of the information they receive is provided by pharmaceutical companies. We've seen this become very problematic, and the reality is that the science of drug interaction is sorely under researched and under documented. So, insinuating that everything's under control, fluoridation has no negative impact on the body, or "nothing to see here, cause we're licensed and we say so" is simply not palatable. We are all human, and mistakes are made on small and grand scales often. Just look at the history of medical lawsuits over the past 40 years.
The medical community and society overall is coming to new understandings of how the body works, how to properly supply it with nutrition, and what foods and toxins to avoid. This is occurring at a blistering pace as new knowledge continues to emerge exponentially. The history of medicine is littered with poor medical practices that seem barbaric now. Fluoridation is under major scrutiny and it will continue to be so as we gain better understanding on the long term effects of consumption. Fortunately, I can limit my amount of fluoride exposure. That's the beauty of a free society.
nikatday
The problem with you and most other antifluoridationists is that you fail to understand that healthcare providers such as I and the countless other dentists, physicians, and experts worldwide who support fluoridation, have the education, training, experience and knowledge to understand this issue. It is what we do. What you perceive as lack of movement in my position is actually my full confidence in knowing about which I speak. I have a good knowledge of the fluoride literature, a full knowledge of all antifluoridationist arguments, and full knowledge of the fallacies of each and every one. I have seen them all dozens of time each, some even more. What you perceive as new information is not so to us. The questions about "dosage", "toxicity" "impact on the entire body", etc, etc. etc. are not new to us. They are factors that have long since been known, understood, and fully considered by the healthcare personnel and regulatory agencies who oversee water fluoridation. The simple fact that in 74.6% fluoridated United States, there have been no proven adverse effects in the entire 69 year history of fluoridation, tells us that these people and agencies know exactly what they are doing and about which they speak.
There is a reason why dentists and physicians are licensed and authorized by state and federal government to prescribe the full range of drugs and medications. It is because we have had the extensive education required to understand the actions of substances within the human body, and with each other. We have had the full range of chemistry, biochemistry, anatomy, histology, physics, toxicology, and pharmacology to understand these actions. If we didn't we would not be so authorized by anyone. The irony of this is that those such as Connett who constantly proclaim that dentists are not qualified to understand the actions of substances on the entire body, have had insufficient education or training to be qualified or allowed to prescribe drugs and medications.
Without going into all of your detail, let me refer you to #5 of my first comment above in regard to "dosage". Sixty nine years of history of this program have born out the validity of the CDC and IOM information.
Since you seem obsessed with my motivations, simply google "slott missions of mercy" if you wish to get an idea. It is not money, nor is it so for any other fluoridation advocates of whom I'm unaware. Unlike Connett and his family, neither I, nor anyone of whom I'm aware receives any compensation whatsoever for advocating for improved health of everyone through water fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Hi Steve - I'm going to revisit some of these points again because you may have misunderstood what I was trying to get across.
There were no "defensive claws": I'm not defending if I am simply agreeing with you and adding the point that the anti-fluoridation movement is completely fine with Connett and others being compensated. Frankly, I'd be completely fine with you being paid and it would make a lot more sense. The inference that was being made is that since you are so pro-fluoride, without any room for movement on your position, that it smells of someone who's paid to push a position. And what also raises eyebrows, is that anytime there's a blog, article, or comment section about anti-fluoridation anywhere on any website, you show up out of nowhere...like a knight in shining fluoride armor, to refute all anti-fluoridation statements across the entire world wide web. That means you're actively and continually doing searches and tracking the web looking for content being published on the subject, just so you can chime in. You gotta admit that it seems a little questionable that you just do this on your spare time as a public health service. You've been doing this for at least 4 years, according to a 10 second google search. If you are not being paid, and only have the pure intention to give back to society, then your time would be much better spent pushing or getting involved with additional short/long-term research on the effects of varying fluoride levels on the body as a whole. That would have such a greater impact on providing clarity to this discussion. However, I get the feeling you think the science is fully settled, so why waste your time doing that, right?
And let's talk about the dosage levels since you continue to bring them up. The WHO states (http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/naturalhazards/en/index2.html):
0.8–1.2 mg/l - Prevention of tooth decay, strengthening of skeleton.
Above 1.5 mg/l - Fluorosis: pitting of tooth enamel and deposits in bones.
Above about 10 mg/l - Crippling skeletal fluorosis.
So, according to other sources, like the WHO, adverse effects can start to occur over 1.5 mg/l, not just 10 mg/l and 4mg/l like other organizations you quote have stated. That's a big difference. Unfortunately we've seen the detrimental effects of fluoride all too often in regions like India which is notorious for having groundwater with high levels of fluoride, and at relatively low levels too. Here's the toxic effects at just 2.5 mg/l (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/guwahati/Fluoride-poisoning-leaves-villagers-in-deep-water/articleshow/23117074.cms) and more info here (http://www.ijrdh.com/files/11.Fluorosis.pdf)
Let's reference your quote from the 2006 NRC committee: "The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater." Ok, you got me. I don't want "severe" dental and skeletal fluorosis at chronic ingestion of 4 mg/l, just "mild" dental and skeletal fluorosis, so I'll ingest it at 2.5 mg/l. 3 Liters of water per day would put me at 2.1 mg. BTW - This is assuming .7 mg/l and my own city water report has shown this level as higher, averaging around 1 mg/l. I also often drink more than 3 liters/day because I go to hot yoga daily. Hmmmm, at these 1mg/l levels and my heavy water consumption, I'm getting close to that danger zone according to the NRC committee. But, I shouldn't be concerned right?
As for the toxicity at improper levels argument: The "relevance of 30-40 glasses" is the "Fatal Water Intoxication" link that YOU put in your prior post. The 30-40 glasses was the amount of water that was toxic, and ultimately fatal to that individual. The comparison I made regarding warning labels was good 'ol sarcasm.
Along that same thread - "Everything is toxic at some level" is the point you're so excited to hang your hat on. Like i said, a 3rd grader knows that everything has the potential to be toxic, and it's all about the levels/dosage....yes, we get it!! So since I'm told to contact the poison control center (safe assumption of toxicity) if I ingest toothpaste in toothbrush sized amounts for adults and pea-sized amounts for young children, then why not compare this to the 30-40 glasses of water that you referenced in your link. Let me pose an "elementary" (as you like to say) question to you. Given "that fluoridated toothpaste contains 1200-1500 times the fluoride concentration of fluoridated water", does the average individual have a greater chance of ingesting 30-40 glasses of water in 1 sitting or swallowing their toothpaste in any given day? Knowing children especially, the answer to this question is obvious, so please don't try to spin this.
And, to follow-up on that last posed question, focusing more on toxicity...you also get fluoride from the food you eat, like vegetables, teas, etc. You stating that water toxicity would be the primary concern if you're reaching 10mg/l in a given day is just not true. You're ignoring other potential, and common(albeit sometimes very low), daily sources of fluoride intake. That's just irresponsible if you're not taking that into account. You're proving the concerns of anti-fluoridationists, that you cannot look at fluoridation in a vacuum when we know low levels are dangerous to the body. Most importantly, I'm much more worried about constant intake of fluoride at levels around 1.5-4 mg/l, not a one time spike to 10 mg/l, so let's just drop that improbable number altogether and not use it as a benchmark of concern.
At the end of the day, for the most part, both sides simply do not accept the others data points and research, or they interpret them differently. My personal position is that I believe fluoride should be used for the teeth and there's good evidence to support that. I however, do NOT believe it should be ingested with water. Decades of fluoride consumption and accumulation (not just from water) at relatively low levels still can have detrimental affects on the body, and thus tells me that the cons would far outweigh the pros. So, I choose to eliminate the fluoride from my water to remove this variable.
I subscribe to a more balanced and measured approach to fluoride use for teeth health, and it's a shame that there is no middle road for you on this issue. I don't think you should ignore the people who have been seriously affected by relatively low doses of fluoride consumption.
When antifluoridationists inevitably make the ridiculous claims about fluoridation advocates being "paid shills", it is always truly comical to see how quickly the defensive claws come out and the backpedaling begins when their hypocrisy is exposed as to whom really are the "paid shills". Didn't take long here. Seems it's okay to be a "paid shill" as long as that "paid shill" is an antifluoridationist....
Once again, the commenter who cowers behind the pseudonym "nikatday", as do most uninformed antifluoridationists, seems unable to grasp the elementary fact that there is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water. If one is to exclude from ingestion all substances which are toxic, without regard to concentration level, then one will be able to ingest absolutely nothing and will be dead within a week.
The relevance of 30-40 glasses of water per day is unclear, however, fluoridated water contains 0.7 mg/liter of fluoride. 10 mg per day is the Institute of Medicine established daily upper limit of fluoride intake before adverse effects will occur, short or long term. The CDC estimates that 75% of daily fluoride intake from all sources comes from water and beverages. Anyone with "2 or less brain cells" can perhaps explain to "nikatday" as to how to determine his daily fluoride intake.
Perhaps anyone with "2 or less brain cells" can also explain to "nikatday" that fluoridated toothpaste contains 1200-1500 times the fluoride concentration of fluoridated water. Thus, there is reason to have warning labels on toothpaste. With fluoridated water, there are no dangers, thus, no reason for warning labels.
It is unclear as to the relevance of "rabbit holes", but attempting to decipher the antifluoridationist mindset is far beyond the scope of any comment sections.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
How Steve thinks:
1) "First plan of attack, attack the nickname and try to provoke commenter" - Ummm, is this middle school?
2) "Deflect from fluoride issue by attacking Connett and the people who support and work with Connett." - People do not care that Connett and the others you mentioned receive compensation in any way, nor if they are taking advantage of tax deductions. It takes time and energy to run and progress the anti-fluoridation movement, so they should absolutely be compensated. Bravo to them! Matter of fact, I think I'll make another donation right now. Oh, that's right, you are supporting fluoridation out of the goodness of your heart. And...you wanna make sure fluoride accumulates in my organs over years of ingesting so that it keeps me healthy.
3) "Try to attack commenter again by questioning commenters intelligence" - Anyone with a 3rd grade education understands that all substances are toxic at some level. The fact that your are still bringing this absolutely laughable and far-reaching comparison up, says everything about your position. It's also why you'll continue to lose supporters that have more than 2 brain cells to rub together.
PS (to the reader with 2 or less brain cells) - Be extremely careful not to drink 30-40 glasses of water as it may have a negative impact on your body. Yea, I know...crazy right?! The more I think about it...We should require the bottling companies to place this as a warning on all the water bottle labels. That way the consumer is equally notified of the toxic dangers of fluoridated toothpaste and water equally.
Sorry Steve, but we can longer go down this crazy rabbit hole with you.
Interesting that the commenter who posts under the pseudonym "nikatday" has such lack of confidence in his comments that he feels the need to hide behind pseudonymns. Also interesting that he provides absolutely no valid evidence to support his ridiculous claims....typical of antifluoridationist tactics.
In regard to whom may be a paid "shill", let's look at "nikatday's" blatant hypocrisy here......
Neither I, nor any other proponent of whom I'm aware, are paid anything whatsoever for our fluoridation advocating efforts. However, let me point out the only people of whom I'm aware, actually are indeed profiting from keeping this issue alive:
1. Paul Connett, the Director of the antifluoridationist group, Fluoride Action Network (FAN), long time antifluoridationist zealot- Paul's non peer-reviewed book, which he pushes at every conceivable opportunity, sells for $25 per copy. Paul claims that he donates all royalties he receives from his book sales, to his non-profit group, FAN. Given that FAN presumably pays all or part of Paul's fluoride chasing trips all over the United Stated, to New Zealand, Australia, Europe, and anywhere else he chooses to visit, this "donation" would seem to be little more than a tax strategy.
Additionally, both Paul and his wife receive monthly payments of $1,000 each from the umbrella organization under which FAN operates.
2. William Hirzy- the long time antifluoridationist, and close Connett affiliate, Hirzy, is the paid lobbyist for Connett's group, FAN.
3. Attorney James Deal- close Connett affiliate, and donor to FAN, Deal, maintains a website devoted soley to attempts at stirring up class-action lawsuits against fluoridation, from which he would presumably profit in the delusionary dream that he would ever succeed.
4. Alex Jones- Connett affiliate, and syndicated, controversial radio host, Jones, of "Infowars" infamy, is now pushing, for $39.95 a solution called "FluorideShield"
According to Jones' website:
"Introducing Fluoride Shield™, an Infowars Life exclusive blend of key herbs and ingredients specifically infused within the formula to help support the elimination of toxic forms of fluoride and other dangerous compounds like mercury, chlorine, and bromine from within the body."
------http://www.infowarsshop.com/Fluoride-Shield_p_1223.html
5. Whatever may be paid to Connett's son, Michael, for his "services" to FAN as well as to any other Connett family members and/or friends.
As FAN operates under the umbrella of another non-profit organization, the FAN financials lack the transparency as would normally be expected of any such non-profit organization dependent on public donations, and exempt from federal income taxes.
When "Nikatday" decides where he "wants to begin" in proving any of my statements to be "wrong" I challenge his to do so, providing valid evidence to support his claims. That he doesn't understand the elementary fact that all substances known to man are toxic at improper levels speaks volumes about his ignorance of science. In order to educate him on the toxic effects of water:
-----Fatal water intoxication
D J Farrell1 and L Bower2
J Clin Pathol. Oct 2003; 56(10): 803–804.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/
Facts supported by valid evidence, or unsubstantiated nonsense and outright lies posted by an antifluoridationist who hides behind a pseudonym?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Slott is a paid shill. Just do a google search on him. He scours the web for any blogs, articles, forums etc that are speaking out against fluoride and jumps to fluoride's defense every time. No person who isn't paid would spend all the time he does supporting this toxin. It's one thing to have counterpoints to the anti-fluoridation campaign, but it's another to completely and utterly defend this toxin 100% in all aspects.
While his comments might seem somewhat intelligent, there's so many things that are just plain wrong above I wouldn't even know where to begin. But by far though, this is my favorite: "4. There is no substance known to man which is not a “known toxin”, including plain water. This is simply another Connett red herring." I mean really??!?! You're putting plain water and fluoride in the same bucket of conversation under the cover of semantics? Sounds like you're trying to "water down" the toxic effects of fluoride. This is Psy Ops at it's best folks, or more bluntly, him just being a straight-up a$$hole.
If you believe in people having to work through there Karma, I extend compassion to Dr. Slott as I cannot imagine this will be an easy future road for him. The suffering he is potentially causing people with this continued disinformation is being accumulated on a grand scale and will eventually have to be worked through on his own accord.
Now that we've seen Connett's nonsensical "12 reasons", let's take a look at the actual facts supported by valid science:
1. The public health initiative of water fluoridation was never meant to be for the purpose of correcting any nutritional deficiency. This is simply a red herring Connett uses to divert from the fact that fluoridation simply provides added protection against the devastating effects of untreated dental decay, while causing no adverse effects.
2. Human breast milk is deficient in Iron, Vitamin K, and Vitamin D. By Connett’s skewed logic that breast milk is the determinant of proper fluoride levels for infants, “nature” intended for infants to be anemic, free bleeding, and to develop Ricketts.
3. The use of half-truths is characteristic of Connett’s tactics. Let’s look at the other half of his truncated statement about the 41% with dental fluorosis. This refers to a 2010 CDC study by Beltran-Aguilar in which 41% of adolescents they examined showed signs of dental fluorosis. This was broken down into 37.1% mild to very mild dental fluorosis, and 3.8% moderate dental fluorosis. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which has no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. The 3.7% moderate dental fluorosis was attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste, and/or exposure to high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride during the teeth developing years of 0-8.
——-Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H.
——http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long
The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
4. There is no substance known to man which is not a “known toxin”, including plain water. This is simply another Connett red herring.
5. “Dosage” of fluoride is simply another Connett red herring. The “dosage” of fluoride associated with fluoridated water is regulated by the amount of water the human body can ingest before water toxicity will occur.
Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the "dose" of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-3 liters per day. So, let's go to an extreme and double that to an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water consumption per day. This translates to 4.2 mg "dose" of fluoride intake per day from the water. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or "dose", of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water. Thus as 4.2 mg is 75% if the total daily intake from all sources, the total daily intake, or "dose" from all sources would be 5.6 mg for an individual who consumed an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day.
The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily "dose" of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.
The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that "dose" is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.
http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf
6. The “forced medication” ruse has been attempted in US courts repeatedly by antifluoridationists through the decades. It has been rejected each and every time. Fluoride at the optimal level is not “medication”. It is simply a mineral identical to that which has existed in water since the beginning of time. No one is forced to do anything in regard to water fluoridation. Attempting to exploit the emotions felt for those throughout history who have undergone the horrors of true forced medication is yet another in a long line of reprehensible tactics used by Connett and his followers.
7. There is no valid evidence of optimal level fluoride causing arthritis, or bone fractures. The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.
Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.
In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:
"I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”
---John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
8. There are myriad and diverse reasons why different countries may or may not elect to fluoridate their public water systems, few, if any, related to concerns with safety or effectiveness of fluoridated water.
The causes and preventive measures involved in dental decay are numerous. Attempts to assess the effectiveness of but one preventive measure based on a snapshot of WHO data which controls for no other factors, is ludicrous and demonstrative of a total lack of understanding of basic science and healthcare.
9. Randomized controlled trials are all but impossible to accomplish in regard to water fluoridation. The halo effect and numerous other variables make it nearly impossible to segregate fluoridated from non-fluoridated groups sufficiently for such trials. In the absence of these studies, observational studies are the very next best thing, and are entirely acceptable within respected science and healthcare. There are countless peer-reviewed scientific studies which clearly demonstrate the effective of fluoridation. I will gladly cite as many as anyone would reasonably care to view.
10. See #9 above
11. Oral health practitioners around the world most certainly do not agree that the benefits of fluoride are topical as opposed to systemic. This is simply yet one more skewing of information by Connett and his followers.
Fluoride acts both topically and systemically to reduce dental decay. The mild dental fluorosis which Connett and his followers so desperately attempt to portray as some sort of major disorder, has been discussed in #3 above. Mildly fluorosed teeth are more decay resistant, a definite benefit. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically on developing teeth.
Additionally, one of the major mechanisms of fluoridation is the provision of consistent bathing of the dentition is a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day. This is accomplished through incorporation of fluoride into saliva. This incorporation can only occur systemically.
From the CDC:
“Fluoride works to control early dental caries in several ways. Fluoride concentrated in plaque and saliva inhibits the demineralization of sound enamel and enhances the remineralization (i.e., recovery) of demineralized enamel. As cariogenic bacteria metabolize carbohydrates and produce acid, fluoride is released from dental plaque in response to lowered pH at the tooth-plaque interface. The released fluoride and the fluoride present in saliva are then taken up, along with calcium and phosphate, by de-mineralized enamel to establish an improved enamel crystal structure. This improved structure is more acid resistant and contains more fluoride and less carbonate. Fluoride is more readily taken up by demineralized enamel than by sound enamel. Cycles of demineralization and remineralization continue throughout the lifetime of the tooth.”
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtmL/rr5014a1.htm
12. The FDA has no jurisdiction or regulatory authority over fluoridated water. This jurisdiction is entirely under the EPA. There is thus no requirement, nor any need, for FDA approval of fluoridated water. Another Connett red herring.
Steven D. Slott, DDS