I have been following the Fluoride Debate at http://openparachute.wordpress.com
What do I think of the fluoridationists thus far? What do they think of opponents of fluoridation?
Some fluoridationists are considerate and focus on the issues.
Others treat us as if we were clowns. They try to provoke arguments. One asks:
“So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?”
They hurl abuse at Dr. Osmunson:
“Your not a scientist. You a contrarian making a living on the lecture circuit preaching to the converted and selling books and pamphlets.”
They insult cleverly:
“monotonous obscurantism” and “pedantic busybodies with personality disorders”
They engage in artfull name calling:
“Sincere folks with a genuine desire in subjecting claims that are paraded as scientific claims frequently don’t realise they (and the debate) are being “gamed”. The “game” is parading posturing that is really personal narcism, right wing Libertarianism parading as liberalism, narrow vested financial interests, free market politics and the denial of cooperative strategies of a non zero sum kind aimed at the general welfare. It is frequently accompanied with accusations in some countries with cries of “nanny state” or “socialism”. Among people who should know better this is nothing to do with an honest misunderstanding of the way things have to be, it is a deliberate ploy to encourage a system, a world view that delivers the welfare that belongs to everyone, to an elite arrogant selfish few. It’s proponents should not be treated politely, they should be given no quarter. Their currency is deliberate persistent misinformation. Their strategy is discernible in Big Tobacco, Climate Change denial and now anti fluoridation. That is why their most outrageous claims are situated in the on-line equivalent of the “gutter press” as I discovered above.”
One uses the smear tactic:
“Futhermore, from his website, Mr Deal is also an anti-vaccination advocate. Although, curiously, he states that he is not opposed to vaccination “in theory”. I guess that he is only opposed “in practice”.
Other comments are:
“Surreal is the appropriate description of the world these people inhabit.”
“I’m no longer interested in the manifest content of the shrieking from these idiots. What interests me more is their incorrigibility. Must be something to do with the culture (US) which is strongly relativistic and litigious. It’s like a weird scene from some eschatological movie ( and given the bible fundamentalism in the US who would be surprised – already!). … These people are like robots that react to whatever contradicts their programmed paranoia. This is work for sociologists and psychologists me thinks. … If I could get my hands on them I’d hold them under water until their legs stopped thrashing!
“Surreal is the appropriate description of the world these people inhabit.”
The moderator says we should ignore them.
Fortunately, others are more considerate, and maybe are learning something and teaching us something.
But generally, most fluoridationists seem to be uninformed. They have not reviewed the evidence very well. They selectively ignore evidence which questions fluoridation. They are insensitive to the immediate harm caused to the fluoride hyper-sensitives and to the slow, chronic harms being caused to all of us by fluoridation. They accuse those opposed to fluoridation as being conspiracy theorists; they find a way to dismiss those opposed to fluoridation without considering their arguments.
But people do change. They find their way out of life’s many mazes, and sometimes they find their way out of the fluoridation maze. I found my way out. I had always heard that fluoridation was a good thing. I brushed every day with Colgate. I thought the opponents to be odd. Even Bill Osmunson was once a fluoride defender. But he studied the contraindications and found his way out of the maze. Paul Connett once thought that fluoridation opponents were “crazies” until his wife showed him some research papers that exposed the contraindications.
If you did a poll you would probably find that around half of all dentists now oppose fluoridation. They know we are consuming too much fluoride. Some of them want to continue using topical application of fluroride in their practices, so the only way left to reduce total fluoride consumption is to quit drinking and eating fluoride. Some dentists are also opposed to topical application of fluoride.
My observation is that fluoridationists start with the given that fluoridation is good. For them fluoridation is an article of faith not subject to challenge. People in white coats have told them all their lives that it us good, so everything contrary to that presumption sounds off, like a song sung out of tune. All reason and logic that say otherwise are ignored or explained away or responded to as Stuart does by calling those opposed to fluoridation by insulting names:
Fluoridationists stubbornly hold to the belief that all fluorides can be regarding as the same in terms of effectiveness and harmfulness.
Fluoridationists can’t deny that fluoridation materials are contaminated with lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and thallium. Some of these contaminats are listed on the certificates of analysios. Others are admitted to be present in some shipments by NSF. This puts fluoridationists in the position of having to argue that a little bit of a deadly toxin is safe.
Fluoridationists focus on the studies which show a slight reduction in carries and ignore the studies which show little or no reduction in carries, e.g. studies showing that non-fluoridated Europe has enjoyed the same reduction in carries as the fluoridated US, the comparison between caries in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland vs. the non-fluoridated Northern Ireland, the huge Iowa study. See http://fluoridealert.org/studies/ifs.
Fluoridationists ignore the studies which show chronic problems which the fluoride-lead-arsenic-mercury-thallium cocktail causes over time. They ignore the lead leaching problem. And they ignore the studies which point out other contraindications.
For example, even the fluoridationist literature admits that 41% of children age 12-15 suffer from dental fluorosis, that 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and that 3.6% suffer from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and up to 100% of enamel impacted). 8.6% + 3.6% = 12.2%.
This 12.2% has noticeable and embarrassing tooth damage. This 12.2% is considered acceptable collateral damage. So I would say insensitivity to the minority who are being harmed, and a willingness to harm some in order to reduce the carries rate of the majority is a trait of the pro-fluoridationists.
Fluoridationists ignore the fact that the fluorosis affected spots, which are said to be more resistant to carries because they are loaded with fluorapatite, are always on the surfaces of teeth, the areas least prone to caries and not in the crevices of the molars where most carries occur.
Fluoridationists ignore the fact that if teeth are suffering damage, so too are all the bones in the body. Fluoride can’t go magically to the teeth and not go to all the other bones in the body. The teeth are the windows to the bones. Fluoridationists regard white spots on the teeth as harmless or even attractive instead of a warning that every bone in the body is absorbing fluoride where it is virtually impossible to remove, there accumulating over the course of a lifetime until bones become more brittle and little old ladies break their hips and fall down – not fall down and break their hips.
The first rule of Hippocrates was First Do No Harm. Fluoridationists seem to ignore this law of medicine.
Fluoridationists ignore the fact that even the CDC and ADA admit that the effect of fluoride is “primarily topical”. See: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001396.htm. So why drink the stuff?
Toothpaste is 1500 ppm F. One who drinks water fluoridated at 1 ppm has a blood fluoride level of .2 and a saliva fluoride level of only .02 ppm. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=56. If the level in toothpaste is effective, how can you argue that the level in saliva – 1/75,000 th the toothpaste concentration is effective? If you believe that .02 ppm in saliva is effective, how can you contend that 1500 ppm in toothpaste is not an overdose?
The dental journal Caries Research, 2004 May-Jun;38(3):258-62, admits that “the caries-preventive effect of fluoride is almost exclusively posteruptive. … Therefore, topical fluoride application (e.g. in the form of fluoridated dentifrices) should be encouraged.” That means that it does not help for infants to consume it. The conclusion is to use fluoride topically after childhood. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15153698.
So it would seem that fluoridationists ignore even their own studies.
Fluoridationists also ignore all the other ways of preventing tooth decay. Fluoride does slightly reduce tooth decay. Fluoride is an enzyme interruptor and it interrupts the enzymes in tooth decay bacteria just as it interrupts enzymes in the pineal and the thyroid. You can kill bacteria with fluoride, but you can also kill bacteria with a sledge hammer, although you would not like the collateral damage the sledge hammer would do to your teeth. Fluoride is the same way: There is collateral damage.
Fluoridationists forget that tooth decay is caused by a bacteria, Dr. Kennedy, DDS, says irrigation with iodine or salt or antibiotics is much more effective. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApV8anfDvfI.
Fluoridationist himself, Dr. Featherstone DDS, suggests using chlorhexidine gluconate, http://nypediatricdds.com/Portals/0/Caries%20Prevention%20and%20Reversal%20Based%20on%20the%20Caries%20Balance.pdf, although he still supports fluoridation, holding to the highly questionable notion that .02 ppm fluoride ion in saliva will remineralize enamel.
At the latest ADA convention a study was presented that says the new “chocolate” Theodent toothpaste remineralizes enamel better than fluoride toothpaste. See: https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/chocolate-toothpaste-better-than-fluoridated-ada-convention.
Fluoridationists believe that fluoride can remineralize teeth. No, it does not do any such thing. Fluoride ion forms loosely bonded globules of calcium fluoride on teeth, which wash off when you eat or drinking anything acidic. See: https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fluoride-ineffective-topically-and-systemically
Fluoridationists ignore the strong evidence that around 1% of the general population is actually allergic or hypersensitive to fluoride to the point that they have to go to great lengths to avoid it or even more to a non-fluoridated area. I have talked with many hypersensitive, and they report overdosing as children, some of them having locked themselves in the bathroom and eaten fluoridated toothpaste and gotten sick. This may be how they become hypersensitive.
Dr. Feltman, a fluoridation advocate, set out to prove fluoride harmless, so for 14 years gave thousands of subjects a daily dose of one mg sodium fluoride pills. He found that a consistent 1% of those taking the NaF pills daily had allergic reactions. Quoting Dr. Feltman:
“One percent of our cases reacted adversely to the fluoride. By the use of placebos, it was definitely established that the fluoride and not the binder was the causative agent. These reactions, occurring in gravid women and in children of all ages in the study group affected the dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological systems. Eczema, atopic dermatitis, urticaria, epigastric distress, emesis, and headache have all occurred with the use of fluoride and disappeared upon the use of placebo tablets, only to recur when the fluoride tablet was, unknowingly to the patient, given again. When adverse reactions occur, the therapy can be readily discontinued and the patient or parent advised of the fact.”
that sensitivity exists and the element is to be avoided as much as possible.” SOURCE: Feltman R, Kosel G. (1961). Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides – Fourteen years of investigation – Final report. Journal of Dental Medicine 16: 190-99.
Feltman’s study was large, double-blinded, well controlled, and went on for 14 years. Fluoridationists, please read more about allergic and hypersensitivity reactions at: http://washingtonsafewater.com/wp-content/uploads/Appendix-60-Allergy.pdf, and do not ignore this issue.
Fluoridationists seem to look the other way when we bring up such studies. The 1% who are downright allergic or hypersensitive to fluoride are ignored. There is the implication that they are malingerers, although Dr. Feltman proves otherwise. Don’t these people count? You tell me why the fluoridationists do not care about the 12.2% with noticeable fluorosis and the 1% who are downright allergic. Maybe you can explain it better than I can.
Fluoridationists just seem to be in love with their theory. They seem trapped in a maze and unable to find their way out. Bernays the Monster who reshaped propaganda into mass marketing, helped Alcoa and the Public Health Service to sell fluoride to America the way he helped Lucky Strike to sell cigarettes to women, the way he helped Armor to convince people to eat hefty servings of fatty bacon, ham, and sausage “treif” as breakfast food.
Some argue that the fluoridationists are victims of mass advertising, mass propaganda, mass hypnosis, mass manipulation of some kind. While all of these are different, they all lie on the same continuum and overlap. Those who support fluoridation have been manipulated through false advertising. I am sure that fluoridationists would consider this offensive,but manipulated people do tend to resent accusations that they are being manipulated, even when they are. See: https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fluoridation-as-mass-hypnosis.
You have scientists who support fluoridation. We have scientists who oppose it. I would say that our scientists are better than your scientists because they carefully examine the contraindications while fluoridationists scientists ignore the contraindications. We have 1500 scientists in the EPA who oppose fluoridation. See: https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/epa-scientists.
In the federal agencies it is the non-scientist administrators who support fluoridation, the political appointees. Big corporations lobby congress to appoint pro-industry administrators to head up agencies. They work to cut funding to agencies to the point where FDA lacks the manpower to do its own research and is dependent on fees from the industries it regulates. Our agencies have been taken over by the industries they regulate via the revolving door – for example Michael Taylor, Mr. Monsanto, in charge of GMO crops at the FDA. https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fda-taken-over-by-the-industries-it-regulates.
One talks about the “tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review” who favor fluoridation. I studied the best of their writings. I actually read the entire proposal for rule making brought out by the CDC and EPA in January, 2011. That is the one which proposed setting fluoridation at a flat .7 ppm. All the studies were just more of the same studies focusing on the slight reduction in carries which fluoridation produces, but with no studies on the contraindications, and I responded to it in detail. See: https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/report-card-for-hhs.
In 1993 the NRC gave the CDC and EPA a list of contraindications to study:
“the metabolic characteristics of fluoride in infants, young children, and the elderly, the metabolic characteristics of fluoride in patients with progressive renal disease, determine soft-tissue fluoride concentrations and their relation to plasma fluoride concentrations, studies on the contribution of ingested fluoride and fluoride applied topically to teeth to prevent caries, analytical studies (case control or cohort) of the cancer sites that are most highly suspect, osteosarcomas and cancers of the buccal cavity, kidney, and bones and joints.” http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=19
The CDC and EPA completely ignored this homework assignment. The NRC in 2006 pointed out that CDC and EPA had ignored the questions raised in 1993 and gave them more contraindications to study:
“caries, fluorosis, bone fractures, fertility, thyroid function, increased calcitonin activity, increased parathyroid hormone activity, secondary hyperparathyroidism, impaired glucose tolerance, and possible effects on timing of sexual maturity, endocrine effects and brain function, osteosarcoma.” See 2006 NRC Report, pages 6-9.
CDC and EPA have completely ignored the 2006 list and continue to do so to this day. None of these items are mentioned in the 2011 proposal to set fluoridation levels at .7 ppm.
Another trait of fluoridationists is their stubborn refusal to acknowledge that fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluoride added to drinking water meet the federal and state definitions of the term “drug”. To the fluoridationists fluoridation exists outside all regulation except for NSF’s sham certification. Fluoridation is okay because it is being done.
So I would say that the explanation of why fluoridation persists is that fluoridationists just look at what they want to look at and ignore evidence that disagrees with their project.
I notice that much of the pro-fluoridation talk on this blog is the continuing expression of amazement that there are people who can oppose fluoridation, rather than an open-minded examination of the contraindications.
Well, we have studied the questionable or minimal benefits of eating and drinking fluoride, and we have studied the numerous contraindications. We have studied alternative means of remineralizing teeth and killing streptoccus mutans. On all counts there are better alternatives to ingested fluoride. And so we who oppose fluoridation are just as amazed that otherwise intelligent people can support a behavior as outlandish as drinking sodium fluoride or fluorosilicic acid.
The do-not-fluoridate-drinking-water side of this issue is much easier to prove than the drink-fluoridated-water side. We only have to show 1) that fluoridation is ineffective or only marginally effective, or 2) that fluoridation has serious contraindications, short term contraindications for the hypersensitive minority or long-term contraindications for all of us, or 3) that there are better ways to remineralize teeth, or 4) that there are better ways to kill streptococcus mutans than with fluoride at .02 ppm in saliva. If we prove even one of these points, we win the whole debate.
The fluoridate-drinking-water side, on the other hand has to prove 1) that fluoridation is effective at reducing carries, AND 2) that fluoridation has no serious contraindications, neither short term contraindications for the hypersensitive minority nor long-term contraindications for all of us AND 3) that there is no better ways to remineralize teeth, AND 4) that there are no better ways to kill streptococcus mutans than with fluoride at .02 ppm in saliva. They must prove all four points in order to win.
I am hoping that those participating in this discussion will continue to be open minded and will find their way out of the fluoride maze. We are not clowning about this.