A Response to the Bellingham Herald’s Pro-Fluoridation Piffle

June 27, 2014 by AFA Mildura 1 Comment

Fluoridation: Public health, not forced medication
June 27, 2014

Ok, now this is what the Bellingham Herald is NOT telling you:

“Until the 1990s, the toxicity of fluoride was largely ignored due to its “good reputation” for preventing caries via topical application and in dental toothpastes. However, in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses. In recent years, several investigations demonstrated that fluoride can induce oxidative stress and modulate intracellular redox homeostasis, lipid peroxidation and protein carbonyl content, as well as alter gene expression and cause apoptosis. Genes modulated by fluoride include those related to the stress response, metabolic enzymes, the cell cycle, cell–cell communications and signal transduction” [1].

Whilst the Herald is correct that excessive levels of fluoride can be dangerous, the real question is, is there an adequate margin of safety [2] between the known harmful effects of fluoride and the doses received as a result of increased population exposure due to artificial fluoridation programs? According to one expert who served on the 2006 NRC Report [3]:

“Water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups. In addition to the “known” adverse health effects of dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and increased risk of bone fracture, “anticipated” adverse health effects from fluoride exposure or community water fluoridation include (but are not limited to) carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, endocrine effects, increased blood lead levels, and hypersensitivity (reduced tolerance) to fluoride. These effects (described in more detail below) are not as well studied as the dental and skeletal effects, which should indicate that a greater margin of safety is necessary to ensure protection of the population” [4].

After all, we know for a fact that:

“The major dietary source of fluoride for most people… is fluoridated municipal (community) drinking water, including water consumed directly, food and beverages prepared at home or in restaurants from municipal drinking water, and commercial beverages and processed foods originating from fluoridated municipalities” [5].

Interestingly, the newspaper seems to want things both ways. They acknowledge the increased general exposure and make it sound like the authorities are monitoring the population’s fluoride consumption in some rigorous manner, yet they conveniently fail mention that biomonitoring standards are currently inadequate [6] [7]. They also fail to mention the acknowledged weaknesses in the literature supposedly “supporting” fluoridation [8] [9], and they fail to mention that many key primary health studies have not been conducted [10].

As for fluoride being a “nutrient,” this statement has little if any basis in rigorous science [11] [12]. In a desperate effort of spin, the newspaper also tries to muddy the proverbial water regarding treatment, medication and prevention. We’ve dealt with this line of attack previously [13] [14] – as have FAN [15].

So don’t be fooled by the usual pro-fluoridation spin pumped out by these sycophantic media buffoons. The claims made by pro-fluoridation forces are weak and easily refuted [16]. Furthermore, don’t let this deferral to endorsements intimidate you. Endorsements are not adequate substitutes for science [17]. They are the last resort of the desperate – a fact the Bellingham Herald should be made aware of.

The paper would also have you believe that fluoridation has been “spectacularly successful” in preventing tooth decay and that the program’s greatest beneficiaries are low income children. No, rather, it has been a spectacularly successful master propaganda operation. In actual fact, the evidence for benefit is very weak [18] [19] and the evidence about fluoridation reducing inequalities in dental health is some of the weakest of all [8].

> Learn more about the fluoridation fraud