Research Blog


1 Comment

Awofeso Drops Another Bomb on the Fluoridation Facade

In 2012, Professor Niyi Awofeso concluded, “there is insufficient ethical justification for artificial water fluoridation in Australia.” Now, Awofeso, and co-author Stephen Peckham, have driven some extra nails into the fluoridation coffin:

“As part of efforts to reduce hazardous fluoride ingestion, the practice of artificial water fluoridation should be reconsidered globally.”

“Public health approaches for global dental caries reduction that do not involve systemic ingestion of fluoride are urgently needed.”

“It is widely accepted that fluoride only helps prevent dental decay by topical means.”

“Given that the action of fluoride on dental caries prevention is topical, only topical fluoride products are likely to provide optimal benefits claimed for this chemical.”

“A change in the ideological approach to fluoride use for dental caries prevention is essential in the global public health community. An important change would be for the World Health Organization to repudiate its assertion that fluoride is an essential nutrient or trace element, or that artificial water fluoridation is a useful public health strategy.”

“The classification of fluoride as a pollutant rather than as a nutrient or medicine is a useful starting point for analysing the adverse effect of fluoride. No fluoride deficiency disease has ever been documented for humans. Indeed, the basis for setting an “adequate intake” of fluoride rests on the alleged ability of ingested fluoride to prevent tooth decay. However, since it is now known that the effect of fluoride is topical, the notion of an “adequate daily intake” is flawed. One of the key concerns about water fluoridation is the inability to control an individual’s dose of ingested fluoride which brings into question the concept of the “optimal dose.””

“Arguments in favour of fluoridation as an ethical public intervention rest primarily on the assumption that there are substantive benefits for children’s health and that it reduces inequalities. While such claims may have been persuasive several decades ago, this view is clearly now contestable.”

“Within the European Union, the only regulation in force for hexafluorosilicic acid—commonly used for community water fluoridation—is as an industrial product.”

“Given that most of the toxic effects of fluoride are due to ingestion, whereas its predominant beneficial effect is obtained via topical application, ingestion or inhalation of fluoride predominantly in any form constitutes an unacceptable risk with virtually no proven benefit.”

Only one question remains – how long can the promoters of fluoridation continue this fraudulent practice before it is outlawed forever? It is not a matter of if, but when.

> For full text, CLICK HERE
> For further research, CLICK HERE


59 Comments

‘Conspiracy’ the Favoured Word of Pro-Fluoridation Extremists

For those new to this debate over the fluoridation of water supplies (mandatory or otherwise), it may surprise you to learn that most of the so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ talk comes from the pro-fluoridation lobby, not anti-fluoridation campaigners concerned with presenting the ethical and scientific case against fluoridation.

In fact, the scientific opponents of fluoridation repeatedly reject conspiracy theories regarding the practice (e.g. Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, p. 85, p. 256), instead choosing to focus their energy on discussing the primary literature and issues such as informed consent to treatment.

However, this does not stop proponents of fluoridation lumping all opponents into the conspiracy theorist category. Sure, there are still plenty of whackos out there who insist on peddling the baseless ‘Nazi’ argument and so forth, but the real question is why do those who promote fluoridation avoid debates (apart from some rare exceptions) with the scientific opponents fluoridation, choosing instead to default to the general conspiracy smear?

The main answer is, this is the easiest option for proponents who cannot answer the tough questions, although the simplistic default conspiracy smear is becoming laughable to increasingly informed members of the public who – like the scientific opponents of fluoridation – refuse to lower themselves to baseless conspiracy theorising.

One favourite tactic of the pro-fluoridation lobby and their media lackeys is to deliberately mix fact with conspiracy, hoping that the public will automatically accept the ‘conspiracy’ label without further investigation. Here is a recent example of this tactic, in relation to fluoridation chemicals:

“Public water fluoridation is really just a secret way for chemical companies to dump the dangerous byproducts of phosphate mines into the environment” (Richmond 2014).

Notice how the conspiracy connotation (see original article) has been deliberately inserted to lull the reader into believing that anyone claiming that phosphate byproducts are being added to water supplies, must be some kind of nut job? What are the plain facts, without the connotation?:

– Are phosphate industry byproducts dangerous to the environment? Yes, that’s why there are restrictions on industry, obliging them to capture these dangerous byproducts before they enter the environment and cause damage.

– Are these byproducts then used to fluoridate public water supplies? Yes, they are. Not even the chemical companies themselves deny this fact, as extensively documented here. For example, this is what one Australian producer of fluoridation chemicals openly states on its own website: “Fluorosilicic acid is a co-product of CSBP’s superphosphate manufacturing process. Fluorosilicic acid is used to fluoridate drinking water” (CSBP n.d.). However, if an anti-fluoridation campaigner were to state this as a fact in a public arena, they would automatically be labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist.’

– Is it financially advantageous for these companies to sell their byproducts to water suppliers to fluoridate public water supplies? Well of course it is. Just like any company in a market capitalist system, profits are legally and openly accrued via the sale of a product to a consumer of that product. In this case, the product(s) are fluoridation chemicals.

So, where is the conspiracy theory? These are just plain facts. However, with the media’s crude preemptive conspiracy theory association with these facts, the proverbial water is quite cunningly being muddied to favour the proponents of fluoridation.

What can you do about all this?

Keep calmly and rationally presenting the scientific and ethical case against fluoridation, and stay away from actual conspiracy theorising (unless you have solid evidence for a genuine conspiracy taking place). Those whom you are trying to convince to support your case will soon realise that you are not the one constantly bringing ‘conspiracies’ into the debate, but that your pro-fluoridation detractors are. It will quickly be noticed that the proponents of fluoridation are doing so because they are unable to defeat your case in any comprehensive, rational manner, and instead are retreating to childish attacks. This can only work, over time, in your favour.

> Additional resources for activists
> Additional resources for researchers


8 Comments

Fluoride Levels in Melbourne’s Water: Exposing the Red Herrings in Health Department Spin

RESPONSE to Fluoride in safe levels in Melbourne’s water, says Health Department
(The Age | February 17, 2014)

“Health authorities have assured the public Victoria’s water supply is safe after US experts raised concerns about the impact of high levels of fluoride in drinking water on children’s IQs.”

Actually, US experts have not ruled out the risk of fluoride to brain development, at any level in water. What they really say is it cannot “be concluded that no risk is present (in fluoridating nations). We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard” [Learn more].

“Melbourne Water adds less than 1 milligram of fluoride a litre to the water supply to help prevent tooth decay, a Melbourne Water spokesman said, and adding fluoride to drinking water was required by Victoria’s health laws.”

Firstly, yes, the stated purpose is to “prevent tooth decay,” but the evidence for this is weak [Learn more], including within the Australian context [Learn more]. Secondly, “1 milligram of fluoride a litre to the water supply” is the CONCENTRATION, not the DOSE. The dose depends on how much water people drink [Learn more] and how much fluoride they receive from other sources [Learn more]. What this article, therefore, fails to mention is the central issue of MARGIN OF SAFETY [Learn more].

“A spokesman for Victoria’s Department of Health said fluoride was safe and effective.”

When we get beyond the public relations trash and critically examine the evidence, we quickly learn how pathetically weak this mantra actually is [Learn more].

”It prevents tooth decay and the very controlled way it is introduced into Victoria’s drinking water supply should give us no cause for concern.”

This statement is based on propaganda, not sound or complete science [Learn more].

“A review by US chemical experts published in The Lancet Neurology on Saturday said studies, mainly from China, suggested high levels of fluoride in drinking water reduced the IQ of children.”

There is more background to this [Learn more].

“Democratic Labour Party Senator John Madigan said people should have a choice about ingesting fluoride.”

True, and this is based on the universal human right of informed consent to treatment [Learn more], which the Fluoridation Act contradicts [Learn more].

“The Department of Health water fluoridation information line is 1800 651 723.”

Sure, call that number – if you want the bullshit, industry-funded spin version – but if you’d genuinely like to learn more, click here.


3 Comments

Spineless Advertising Standards ‘Authority’ Fails the People of New Zealand

RE: Fluoridation critic still unhappy after ad complaint rejected

The situation, as summarised in the above article, epitomises how the criminals who promote and implement fluoridation programs continue to get away with their crimes against the people, even after decades of unsubstantiated propaganda. As long as agencies that are charged with enforcing checks and balances on those in power fail to stand up to the bullies and cartel crony kingpins of fluoridation, nothing will change.

The Advertising Standards Authority (NZ) can now join the long list of those who – as history will attest – are worthy of nothing more than hanging their heads in shame on this issue. Let’s briefly look at the propaganda claims that were supposedly ‘examined’ thoroughly by the Advertising Standards Authority and ruled to have been ‘substantiated’:

Claim 1: Fluoridation “makes a huge difference in reducing tooth decay, particularly for children.”

When this claim of “huge” benefit is critiqued, the evidence reveals a miniscule benefit (if any) and certainly not one of noteworthy clinical significance (1) (2) (3) (4).

Claim 2: Fluoridation “is safe.”

On July 9th, 2013, the Otago Daily Times featured an article, citing University of Otago researchers now openly admitting that the New Zealand population – despite being exposed for many decades to fluoridation – has not been adequately monitored for potential developmental health effects; and only now is data being collated to look for potential adverse impacts (5). This simply confirmed what researchers and critics of fluoridation have been highlighting for decades; i.e. the disturbing lack of primary health data on the potential impacts of fluoridation.

For instance, as pointed out by Cheng et al. (2007) in the British Medical Journal, “Given the certainty with which water fluoridation has been promoted and opposed, and the large number (around 3200) of research papers identified (by the York Review), the reviewers were surprised by the poor quality of the evidence and the uncertainty surrounding the beneficial and adverse effects of fluoridation” (6). “Is safe,” as per the aforementioned advertisement, is an absolute statement that makes no mention of this scientific uncertainty.

As noted by risk assessment expert and former National Research Council Panelist, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, “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” (7). Other NRC Panelists have also expressed similar concerns (8), whilst more recently, Choi et al. (2012) were not prepared to state that “no risk is present” with water fluoridation (9).

The Advertising Standards Authority (NZ) obviously did not want to ask the hard questions surrounding ‘Margin of Safety’ (10), nor did it see the need to acknowledge the dearth of primary health data in fluoridating nations (11), or address the point raised by Barbier et al. (2010) that, “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” (12).

Instead, they chose to blindly trust the governmental advertising body as an “expert in the area due to its role” and therefore do not question its claims any further, despite the fraudulent claim to the contrary that the claims were “substantiated.”

Claim 3: Fluoridation “provides an affordable benefit to everyone.”

Returning once more to Cheng et al. (2007), we quickly discover the truth that yet again, the evidence for this claim is dodgy or non-existent, at best: “Water fluoridation aims to reduce social inequalities in dental health, but few relevant studies exist” (6). And, from the authors of the York Review, “The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” (13) – a point well noted by Dr. Thiessen in a recent Blount County presentation (14).

Further research:

> Research Databases
> Fluoride Basics
> The Case Against Fluoride


2 Comments

Fluoride and the Nazi Connection?

Since AFAM was formed in 2008 to fight against mandatory water fluoridation in Victoria, we have heard a story endlessly repeated: “Hitler used sodium fluoride to pacify concentration camp inmates.” As the old saying goes, if you repeat something enough times people supposedly begin to believe it. Well, this one we don’t believe. Why? Because despite HUNDREDS of challenges from us, not a single anti-fluoridation person or group has EVER proven this claim, when challenged by us to do so.

What has been proven, however, is that our opponents (i.e. those who enjoy forcing fluoridation chemicals into water supplies, often against the will of the people and always in violation of the human right of informed consent to treatment) love when they hear this Nazi claim. It fits neatly into their widely-perpetuated “conspiracy theorist” theme, so they can avoid dealing with real issues, such as informed consent to treatment and scientific research gaps relating to the fluoridation program. As noted by Connett, Beck & Micklem (2010):

“It is true that a few people who oppose fluoridation do so based on claims that Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes used it as a method of mind control. There is little evidence that would satisfy a historian to support such claims. The vast majority of fluoridation opponents repudiate such views and base their opposition on science and ethics” (p. 257).

Nevertheless, hardly a day goes by where we don’t have to roll our eyes in disgust when we come across this publicly repeated BS from over-zealous anti-fluoridation campaigners (or pro-fluoridation shills posing as anti-fluoridation campaigners?). However, in fairness, here is our open challenge to ANYONE out there who genuinely believes that the Nazis used fluoride compounds to pacify prisoners. The challenge is to answer the following questions, with credible references to independently verifiable information:

1. Which fluoride compounds were used (sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, fluorosilicic acid, other)?
2. How were they used (e.g. given via drinking water)?
3. Where were they used (which concentration camps and when)?
4. In what doses/concentrations were they given (e.g. 1 mg/L of water; 2 mg/L of water; how much did inmates consume)?
5. What empirical data was collected to prove that the effect of these fluoride compounds was to decrease capacity for resistance in prisoners (e.g. what were the documented effects on the brains of prisoners)?
6. Who were the supervising individuals involved in the fluoridation program (what were their qualifications and official positions within the Nazi medical/scientific establishment)?
7. How is this alleged controlled Nazi fluoridation program relevant to water fluoridation in the modern context (i.e. fluoridation generally means the addition of sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, fluorosilicic acid to public drinking water supplies at an average concentration of 1mg/L of water, so how does the alleged Nazi program compare directly)?
8. Where are the official, verifiable Nazi documents to prove an active fluoridation program for the specific purpose of pacifying concentration camp inmates (e.g. signed orders from legitimate Nazi officials, or even Hitler himself)?
9. Are there any alternative explanations for any fluoridation chemicals that may have allegedly been found on-site at concentration camps by Allied soldiers (i.e. we have heard rumours that Allied soldiers discovered large quantities of sodium fluoride at camps, but given that sodium fluoride has been used as a rodenticide in the past, could these alleged quantities of the chemical have been there for this benign purpose and NOT for addition of the chemical to the water supplies of prisoners)?
10. Can the claims attributed to Charles E Perkins, regarding fluoride and Nazis, be verified by independent sources (more info here)?

As noted earlier, our group formed in 2008. Since that time, not a single one of these questions we have demanded answers to has been answered in any verifiable manner, by ANYBODY (although many have tried to convince us to believe such claims, without provided evidence). So until these questions – and many more like them – can be answered properly, we will continue to reject any claims from anti-fluoridationists that there is even a semblance of truth to this so-called “Nazi connection” with fluoride in water and specific changes in brain function in humans. We will also maintain that anyone perpetuating this myth in the public arena is not helping the legitimate campaign to halt the fluoridation program (on sound ethical and scientific grounds).

Further research (resources we DO support):

> Fluoride & the Brain
Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects of Fluoride
Molecular Mechanisms of Fluoride Toxicity


3 Comments

‘Journalism’, or a Paid Press Release for the Dento-Chemical Fluoridation Cartel?

Article:

Local water fluoridation has long history | December 29, 2013

Sources:

Source #1: Steve Sincox, CEO and general manager of Marshalltown Water Works (of course Steve supports fluoridation; he has a long-term contract with the phosphate fertilizer industry to supply their highly toxic/corrosive waste to his water treatment facility).

Source #2: Mary Mariani, president of Iowa Dental Association (of course Mary supports fluoridation; she is brainwashed by the cartel cronies who run the ADA, and besides, even if she wasn’t, it’s not like she has a choice in the matter).

Rebuttal:

“Recommended level of 0.7 parts per million.”

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—“in the face of uncertain evidence it is important to act in a manner that protects public health” (Tickner and Coffin 2006). In addition, it should be noted that some of these effects may occur at lower fluoride exposures than those typically associated with dental or skeletal effects, such that protection against the dental or skeletal effects does not necessarily ensure protection against other anticipated adverse health effects. Elimination of community water fluoridation is the best way to reduce fluoride exposures for most individuals to a level at which adverse health effects are unlikely.”

“It’s one of the wonderful things about living in the United States and living in Iowa.”

Yeah, those poor Europeans without water fluoridation. Their teeth must be disastrous in comparison. Oh, and speaking of Iowa!

“She said she can see a difference in the teeth of people in the communities that do not have fluoride added to their water.”

And because she is a member of the ADA, we must take her word for it, based on her own anecdotal evidence? Sorry, we don’t play that game.

“She said water without fluoridation is noticeable in the teeth of those living in lower socioeconomic statuses… It helps people no matter what socioeconomic status they are in.”

Really? How come the authors of the York Review, after examining the actual international evidence, concluded that, “The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable”? We guess she just ‘accidentally’ failed to mention those findings to the so-called ‘journalist’ who ‘wrote’ this ‘article.’

“I don’t want another kid to die of a tooth infection, that’s just silly in the United States, that shouldn’t happen.”

Okay, get your violins out for this emotive garbage. “The poor children.” Yes, indeed, the poor children – but wait a minute – that must mean that lots of children are dying in Europe, comparatively, because of their lack of access to fluoridated water. Let’s check those figures again. So what about these so-called ‘benefits’? **’Journalist’ scratches head** :-)

“She said fluoridation is also important for senior citizens to help fight tooth decay.”

Again, what strong evidence she provides. Wow.

“It’s most important for our most vulnerable parts of society, the very young and the very old.”

“Several epidemiologic studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities clearly indicated that [water fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has become low.” “Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt.”

“I think the important thing to remember is that the Center for Disease Control said one of the top ten greatest achievements for the 20th century was adding fluoride to the water to prevent tooth decay.”

What press release would be complete without this dried up old turd of a quote? “Not a day goes by without someone in the world citing the CDC’s statement that fluoridation is “One of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century”… Those that cite this probably have no idea how incredibly poor the analysis was that supported this statement. The report was not externally peer reviewed, was six years out of date on health studies and the graphical evidence it offered to support the effectiveness of fluoridation was laughable and easily refuted by examining the WHO database”.

Verdict:

If this is not a paid press release, arranged directly by the ADA via their slithery network of fluoridation butt sniffers, then that would be a true Christmas holiday miracle. If not, what is it? Well, there is one thing we know for sure  – Journalism, it certainly ain’t (an infant with a quarter of a firing brain cell could figure that out). That makes it a disgrace to the profession of Journalism and an insult to any member of the public who is unfortunate enough to read it.

Further Research:

> Research Databases
> The Case Against Fluoride


15 Comments

NSW Dental Association’s Fear Mongering Disgrace

Article for rebuttal

Lismore fluoride decision sparks dental concerns
ABC News | 15 Aug. 2013
[Related article: Lismore Council decision prompts call for fluoride intervention]

Rebuttal

Point #1: “Doctor Brendan White from the far north coast division of the NSW Dental Association said an independent study found two-thirds of the community supports fluoridation.”

Response: Firstly, the study is not provided for the reader to independently verify the claim. The ABC expects us to blindly accept the ‘authority’ of the NSW Dental Association (sorry ABC, we don’t play that game). Secondly, even if the study were genuine, that means one third of the community is either undecided on fluoridation, or does not want fluoridation imposed upon them. According to the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights:

“Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information… In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent” (1).

Water fluoridation is both a preventive and therapeutic intervention, with its proponents expressly claiming the measure to be a preventive and direct treatment for the disease of tooth decay (2). As noted by Meng (2008):

“The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights emphasizes the principle of autonomy to protect the human rights of the human subjects involved in any public health activities and epidemiological research. As a practical guideline, obtaining informed consent is strongly recommended(3).

Having not obtained informed consent from community members, the NSW Dental Association and Dr. White are using the media to pressure Council to impose a measure that would directly contravene the Declaration. Ergo, they would be well-advised to carefully consider their legal options before continuing along this line. All the makings of a class action law suit are in place here.

Neither the Council, nor the local water authorities, nor the ADA or its individual members are authorised to violate the human right of informed consent to treatment. Doing so could see one or all of these parties prosecuted by any member of the community from whom informed consent was not obtained.

For this reason, we also extend this legal notice to Council, as fair warning about the ethical implications of that which Dr. White and his fear-mongering cronies are advocating.

Point #2: “We have a crisis in the community, we have a solution that is equitable and is extremely safe, and we’ve presented this and we’ve just lost it.”

Response: After examining the world-wide literature, the York Review (2000) concluded that the evidence for fluoridation reducing inequalities in dental health is – even after decades of community exposure – “of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” (4). Dr. White’s claim, therefore, is scientifically dubious, at best. Neither did the review team conclude that fluoridation is safe:

“The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed” (5).

In 2006, the National Research Council added to the health uncertainties. Its report raised the possibility that, “various fluoride species or complexes (especially fluorosilicates and aluminofluorides) present in tap water” may have biological effects (6) – including, but not limited to, hypersensitivity reactions in certain individuals (7) (8); that fluorides can, “increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways,” which may “act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease” (9); and that, “fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans” (10); among other things. The report also cited biomonitoring of the population as inadequate (11).

In 2010, Barbier et al. confirmed the potential toxicity of fluoride on biological systems and processes:

“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… It is important to highlight that fluoride must be actively considered as a potent toxic compound in the field of toxicology, both in epidemiologic/ecological research and in fundamental or applied research” (12).

Cheng et al. (2007) had previously warned of the insidious nature of chronic toxicity and the risks it may pose to the population at large, once a fluoridation scheme is introduced:

“In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation” (13).

The risk of chronic toxicity is acknowledged in the literature; fluoride’s molecular biochemistry is an active area of research; and many health effects have been cited as areas of concern. Yet, with all the above considered, Dr. White and his dental lobby cronies advocate that Council should impose this measure upon the local community, without informed consent (1) or dosage control (14).

They are on very shaky ethical ground, whilst their claims are scientifically questionable, at the very least. If they insist on gambling with the health of their community, whilst riding roughshod over the basic human right of informed consent to treatment, they would, as previously stated, be well advised to consider their potential legal liability.

Point #3: “Our motivation is simply to reduce decay, (and) we need this in our area.”

Response: Is tooth decay/dental caries a disease? – Yes; Is water fluoridation advertised as a treatment or preventive measure for this disease? – Yes; Is treatment or prevention of disease a medical intervention? – Yes (15); Is the right to informed consent to treatment enshrined as a basic human right? – Yes (1); Have Dr. White, the Council, the ADA or anyone else obtained the legal informed consent to treatment from all community members? – No; What are the consequences for treating people without their informed consent? – Serious (16).

In addition, it should be noted, that the ADA’s fear mongering about increased decay rates without fluoridation, is, like the rest of their propaganda, unsupported by evidence. Post-cessation studies do not support this contention (17) (18) and national decay rates have fallen regardless of fluoridation status, as Cheng et al. highlight:

“Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt” (13).

Australian researcher, Dr. Mark Diesendorf had revealed the same trend in 1986 (19). In other words, the evidence demonstrates that fluoridating drinking water is unnecessary. Historical observations can also attest to this fact (20).

Thus, the suggestion that a non-fluoridation status will inevitably lead to increased tooth decay, is fraudulent and misleading. It is designed to induce public health fear, especially amongst Councillors, for the explicit purpose of influencing Council to fluoridate water supplies indefinitely.

This is blackmail; it is unscientific; unprofessional (21); unethical; and well worthy of a class action law suit, aimed at prosecuting its proponents accordingly.

Suggested reading & viewing

> The Case Against Fluoride
> The Politics of Fluoride
> Pro-FL Intimidation Tactics Examined


Leave a comment

Email to Prof. Michael Moore: Re: Principles of Toxicology

Dear Professor Moore,

In last night’s Catalyst program, on water fluoridation, you were quoted as follows:

“It goes back to one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology – the dose makes the poison. You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you’ve got a problem.”

I agree, but how is the dose controlled for the patients (i.e. the consumers of public drinking water) when they are drinking uncontrolled amounts of water, and also receiving fluoride from other sources?

> Continue reading


8 Comments

Catalyst (8 August 2013): Optimised Transcript

Original Transcript:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821248.htm

Optimised Transcript:

Ruben Meerman
This innocuous-looking glass of water has been hailed as one of the greatest health initiatives of the 20th century.

Dr Michael Foley
Everybody who has a tooth in their head will benefit from water fluoridation.

Dr Denis Ingham
It is very effective, and has been very effective in reducing tooth decay.

Journalist
These apples are being attacked by some of the best teeth in Australia.

NARRATION
Yass, in country New South Wales, was one of the first towns in Australia to fluoridate its water supply.

Journalist
It’s won wide notoriety for the pioneering part it’s played in fluoridation in Australia.

NARRATION
And now around 90% of us are covered. But, for decades, adding fluoride to the water was highly controversial. And in Queensland it still is.

Stephen Bennett
The amount of people with a passion for and against fluoride far outweighs anything outrageous a politician can do.

Ruben Meerman
We now have more than 50 years of research data on the subject. So what does the science say? Should we be adding fluoride to our water supplies?

NARRATION
In federated Australia, the decision to add fluoride to water is left to the States. I grew up in Queensland, here in Bundaberg. Dr Ingham was our family dentist.

Ruben Meerman
Dr Ingham!

Dr Denis Ingham
Ruben.

Ruben Meerman
Lovely to see you.

Dr Denis Ingham
And you.

Ruben Meerman
I’m here to see if you could check out my teeth, see how all the fillings are looking after all these years.

Dr Denis Ingham
Good.

NARRATION
Up until 2007, Townsville was the only place in all of Queensland that had fluoridated water. In other States, all major population areas were covered.

Dr Denis Ingham
You’ve got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight fillings there.

Ruben Meerman
That’s a lot.

Dr Denis Ingham
That’s a lot. Maybe in a fluoridated area, if you had fluoride in the water supply, your curious experience would have been lower.

Ruben Meerman
I might have been better off, you think, if I’d been in Townsville, perhaps?

Dr Denis Ingham
Uh… yes, for sure.

NARRATION
In a 1996 study, the teeth of children in fluoridated Townsville were compared with those in unfluoridated Brisbane, and the difference was clear.

Dr Michael Foley
On average, there was about 45% less decay in the Townsville children than what there was in the Brisbane children. There was a massive difference. If somebody could reduce heart disease or cancer or something like that by 45%, they’d get a Nobel Prize for it.

Dr Michael Foley
Let’s sit you back and I’ll have a quick look.

NARRATION
The evidence that fluoride improves dental health extends to adults too.

Dr Michael Foley
The National Survey of Adult Oral Health was done back in 2004, 2006. Adults in fluoridated areas had significantly better teeth than adults in non-fluoridated areas.

NARRATION
So it’s clear that water fluoridation works. But, how exactly? Teeth are the hardest substance in the body, primarily made up of a mineral called ‘hydroxylapatite’. Fluoride, either in water or toothpaste, gets absorbed into the tooth enamel and forms a new, stronger mineral called ‘fluorapatite’.

Dr Michael Foley
And that stronger mineral is then more resistant to the acid that causes tooth decay. Remember Mrs Marsh used to talk about, ‘It gets in like liquid gets into this chalk’?

Mrs Marsh
It gets right into teeth, like this liquid gets into chalk.

Boy
To make teeth really tough.

Dr Michael Foley
Well, she was right. It strengthens the enamel, makes it much, much more resistant to acid. With fluoridated water, of course, you get both – you get the systemic benefit for little kiddies, and you get the much greater topical effect. You’re always getting a little bit of a top-up. It’s like a little fluoride treatment lots and lots of times during the day to make your teeth stronger.

NARRATION
Traditionally, the Queensland State Government has left the decision to add fluoride to local councils. This changed in 2008, when Anna Bligh’s government made fluoridation mandatory across the State. But, before it could be fully implemented, the newly elected Campbell Newman government overturned the legislation, handing the decision-making power back to the councils.

Dr Michael Foley
I’m not going to criticise the government, but the decision and the legislation was not based on the health of Queenslanders – and, as a health professional, that disturbs me.

NARRATION
Citing financial concerns along with community pressure, more than a dozen councils have pulled the plug on fluoridation.

Ruben Meerman
Including my home town of Bundaberg.

Mal Forman
When I was elected as mayor, I made a commitment to the public and my people that I would not support the fluoridation of our city. I’m not convinced that’s the way to go.

Stephen Bennett
We all know that there’s a few consistent things that came through. But overwhelmingly they did have the issue of fluoride being seen as a poison.

Merilyn Haines
This is a Schedule 6 poison. Uses – as an insecticide, particularly for roaches and ants.

NARRATION
Merilyn Haines is a member of the anti-fluoride lobby.

Merilyn Haines
They can use it either for killing insects or fluoridation of drinking water.

NARRATION
Talking to people on the streets of my home town, it’s clear the poison message has been very effective.

Ruben Meerman
What’s the scary thing about having it in the water, or what’s your concern?

Woman 1
It’s chemicals.

Woman 2
We don’t like it.

Man 1
It’s just a poison.

Woman 3
Fluoride’s good topically for your teeth, but ingested it’s actually a poison.

Ruben Meerman
Ah, you’re a New South Welshman.

Man 2
Damn right. It’s the best thing they’ve ever done.

Woman 4
‘Cause it’s a poisonous chemical, so I just don’t believe in it.

NARRATION
But toxicologist Michael Moore strongly disagrees with the line taken by the anti-fluoride lobby.

Professor Michael Moore
It’s really very emotive language that’s used. It goes back to one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology – the dose makes the poison. You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you’ve got a problem.

NARRATION
So getting the dose right with water fluoridation is critical, just as it is when you treat water with chloride. But because fluoride is perceived only as a poison, people are concerned it only has adverse health effects.

Ruben Meerman
What are these risks they claim?

Dr Michael Foley
You name the disease, they claim it. I’ve seen diabetes, dementia, cancer, particularly osteosarcoma, kidney disease, IQ, different tumours

Man
Fluoride is not good for you.

Ruben Meerman
These health concerns are not new. So what is the latest science on the adverse health effects? Is there cause for concern?

NARRATION
In 2011, Harvard University researchers looked at the selected link between bone cancer and water fluoridation.

Professor Michael Moore
The Harvard study was an excellent one, trying to see whether there was any relationship between the presence of fluoride in bone next to an osteosarcoma and the development of the cancer, and they could find no association whatsoever. It was a very, very thorough review, large number of subjects, a highly credible bit of work.

NARRATION
In 2007, Australia’s top research body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, released a major report on water fluoridation.

Professor Michael Moore
They reviewed 5,500 papers, and, on the basis of the papers of the highest quality, concluded that there was no association between fluoridation and illness. When you’re looking at it from the position of a research scientist, it’s very hard to understand the objections that people place in the presence of fluoride in water supplies. There are so many studies saying that it’s safe when it’s used properly.

NARRATION
But that’s the problem. Local councillors usually aren’t scientists, and, by their own admission, don’t feel qualified to make these decisions.

Mal Forman
It’s not up to us to be doing and dealing with health issues because it’s not our department. And, being not a medical person or a scientist, we can only go on what people put on their labels and what people tell us, and go from there.

Dr Michael Foley
Just put a little bit of fluoride on a couple of those…

Dr Michael Foley
It’s like decisions on vaccinations or speed limits or bicycle helmets or smoking. Major health decisions like that are best made at State and Federal level.

NARRATION
And across most of the country, that’s the case – but not in Queensland.

Ruben Meerman
What do you think about fluoride in drinking water?

Man
Don’t need it.

Ruben Meerman
Ah! You don’t, do you?


7 Comments

Moses Lost in the Desert of Ignorance

**UPDATE: Full rebuttal published in the Curacao Chronicle**

Dr. Marilyn Moses MP (PAIS) Supports Fluoride In Drinking Water
Jul 24th, 2013 – Curaçao, Caribbean

Critique:

1) “The member of Parliament for PAIS, Dr. Marilyn Moses indicated that she is in favor of fluoride in water. Because she’s a General Practitioner, her opinion weighs heavily in the discussion on fluoride in drinking water.”

As a General Practitioner, Dr. Moses should be familiar with the principle of individual informed consent to treatment. Water fluoridation, by its very nature, denies individuals the right to informed consent. As opposed to agents like chlorine, which are used to treat the water and make it safe to drink, fluoride is added to water with the express intent of treating people via the water. Dr. Moses is advocating a treatment that will go to all patients/consumers, regardless of age or health status, and she will not be able to control their daily dose or monitor them for potential side-effects. Moreover, she has not informed them of the potential side-effects of ingesting fluoride, which is a key aspect of the informed consent process. As pointed out by Cheng et al. (2007), in the European (although universally applicable) context:

“In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation… Under the principle of informed consent, anyone can refuse treatment with a drug or other intervention. The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine… states that health interventions can only be carried out after free and informed consent. The General Medical Council’s guidance on consent also stresses patients’ autonomy, and their right to decide whether or not to undergo medical intervention even if refusal may result in harm. This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit.”

Fluoride is a highly biochemically active substance that can interfere with many biological processes:

“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… it is important to highlight that fluoride must be actively considered as a potent toxic compound in the field of toxicology, both in epidemiologic/ecological research and in fundamental or applied research… in drinking water, fluoride is frequently used with other elements (metals and/or metalloids)… in some particular cases, antagonistic effects have been reported. Therefore, in the absence of clear proof to counter the known toxic effects of fluoride in combination with metalloids and metals, extensive studies are needed to conclusively determine the effects of such combinations on relevant cell types” (Barbier et al. 2010).

In addition to the ‘known’ or reasonably assumed toxicity of fluoride, even more concerning are the wide range of ‘unknowns’ associated with long-term ingestion. With such a highly toxic substance, considering the numerous serious unresolved health issues, can Dr. Moses really claim that no one in her community will be harmed by fluoridation? If not, how can she ethically justify advocating such a measure – especially one based on acknowledged poor quality evidence?

2. “Dr. Moses shares the thought that any decision to decrease or to completely stop adding fluoride in water must be based on thorough research.”

This statement is beyond ridiculous, when one considers that fluoridation was launched on poor quality, and inadequate evidence; and that fluoridation, after decades, is still ‘supported’ by poor quality, and inadequate evidence:

“The studies that launched fluoridation were methodologically flawed. The early trials conducted between 1945 and 1955 in North America that helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities. According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials “are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” Serious questions have also been raised about Trendley Dean’s (the father of fluoridation) famous 21-city study from 1942″ (Connett et al. 2012).

“When we [the NRC committee] looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on” (Doull 2008).

“The [York] review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis… The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy” (Sheldon 2001).

In other words, Dr. Moses is quite happy for people to continue being exposed to this known toxic compound, without informed consent or dosage control, and without rigorously monitoring them for fluoride accumulation or side effects. Instead, she maintains the nonsensical, contradictory view that to reduce levels of the toxic substance that may be harming them, would require “thorough research.” In the context of the information above, this statement is absurd. Moreover, what “thorough research” does Dr. Moses propose? Perhaps she could start by organising studies to address the myriad of health research gaps identified by the US National Research Council in 2006 [Ch. 2 (pp. 87-88) | Ch. 3 (pp. 101-102) | Ch. 4 (p. 130) | Ch. 5 (p. 180) | Ch. 6 (p. 204) | Ch. 7 (pp. 222-223) | Ch. 8 (pp. 266-267) | Ch. 9 (pp. 302-303) | Ch. 10 (pp. 338-339) | Ch. 11 (pp. 352-353)].

The real question Dr. Moses should be asking is this: ‘Is there an adequate margin of safety to protect the entire population – including potentially sensitive and high intake sub-populations – from the known or reasonably assumed adverse effects of fluoride?’ Perhaps Dr. Moses should be taking notes from risk assessment experts, rather than public relations experts. For example, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen:

“Dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and increased risk of bone fracture are all reasonably well known and acknowledged adverse health effects from fluoride exposure. However, EPA is also required to consider the “anticipated” adverse effects (which may occur at lower levels of fluoride exposure than the “known” effects) and allow for an adequate margin of safety… 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” (Thiessen 2011, p. 5).

3. “One of the biggest achievements in the public health.”

Since Dr. Moses (and her sidekick, Dr. Whiteman) are obviously so ignorant and confused on the basics of the issue, we will make the assumption that they are actually getting this idea from the US CDC’s infamous statement of 1999 that fluoridation is, “one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century.” If so, we wish to make these two GP’s aware of the following:

“Not a day goes by without someone in the world citing the CDC’s statement that fluoridation is “One of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century”… Those that cite this probably have no idea how incredibly poor the analysis was that supported this statement. The report was not externally peer reviewed, was six years out of date on health studies and the graphical evidence it offered to support the effectiveness of fluoridation was laughable and easily refuted by examining the WHO data base” (Connett 2009).

4. “It is a safe, economic way without making any distinction in classes to prevent decaying teeth.”

The evidence behind this claim is poor, as the authors of  the York Review clarified: “The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” (CRD 2003). Recently, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen elaborated on this matter.

5. “The allowed fluoride dosage in drinking waters should be, according to WHO, 0.5 – 1.5 ppm. If this dosage is maintained then the issue of decaying teeth is considerably reduced. In Curacao our dosage is 1.5 ppm.”

We are now beginning to doubt if Dr. Moses is actually a real doctor. Is she really so ignorant that she does not know the difference between CONCENTRATION and DOSE? We caught out our own former Chief Health Officer doing this on many occasions, hence the following challenge question:

“Why does Dr Carnie continue to perpetuate the elementary confusion between concentration and dose of fluoride? While engineers can control the concentration of the fluoride added to the water supply no one can control the dose people get each day. This will depend on how much water they drink and how much fluoride they get from other sources” (Burgstahler et al. 2009).

If Dr. Moses is a real General Practitioner, we would like to know what other treatment she would prescribe in her clinic, under the following conditions (for the patient): “Take as much of this as you like; over your entire lifetime; no matter how old or young you are; no matter your individual health status; no matter how much of the active ingredient you may inadvertently receive from other sources; and by the way, there is no need to come back to me for a follow-up medical assessment at any point, because you’ll be fine.” If Dr. Moses said this to her patients in her medical clinic, she would lose her medical license. But if she advocates this for the entire population, that’s just fine and dandy, it seems.

6. “If we also consider that these last years a relation between decaying teeth and cardiovascular problems has been discovered, like for example heart attack and stroke, it can be concluded that there is even more reason to add fluoride to our drinking water.”

Going by her preceding logic, why doesn’t she just add some blood pressure medication to the public water supply, as a preventive measure; or how about some lithium, just in case anyone gets sad about it. :-)

7. “When it is about public health it must be based on evidence.”

She should take up her own challenge and examine the evidence for ‘benefit’ more closely (Fluoride & Tooth Decay: An OverviewFluoride & Tooth Decay: The FactsThe Evidence of Benefit is Very WeakThe Iowa Fluoride StudyThe Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay) in conjunction with properly examining the drawbacks and potential adverse impacts; and last but not least, she should re-visit the concept of ‘informed consent‘ to treatment (especially where the use of silicofluorides is concerned).

Suggested further reading for Dr. Moses (and her sidekick):

ISBN: 9781603582872

Additional information for our readers:

afamildura.wordpress.com/basics

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers