Research Blog


2 Comments

Oakes-Lottridge spouts pro-fluoridation drivel to Lee County commissioners

Don’t take fluoride out of the water
By Andy Oakes-Lottridge, MD, FAAFP

Dear commissioners of Lee County,

This medical doctor, Andy Oakes-Lottridge, insults your intelligence when he asserts that, “adding fluoride in the water is a simple no-brainer”. As a medical professional, he should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that you do to everyone what he can legally do to no one – i.e. force a treatment. In fact, if he did so, he could be charged with assault or battery; or become the subject of a negligence claim, or a complaint of professional misconduct.

Fluoride & medical ethics

Dr. Oakes-Lottridge claims, “there is a 20-40 percent reduction in cavities, a statistical result that has been demonstrated in multiple scientific studies done over the last 50 years,” when in fact such percentages are regularly used to inflate the supposed ‘benefits’ of fluoridation (really amounting to nothing at all in a practical sense). Furthermore, he neglects to mention that after decades of fluoridation, no “reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide” was to be found by the York Review.

Water fluoridation & the quality of evidence problem

Oakes-Lottridge again insults your intelligence by saying, “it was in the early 1900s in the American Southwest that fluoride in the water was first identified as greatly reducing dental decay,” yet failing to acknowledge that 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.”

Fluoridation gamble fails the test of time

The good doctor wants you to note the fact that, “nationwide, between 60-80 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water” – like that means something special! If he were honest, he would also mention to you that whilst the majority of the US is fluoridated, the majority of the developed world is not (including many of the world’s great cities). Either way, in the US the tide is turning against fluoridation as more communities awaken to the fraud.

Statements from European health & environment authorities on fluoridation

The doctor then presents a rather embarrassing proposition to you – obviously hoping you do not know any better – arguing that, “the most important time for fluoride’s effects is when the teeth are developing and coming in during childhood” – which is a total crock and is based on a well-debunked original pro-fluoridation belief surrounding systemic fluoride. It is now accepted that fluoride should only be applied topically, which raises the patently absurd notion that water fluoridation delivers a topical treatment systemically, equivalent to drinking sunscreen to prevent sunburn.

Fluoride: Keeping it topical

Dr. Oakes-Lottridge also wants you to be sucked in by the following statement, “Dental cavities disproportionately affect the children and the poor… if fluoride is removed from the water in Lee County, those most in need will be the least likely to participate in the political process or be able to afford fluoride supplementation.” What he is ultimately suggesting is that water fluoridation reduces inequalities in dental health, but what is his evidence for such a suggestion? Well, as it turns out, the evidence for this is crap at best. According to the York Review, “the evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health [is] of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” – a point highlighted by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen.

The absurdities of water fluoridation

Dr. Oakes-Lottridge wants you to focus on concentration rather than dose, when he says, “the optimal concentration of fluoride is 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million”. Firstly, “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”; i.e. the inherent lack of dosage control begs serious questions regarding margin of safety. And secondly, the molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity are of growing concern (even at supposed ‘low’ doses).

Citizens are being misled

He says, “more serious claims argue that fluoridation can result in lower intelligence levels or even cancer. Studies from Australia, Europe, and the Americas have failed to show any consistent basis for these claims.” This is a rather ridiculous statement considering the fact that many key health studies have not been conducted in fluoridating nations, even where serious health issues may be concerned.

Health effects database


1 Comment

Dissecting a Parrot: Ken’s Great Infant Gamble

Ken is at it again. This time, he wants you to believe that human breast milk is fluoride-deficient [1].

As with all Parrots, mindless repetition is a given. Therefore, it’s probably not worth the effort of rebutting Ken’s silliness from scratch, at least in this case, since we have already covered the matter of infant exposure.

As such, we invite readers to re-visit our August 6, 2013 post titled, ‘Infant Exposure: The Great Gamble’ [2].


2 Comments

Rebutting Barrett’s Garbage

Source article here

1. “Fluoridation’s benefits–to both children and adults–are supported by thousands of scientific studies.”

It’s interesting to note that when the York Review examined these numerous studies, the panel concluded as follows: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide” [1]. Barrett conveniently leaves out this ‘quality of evidence’ [2] problem, which is a typical ploy by pro-fluoridation propaganda merchants, as pointed out by Connett, Beck & Micklem (2010) [3].

2. “Even communities that have been fluoridated for many years are being targeted.”

Yes, many communities have proudly rejected fluoridation in fluoridating nations [4], and these communities therefore join the vast majority of the developed world [5] – including many of the world’s great cities [6] – in rejecting the practice of mass treatment [7] via drinking water.

3. “Instead of telling you that fluoride is found naturally in all water, they call it a “pollutant.” Instead of telling you that fluoride is an important nutrient, they call it a “poison.””

Toxic sludge captured from the pollution smokestacks of the phosphate fertiliser industry is added very unnaturally to drinking water. This is a plain fact any way you cut it [8]. And as for fluoride being an essential nutrient, the scientific evidence does not support such an assertion [9] [10]. As for the ‘poison’ label, we refer the reader to our previous note titled, Debunking the ‘Warfarin Defense’ [11], which covers a number of key points.

4. “Instead of the big truth–that fluoridation is safe, effective, and economical–they tell the big lie and say it causes hundreds of ailments.”

We appeal to the discretion of the reader and thus refer them to the following research databases [12], and also to this discussion on the specific issue of margin of safety [13].

5. “The effects of fluoridated water have been studied for more than a hundred years.”

Refer to #1 (above) and also to #18 on this document [14].

6. “Water fluoridation prevents tooth decay mainly by providing teeth with fluoride at the important time when they are made and maintains this contact daily throughout life.”

Crap. This idea of ‘systemic delivery’ of fluoride in the developing years was debunked years ago [15].

7. “It’s been conservatively estimated that each dollar invested in community fluoridation yields about $38 in reduced dental costs.”

Refer to Claim #12 in the following document [16].

8. “The small amounts of fluoride in water also help to strengthen bones.”

An absolute statement based on contradictory evidence [17] [18] [19], which renders it ultimately irresponsible.

9. “Think of fluoridation as a modern health miracle.”

Read this book [20], then see if you still agree with the above statement.


Leave a comment

Neurodevelopmental toxicity – an ongoing discussion

In March 2014, Dr Philippe Grandjean and Dr Philip Landrigan published Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity in The Lancet Neurology, where fluoride was cited as a developmental neurotoxicant. The anti-fluoridation movement swiftly picked up on the potential significance of the paper, and, as per usual, the pro-fluoridation lobby largely ignored or dismissed the research. In July 2014, Grandjean & Landrigan responded to critiques of the March paper, stating the following:

“We agree with Feldman that fluoride is important for children’s oral health. However, the fact that a trace element has beneficial effects at low doses in specific tissues does not negate the possibility that neurotoxicity might also be occurring, especially at increased levels of exposure. Indeed, concerns about fluoride toxicity were already raised by a National Research Council expert committee. Feldman describes the recent meta-analysis as selective and based on old, confounder-ridden studies. In support of her claims, she refers to two previous reports that reviewed some of the same studies, although without access to important background information. Feldman makes other serious errors—eg, by linking, without justification, a rise in population mean intelligent quotient (IQ) to the introduction of water fluoridation. Similarly, Gelinas and Allukian dispute the validity of previous studies on fluoride exposure and neurobehavioural deficits. We do not deny the importance of a dose-response relation, which has been a unifying concept in toxicology since the time of Paracelsus. However, as we emphasised in our Review, emerging evidence on developmental neurotoxicity makes it clear that the timing of exposure is also of great importance, especially during highly vulnerable windows of brain development. Due to the growing evidence on adverse effects, US authorities now recommend that fluoridation of community water should not exceed 0·7 mg/L.”

Perrot (2014) believes this reply to be “brief and rather flippant,” however, we here at AFAM – rarely seeing eye to eye with Perrot – disagree. The National Research Council expert committee did indeed say, in 2006, that “the possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities” and recommended further studies be conducted to clarify the matter. In fact, the committee made many more recommendations to clarify fluoride’s potential negative health effects; and regarding the new 0·7 mg/L concentration threshold – as noted by Grandjean & Landrigan (ibid) – this has been criticised by at least one NRC committee expert as being inadequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects of fluoride.

In light of Grandjean & Landrigan’s comment that, “the fact that a trace element has beneficial effects at low doses in specific tissues does not negate the possibility that neurotoxicity might also be occurring,” it would be wise to consider the following point made by Barbiera, Arreola-Mendozab & Del Razothat (2010):

“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.”

Connett (2012) also makes the point that, “today, we know that fluoride interferes with many other biochemical molecules and processes in addition to interfering with enzymes.” He elaborates on the matter of potential developmental toxicity in this lecture.

In summary, the questions regarding fluoride’s potential negative effects are legion, whilst the evidence for the supposed benefits of artificial water fluoridation is weak at best. It is telling that the York Review (2000) concluded, “we were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide”. Therefore, no matter how religiously Perrot and his ilk attempt to wank off the promoters of fluoridation, the combination of poor evidence, fundamental toxicity questions, and, ultimately, serious queries regarding margin of safety, reveals the water fluoridation program to be nothing more than a scientific and ethical joke.


9 Comments

Ken: “Fluoride is safe and effective, says AFAM” – AFAM’s response

The following is a response to Ken’s comment, dated July 5, 2014, in which he refers to AFAM’s stance on water fluoridation vs other modes of fluoride delivery. As usual, Ken has pissed on a bush when he was apparently aiming for a tree, but we will at least try to set things straight…

Ken writes:

“It appears from afamildura’s response in the pingback above that he has come on board. Fluoride is safe and effective – his only problem is the mode of delivery. He objects to fluoridation of drinking water but is happy to accept fluoridation of salt and milk and fluoride dental treatments! Then why go to so much trouble to attempt to discredit fluoride in general?”

AFAM’s response:

1. Opposed to water fluoridation? Absolutely, Ken. Glad you figured this out at least. Supporting a mass treatment via public water supplies – where neither the dose nor the potential subtle health effects can adequately be controlled or monitored – is illogical, especially when one considers there are many other more targeted options available for preventing tooth decay that would be far less controversial.

2. Fluoride safe and effective? Ken, if you wish to stick to this propaganda line, that’s your business, but attributing the sentiment to us is beyond laughable. Time you visited our Basics page to get a grasp on the fact that we argue the exact opposite of this propaganda line.

3. Why don’t we argue against fluoridated dental products/treatments? Because they are not used to mass treat the population via drinking water supplies, hence they can be delivered to the right individuals at the right time for the right treatment – with free and full informed consent/individual choice. Not to mention, they are also applied topically, which is the way fluoride treatment, if to be delivered at all, should be delivered, not systemically.

4. Fluoridation of salt and milk and other systemic modes of delivery? Again, this is illogical and we’ve never actively supported such silly measures, because as we all now know, fluoride doesn’t need to be swallowed to be effective. However, if people are deluded enough to insist on deliberately consuming fluoridated products, then that is their choice. Just like if someone wants to jump off a cliff, that’s their choice and it’s not our job to stop them. All we can do is warn them of the potential consequences if they do. The difference between consuming fluoridated products of this nature and being exposed to fluoride treatment via drinking water, is that people can choose to take these products in controlled amounts/doses with the conscious choice to do so, whilst fluoridated drinking water increases our total fluoride exposure whether we like it or not. As clarified by the National Research Council:

“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.”

In other words, fluoridating drinking water contaminates many other products and therefore is an inherently ridiculous form of treatment delivery for the reasons stipulated above. But knowing you, Ken, you have difficulty understanding the basic concepts, so again, the main issues in such a context are margin of safety and individual informed consent. Treatment effectiveness (or lack thereof) as a sub-issue is important, but the former two issues take precedent – especially in light of evolving understandings of the molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. Thus, we agree with 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 summary:

Public water fluoridation is an obsolete concept; it is unethical, ineffective, and does not and cannot allow for the establishment of an adequate margin of safety. If people are idiotic and brainwashed enough to take fluoride supplements from the pharmacy or wherever and deliberately ingest them, then so be it. We have no issue with that, nor whether people want to apply fluoridated dental products topically. But when governments and councils force us all to be exposed to fluoride via drinking water, thus contaminating the food chain, without our consent and without adequate biomonitoring protocols in place, then they will meet resistance from us. Do you get it, Ken, finally?!?!!


5 Comments

Final Verdict: Fluoride, Nazis and Mind Control

On January 1, 2014, we threw down the gauntlet to any anti-fluoridation activist in the world to prove the supposed “fluoride and concentration camps” connection, which is so often claimed.

Since not a single person has come forth to do so with any credible evidence, we are making a final call on this one:

It’s total bullshit.

So from now on, anyone who tries to undermine the genuine efforts of those who make rational ethical and scientific arguments against fluoridation, will be ignored by AFAM.

Sincerely,

The Administrator
AFAM Research Division
afamildura.wordpress.com


3 Comments

Ken’s Support for Fundamental Anti-Fluoridation Arguments

In Ken’s latest manifestation of his repressed man crush on Dr. Paul Connett, he continues his bizarre pattern of supporting fundamental anti-fluoridation arguments, whilst railing against the movement as a whole.

This time Ken cites L. Seppä, S. Kärkkäinen, and H. Hausen (2000); W. Künzel, T. Fischer, R. Lorenz, and S. Brühmann (2000); W. Künzel and T. Fischer (2000); and G. Maupomé, D. C. Clark, S. M. Levy, and J. Berkowitz (2001).

And what is the one thing all these papers ultimately say? i.e. That the fluoridation of drinking water is not necessary and that there are alternative, proven methods of reducing tooth decay that don’t involve mass treatment of public water supplies with fluoridation chemicals.

In the Finnish context, the researchers say, “The children have been exposed to such intense efforts to increase tooth resistance that the effect of water fluoridation does not show up any more”. In other words, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and the other minority of fluoridating nations could easily replicate the Finnish example and start investing in better oral health initiatives and this would have an even more effective outcome over the long term.

In the East German context, the researchers say, “The causes for the changed caries trend were seen on the one hand in improvements in attitudes towards oral health behaviour and, on the other hand, to the broader availability and application of preventive measures”. Once again, there are alternative means of reducing tooth decay, such as educational awareness initiatives and making individually-targeted oral health options more widely available.

In Cuba, the researchers suggest, “the school mouth rinsing programme” is responsible for the improvements in oral health. And it’s so simple as fortnightly mouthrinses over a period of time! Of course, just another simple and effective, carefully targeted solution for reducing tooth decay.

And finally, what does the Canadian research team say? In essence, it’s complicated to measure the actual effect of water fluoridation, but there are some subtle differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. It’s complicated? Subtle differences? Not exactly justification for forcing a mass treatment on an entire population.

So, when is Ken going to cease his bizarre crusade of trying to convince us all that the mass artificial fluoridation of public drinking water supplies is absolutely essential and urgent? When is he going to admit that there is ample evidence to show that there are many other effective means of reducing tooth decay in a population, which centre around better education and awareness and individually-targeted oral health initiatives?

Ken, your own examples support what anti-fluoridation folks have been saying all along – mass treatment of the population via drinking water supplies for the claimed purpose of reducing tooth decay rates, is unnecessary to achieve said outcome. Mate, you are flogging a dead Cretaceous period dinosaur, hoping it will awaken thinking it’s a rabbit. Flog away all you like, Ken, it isn’t going to happen. Let it go, and join us the 21st Century.

Learn more

> So what about the so-called benefits?
Fluoride & tooth decay: The facts


2 Comments

Duke Behnke’s Fluoridation Religiosity on Full Display

Health organizations recommend fluoridation of water
By Duke Behnke, Post-Crescent Media
June 28, 2014

REBUTTAL:

“It’s really called hydrofluorosilicic acid, and it’s a pollutant.”

Duke didn’t even answer this charge. Obviously, he doesn’t want his readers knowing the answer is “yes” [1]. Or perhaps he doesn’t know the truth? Either way, sloppy journalism, mate.

“The optimal level of fluoridation for oral health benefits is 0.7 parts per million (ppm)”… Fluoridation… is safe at the optimal level and the least expensive and most effective way to reduce tooth decay.”

Actually, in terms 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” [2]. And yes, of course, toxic waste generally comes cheaper than pharmaceutical-grade product [3], but let’s not forget the elephant in the living room here – the weakness of the evidence supposedly ‘supporting’ the fluoridation program [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Surgeon General, American Dental Association, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association and Harvard Medical School all support the fluoridation of water. Neenah has fluoridated its water since 1950.”

Ah yes, where would we be without pro-fluoridation endorsements? “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… Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. Many of those promoting fluoridation rely heavily on a list of endorsements. However, the U.S. PHS first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed and before any significant health studies had been published. Many other endorsements swiftly followed with little evidence of any scientific rational for doing so. The continued use of these endorsements has more to do with political science than medical science” [9].

“The doctors and the dentists — and we take their advice and fluoridate.”

Mate, here’s a better idea. Obtain informed consent to treatment before fluoridating [10] [11] [12], and revoke any medical or dental licence from those professionals who oppose the principle of informed consent to treatment [13], making sure they never again work in the field of medicine.

“A person would have to drink about 25 gallons of water to get a toxic dose of fluoride. It says the person would experience severe effects from water toxicity long before having an acute toxic reaction to fluoride”.

This is ‘spin 101,’ but no doubt Edward Bernays would be immensely proud of Duke’s crude attempt. The truth is, Duke is quite deliberately and deviously “confusing a toxic dose with a lethal dose—that is, a dose causing illness or harmful effect as opposed to a dose causing death. Opponents of fluoridation are not suggesting that people are going to be killed outright from drinking fluoridated water, but we are suggesting that it may cause immediate health problems in those who are very sensitive and, with long-term exposure, persistent health problems in others… What we are particularly concerned about is the impact of consuming water at 1 ppm over an extended period of time” [14].

“If you eat enough of anything or drink enough of anything, it’s poisonous to you… Too much of anything is not a good idea. That’s why things are regulated”.

Oh really, Duke? So who controls the DOSE people get each day from consuming fluoridated water and products processed using fluoridated water (in addition to other sources of fluoride) [15] [16] [17] [18]? The answer is, of course, NO ONE [19]!


1 Comment

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

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers