Rebuttal: Dr. Jeff Smith, Tacoma


Fluoridation good for our health, good for our budgets
By Jeff Smith, M.D.

Claim: “Fluoridation is a common-sense health measure that reduces tooth decay by about 25 percent.”

Response: “In chapters 6–8, we examined in detail the evidence for fluoridation’s benefits and found it to be very weak. Even a 20 percent reduction in tooth decay is a figure rarely found in more recent studies. Moreover, we have to remember that percentages can give a very misleading picture. For example, if an average of two decayed tooth surfaces are found in a non-fluoridated group and one decayed surface in a fluoridated group, that would amount to an impressive 50 percent reduction. But when we consider the total of 128 surfaces on a complete set of teeth, the picture—which amounts to an absolute saving in tooth decay of a mere 0.8 percent—does not look so impressive” (Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, p. 251). For further information, click here.

Claim: “Nationwide there is positive momentum in favor of community water fluoridation.”

Response: Click here.

Claim: “It is surprising that there are activists who still oppose fluoridation and work to convince communities not to fluoridate. Their arguments against fluoridation are unfounded.”

Response: Dr. Smith claims that arguments against fluoridation are unfounded, yet he makes no effort to refute them. He banks on readers believing him, simply because he has fancy letters after his name. If he wants to play that game, fine, we can do that too: a); b); c); d); e); f); g); h); i); j); k); l); m)… Okay, we’ll stop now, before Dr. Smith starts to feel too small. 🙂

Claim: “The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports community water fluoridation.”

Response: We direct the attention of our readers to The Case Against Fluoride (a new look at the scientific evidence).

Claim: “Nearly every health and medical organization endorses fluoridation.”

Response: Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. 50 Reasons #46.

Claim: “Fluoridation prevents cavities, and preventing cavities saves money… On average, fluoridation only costs about $1 per person per year.”

Response: Fluoride’s mechanism (for ‘benefit’) is topical, not systemic. The evidence for ‘benefit’ from water fluoridation is very weak. Proponents often use simplistic PR statements like, “for every dollar spent on fluoridation, $38 is saved in dental costs,” however such statements are based on inflated ‘benefits’ that ignore or understate the costs of any side effects. See: Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, pp. 249-250. Dr. Smith, therefore, is talking from a place where the Sun don’t shine.

Claim: “More than 60 years of study have verified the effectiveness of fluoridating the water.”

Response: Dr. Smith neglects to mention the poor quality of this supposed “evidence,” nor does he acknowledge the extensive list of unresolved health issues.

Claim: “The Centers for Disease Control [lists] community water fluoridation [as] one of the top public health achievements of the 20th century.”

Response: Click here.

Claim: “Refusing to fluoridate community water supplies amounts to turning our backs on one of the most cost-effective disease prevention measures available. Health and medical organizations nationwide strongly support water fluoridation, and so should communities. It improves health and saves money.”

Response: Water fluoridation policy is driven by spin, not science. The simplistic propaganda used by proponents has been exposed time and time again. Fluoridation emerged from the scummy drain pipe of corporate manipulation. The chemicals used are dirty; the tactics of promotion are dirty; and those like Dr. Smith will be shamed by history as perpetrators of a scientifically flawed and ethically reprehensible practice.

We enjoy exposing the lies and tactics of this devious cartel, which will – one day soon – be shoved back down the scummy drain pipe from which it slithered; and sealed away, for all time.

Congratulations, Dr. Smith – you now have your very own Tag. We’ll be watching you.

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

5 thoughts on “Rebuttal: Dr. Jeff Smith, Tacoma

  1. From 1982 this Former National Institute of Health Scientists says it all :-

    1982 – Former NIH (National Inst. of Health) scientist opposed to fluoride

    Statement by James B. Patrick, Ph.D. at the Joint Congressional Committee on Health & Appropriations Against the Inclusion of Fluoridation in the Preventive Health & Health Services Block Grant, Held August 4, 1982.

    Dr. Patrick earned his B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology & his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University majoring in chemistry. His experience as Antibiotics Research Scientist was with the National Institute of Health & Lederle Laboratories.

    Dr. Patrick is Senior Professor and Chairman of the Department of Chemistry, Mary Baldwin College, Stauton, Virginia, 1967 to date. He is author of 28 technical papers & holder of 7 U.S. patents.
    A number of scholarly volumes & numerous technical articles have been written showing the biochemical & toxicological hazards of deliberately exposing the population to continuous dosages of such a potent chronic toxin as fluoride……..
    For these three reasons, as well as for a number of others that I have not attempted to cover here. I strongly advise against the legislature of this Commonwealth having anything to do with fluoridation.

    It is a scientific disgrace that a well organized lobby of the American Dental Association ever managed to stampede American legislators into ignoring the highly technical but very cogent objection to fluoridations.


  2. Pingback: Rebuttal: Dr. Deb Nalty, Monroe | Research Blog

  3. Jeff Smith States:-

    ‘Fluoridation good for our health, good for our budgets’ By Jeff Smith, M.D.

    He is a wonderful spokesman for the Fluoridation Cartel – what he really is saying ‘Fluoridation good for OUR wealth, good for OUR budgets’ of course he is speaking on behalf of the money hungry Doctors, Dentists, and yes vets too – with a sick and diseased population (and pets) with damaged teeth from consuming dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium etc., and added also is aluminium sulphate- it is outrageously sinister and these so called ‘medical and/or dental professionals’ (hazardous waste (fluoridation) pushers) will one day face the wrath and fallout of the chronically poisoned population, pets and environment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s