Dear friends across the Tasman,
By now, most of you will be aware that Hamilton City Council recently voted 7-1 to end fluoridation. As per usual, the pro-fluoridation mafia is hitting back via their favourite propaganda outlet – the tame, unquestioning media. We write this letter to arm you with some counter-arguments to their unscientific, simplistic mantras. Listed below are the main garbage claims you will hear, over and over again, pumped out by the mainstream media:
Claim: When water fluoridation is discontinued, your community will be facing a dental crisis.
This claim is not based on good science. It is crudely designed to scare and/or guilt trip you, and your council members, for daring to end fluoridation (or even considering doing so). There is no conclusive evidence to prove that when artificial fluoridation ends, decay rates rise as a direct consequence. As highlighted by Connett, Beck & Micklem (2010), “There is no evidence that where fluoridation has been started and stopped in Europe there has been a rise in tooth decay. Indeed, two studies published in 2000, from Finland and the former East Germany, show that tooth decay continued to decline after fluoridation was halted. There have been similar reports from Cuba and Canada’s British Columbia. The ADA claims that in cases where fluoridation has been halted and no increase in tooth decay observed, other steps have been taken to fight tooth decay. Whether or not that is the explanation, European countries have clearly demonstrated that there are other ways of reducing tooth decay without forcing everyone to take a medicine in their drinking water” (p. 33). ”There now have been at least four modern studies showing that when fluoridation was halted in communities in East Germany, Finland, Cuba, and British Columbia (Canada), tooth decay rates did not go up” (p. 250).
Claim: The children and the less fortunate will suffer, if water fluoridation is discontinued.
In the year 2000, the University of York examined the evidence for assumed inequality reduction, and concluded: “The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.” So when your local brainwashed dentist makes this type of claim, you know it is based on shoddy evidence, or no evidence at all. Furthermore, you only need to compare tooth decay data between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries to see that people in non-fluoridated nations are not suffering from ‘lack of access’ to fluoridated water. Here is what Nobel Laureate, Dr. Arvid Carlsson had to say about this matter in 2010: “Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s… Our children have not suffered greater tooth decay, as World Health Organization figures attest, and in turn our citizens have not borne the other hazards fluoride may cause. In any case, since fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, you don’t have to force it on people.”
Claim: Water fluoridation is a highly effective public health measure for reducing tooth decay.
Claim: The CDC identifies fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the twentieth century
When you hear this, or read this, you can guarantee that whoever said it, or wrote it, has not critically analysed the source of the claim. Learn more.
Claim: Fluoridation is completely safe
To cite the York Review once more, “As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation.” Now you may ask: Gaps in knowledge? You mean they are putting a known toxic substance into my water, without having a full body of knowledge to prove its safety, and not monitoring my daily dose or potential side effects? Actually, yes – welcome to the bizarre world of fluoride promotion. Key health studies have not been done (see: 50 Reasons, #45), so vital data is not available to scientifically confirm the claim of full safety. We invite you to examine the NRC Report (2006) to learn more about this matter. We have assorted key links below to make your research easier:
> Recommendations: pp. 87–88, 101–102, 130, 180, 204, 222–223, 266–267, 302–303, 338–339, 352–353 | FAN
> Expert viewpoints: Panelist statements | Thiessen general comments | Thiessen interview | Limeback clarifications
> Reviews: Carton 2006
> Relevance to Margin of Safety: FAN | Connett 2008 | Connett 2011
Additional rebuttals of pro-fluoridation claims
Where can I follow the latest news on New Zealand’s fluoride wars?
Final words of advice
We trust the information and resources above will help the people of New Zealand refute lies of the pro-fluoridation cartel, comprised of tooth-obsessed, unscientific maniacs, media lackeys, and bureaucratic goons. Our parting words of advice: a) Remember that the human body is more than a walking set of teeth. The pro-fluoridationists love to keep the debate focused exclusively on teeth. Don’t fall into that trap, although, always keep in mind the weak evidence behind their claims (see above); b) Consider the biochemistry and toxicology of fluoride more closely; c) Never forget that dental fluorosis is a biomarker of systemic fluoride toxicity, not just a ‘cosmetic effect’, as proponents would have you believe.