Rebuttal of Turd:
a) “Fluoride is a natural substance… a mineral found in food, water, plants and toothpaste.”
Firstly, water is fluoridated with toxic industrial waste products (mainly silicofluorides) (1), which do not occur naturally (2). Secondly, here is what Workplace Health and Safety Queensland has to say about sodium fluoride: “Sodium fluoride [used as] as a wood preservative, pesticide, insecticide, fungicide, rodenticide; also used in the manufacture of vitreous enamels, casein glues, coated papers and toothpaste” (3). But this factual description wouldn’t be too good for public relations. Good ol’ Dr. Bull (4) would be proud!
b) “Fluoride is not a medication.”
Yes it is. Fluoridation chemicals are added to your water supply – not to treat the water – but to use the water exclusively to treat you, the consumer (5) (6). This constitutes medication by any logical definition (7). Only a devious chemical cartel desperate to offload (8) its industrial waste would attempt to argue otherwise.
c) “Many foods and drinks naturally contain fluoride.”
They would contain a lot less, if municipal water were not artificially fluoridated. As confirmed 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” (9). Perhaps Dr. Hardy Limeback said it best: “Fluoride as a drug has contaminated most processed foods and beverages” (10) (11).
d) “Fluoride in your drinking water is like a constant ‘repair kit’ for your teeth.”
That’s funny; the Europeans seem to be getting along just fine without it (12). The statement above becomes even more ludicrous when one considers that the mechanism for the ‘supposed benefit’ is topical, not systemic (13), but that the mechanism for damage is most definitely systemic (14) (15).
e) “Reduces the amount of money people need to spend on dental treatment; Saves the community money and time (away from work and school).”
These assumptions are typically based on ‘funny accounting.’ One of the most common and widely abused examples is Grifﬁn et al. (16), who inﬂated the beneﬁts of ﬂuoridation and ignored the costs of any side effects. The skulduggery (17) of fluoride promotion dictates that this type of convenient little oversight goes unchecked.
f) “Provides a benefit to all people, especially individuals from low socioeconomic communities, who have less access to other forms of fluoride treatments.”
Total crap! Both sloppy, and devious. The truth is that the evidence for fluoridation reducing inequalities in dental health is, “of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” (18) (19).
g) “Adult and baby teeth need protection from decay.”
Yes they do, but fluoridating water does diddly squat to address this issue. It is well known that tooth decay rates were falling prior to fluoridation (20) and that national decay rates are now universally low (21), with no discernible difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated nations (22) (23).
h) “Don’t use fluoride supplements in the form of drops or tablets to be chewed or swallowed. They can affect the development of your child’s adult teeth.”
So can fluoridated water, you morons (24). So why do you care about one means of damage, and not the other?
i) “Too much fluoride at an early age can cause a child’s adult teeth (which form underneath their baby teeth) to stain. This is called dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis looks like fine, pearly-white mottling, flecking or lines on the surface of the teeth; it is usually very hard to see.”
“Dental Fluorosis caused by water fluoridation is irreversible, disfiguring, psychologically damaging and costly to repair. In essence, it is medical assault on children” (25). However, the real question that should be put to these fools is: “What is the evidence that has convinced you, or the experts upon whom you rely, that fluoride can damage the growing tooth cells (by some systemic mechanism) without damaging any other tissue in the child’s developing body? How convincing is this evidence” (26)?
j) “Adding fluoride to the water does not change the taste or smell of your drinking water, as fluoride* has no taste or smell.”
It’s official – your health department is overrun by dropkicks! What kind of argument is this? Arsenic is also “odourless and tasteless” (27), but does that make it ‘safe’? Of course not! This argument wins the Dope Award for the week. Oh, and on the subject of Arsenic, as an aside: “The fluosilicic acid brands used in artificially fluoridating Australia’s water supplies are known to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and mercury—major public health hazards for which no safe level exists” (28). Just another ‘minor’ oversight by the public relations division of the Department of Sickness (oops, we mean, ‘Health’).
k) “Boiling the water does not significantly change the levels of fluoride added.”
It is well-known that boiling fluoridated water increases fluoride concentration (29) (30).
l) “Many leading local, national and international health organisations endorse water fluoridation.”
Endorsements are a poor substitute for scientific evidence (31) (32). Their continued usage indicates the desperation of the pro-fluoridation criminals to cover-up and justify their crimes, and to shirk responsibility for the damage they have caused/are causing.
m) “Fluoride helps protect everyone’s teeth from decay.”
Total, utter, monumental bulls%^t (33) (34).
(1) Fluoridation Chemicals (AFAM)
(2) See: Connett et al., Claim #2
(3) Fluoride Health Monitoring Guidelines, p. 2
(4) The infamous Francis Bull
(5) Poor Medical Practice
(6) Fluoridation & Medical Ethics (Video)
(7) Fluoride 101: Drug
(8) NTEU: Statement of Concern
(9) Sources of Fluoride Exposure: General Population, p. 24
(10) Why I am Now Officially Opposed to Adding Fluoride to Drinking Water
(11) Learn more: Sources of Fluoride
(12) Europe Statements
(13) Topical vs. Systemic
(14) The Iowa Study: Decay Reduction? No; Dental Fluorosis? Yes
(15) Health Effects Database
(16) See: Connett et al., Claim #12
(17) Harms (in Fire Water)
(18) CRD 2003
(19) As discussed by Thiessen
(20) The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay
(21) Cheng et al., How Common is Caries?
(22) Comparative Tooth Decay Data
(23) As noted by Carlsson
(24) Dental Fluorosis: Overview
(25) Dental Fluorosis: Permanent Tooth Scarring Caused by Fluoridation
(26) Key Critical Questions, #9
(27) EPA: Arsenic
(28) Awofeso 2012, p. 8
(29) Can You Remove Fluoride By Boiling Water?
(30) Suggestions for Reducing Exposure to Fluoride
(31) See: 50 Reasons, #46
(32) Citizens are Being Misled
(33) Fluoride & Tooth Decay: The Facts
(34) The Evidence of Benefit is Very Weak
In its pre-diluted form, Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is said to have a, “characteristic sour odour” (Pivot MSDS, p. 3)*, but this could be nothing in comparison to the vile stench of the rotting turd over at the “Better Health” Channel.