In a recent PD Editorial , we see the usual ranting and raving against the anti-fluoridation movement, but, as per standard practice, nothing is offered beyond the typical pro-fluoridation chestnuts.
For instance, “a staggering burden of suffering and a growing oral health divide between rich and poor” is cited as a reason for fluoridation. However, what the Editorial conveniently fails to mention is the weakness of evidence that supports such an assertion.
Perhaps a more balanced Editorial would mention the following, from the University of York’s Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, in relation to a review of the evidence:
“The evidence about [water fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” .
Or how about this classic, also dug up by the PD team: “Studies have shown that every $1 invested in fluoridation saves an estimated $38 in dental treatment cost” . The truth, however, is:
“This statement is taken from another report written by members of the Oral Health Division of the CDC. Two of its three authors, Susan Grifﬁn and Scott Tomar, also wrote the report mentioned in Claim 11 above. Grifﬁn et al. inﬂated the beneﬁts of ﬂuoridation and ignored the costs of any side effects, including the one effect no one can deny, dental ﬂuorosis. Cosmetic veneer treatment for ﬂuorosis costs upward of $1,000 per tooth. The CDC authors also allowed a loss of earnings of $18 an hour for time off work to get a dental ﬁlling. Not all people lose pay when they get dental treatment, and certainly children don’t” .
In a rather comical fashion, the PD team, from its high horse, after making the shonky claims above, then challenges the anti-fluoridation movement to demonstrate “how Healdsburg residents have been harmed by having their water fluoridated since 1952” .
In fact, a more realistic challenge would be for them to prove how the many advanced nations, without water fluoridation programs, are suffering so incredibly as a direct result of not having access to artificially fluoridated water. They could start by explaining how most of the world’s great cities get along just fine without fluoridated water   .
Or perhaps they could take up their own challenge and start doing the necessary primary health studies to determine the potential effects of water fluoridation over a long period .
Why should the anti-fluoridation movement have to do all the work? They are not responsible for the program, which is clearly unnecessary, ineffective and potentially harmful . That burden lies upon the shoulders of the dinosaur promoters of mass treatment without informed consent .
It took a long time, but eventually the reign of the mighty dinosaurs ended. 😉