Why fluoride-phobia refuses to go away

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Snuckles
Why fluoride-phobia refuses to go away

Quote:
“My greatest fear here is with the advent of the Internet, and with the advent of social media, that a small vocal minority of individuals who are perhaps misinformed are able to reach a great number of people.” So said dentist Harry Hoediono, the incoming head of the Ontario Dental Association, in response to this week’s news that Waterloo, Ont.’s council has voted to stop fluoridating the city’s water supply.

Dr. Hoediono is correct when he says that anti-fluoridation activists are “misinformed”: Fluoride is a safe additive that helps protect billions of Canadian teeth — particularly those owned by poor people who can’t afford proper dental care. But it’s wrong to suggest that this phenomenon is a creature of the Internet. In fact, anti-fluoridation quackery has been with us, in one form of the other, since the early days of the Cold War. And Waterloo, Ont. is hardly the first town that these quacks have conned.

Read it [url=http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/17/jonathan-kay-why-fluoride....

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Quote:
There always will be a radicalized group in every society that rejects mainstream science in favour of a fringe narrative that taps into their private anxieties.

Yep.

mhandel

I'm surprised he didn't mention Dr. Strangelove!

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
There always will be a radicalized group in every society that rejects mainstream science in favour of a fringe narrative that taps into their private anxieties.

 

I think one can read this column, substitute "vaccination" for "fluoridation" in nearly every occurrance, and it's still lucid and sensible.

siamdave

Timebandit wrote:

Quote:
There always will be a radicalized group in every society that rejects mainstream science in favour of a fringe narrative that taps into their private anxieties.

 

Yep.

- and there will always, in modern societies, be a substantial majority who will believe whatever garbage the Authorities tell them, to avoid having to take a stand of any sort against tyranny, or to avoid having to think for themselves.

And those who can figure out the difference seem to be the smallest minority of all.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

That was insulting, siamdave.  Actually, I have looked at the issue, have done my reading and you know what?  The objectors ARE NOT CREDIBLE.  The evidence doesn't line up.  It's got zip to do with accepting without questioning or "tyrrany" and everything to do with boogie-men under the bed. 

Tell the difference?  You can't discern the difference between con artists and public health professionals. 

no1important

Yet no fluoride in Europe an dpeople in addition to bnot being fat actually get out and stand up for themselves, here where there is fluoride people are overweight, lazy and in a daze and uniformed of the issues around them. Basically fluoride has turned people in North America into lazy cattle.

RosaL

I think this has been mentioned before, possibly by me, but it does strike me as interesting and sad that discontent and suspicion (for which there is good reason!) gets diverted into harmless (from the standpoint of the ruling class) byways like this. 

Sineed

siamdave wrote:
and there will always, in modern societies, be a substantial majority who will believe whatever garbage the Authorities tell them, to avoid having to take a stand of any sort against tyranny, or to avoid having to think for themselves.

I try to keep this sort of thing out of my house.  All the jerking knees scuff up the walls.

jas

What's the actual data on flouridation? Is there a higher incidence of tooth decay in Montreal and Vancouver than in other Canadian cities?

siamdave

Timebandit wrote:

That was insulting, siamdave.  Actually, I have looked at the issue, have done my reading and you know what?  The objectors ARE NOT CREDIBLE.  The evidence doesn't line up.  It's got zip to do with accepting without questioning or "tyrrany" and everything to do with boogie-men under the bed. 

Tell the difference?  You can't discern the difference between con artists and public health professionals. 

- I wasn't talking about the fluoride in particular - I was responding to your *general* statement that "..There always will be a radicalized group in every society that rejects mainstream science in favour of a fringe narrative that taps into their private anxieties."

And I think my rebuttal was actually much truer - there are a few people who reject mainstream science in favor of whatever beliefs - but there are many more who have been trained to NOT think about anything, but accept what they are told by 'experts' about 'science' or anything else. And those people are a great deal more worrying than the few true fringies who reject any science in favor of whatever superstitions, because our society is currently being run by people who do NOT believe in truth or science, but only in getting and maintaining power - and they are more than capable of corrupting scientists or anyone else in pursuit of that power.

I forget the exact figure, but something like 60% of Americans still believe Saddam had nukes, and conspired with Osama to do 911. Not to mention that most Americans apparently believe we all live in igloos. We have at least several MPs in Canada who believe the earth is ~5000 year old, and early man walked that earth with dinosaurs (not talking about science, but about the things people believe) Science or scientists are not gods - they offer their opinions about things, opinions which *should* be learned sorts of things of course and based upon knowledge and study - but which may be wrong for any number of reasons - including political.

The corruption of science is one of the more egregious things the political-economic system known as 'capitalism' has to answer for. Or religions such as the Catholic church, of coursse.

That so few people seem to actually understand this means things are not looking that good for us all these days.

ascot2

No wonder people keep demanding the stopping of watter fluoridation.

What is being put into our drinking water is toxic chimney scrubbings, which include along with industrial grade fluoride, lead, arsenic and other nasty things.  This is a waste product from the process of turning potash into fertilizer.

There are only 8 countries that still fluoridate over 50% of their water, most countries rejected it long ago because it has been shown that communities that fluoridate their water have seen their cavity rates fall just as fast as those communities that don't.  Quebec (which doesn't fluoridate) has just as good teeth as Ontario (which does fluoridate).  Vancouver doesn't fluoridtate, but their teeth are as good or better than Toronto that does.  The reason for this is likely that the only value from fluoride is topical application...and most of us get that from toothpaste.

Fluoride, particularly the industrial waste stuff, should never be ingested...it has been liked to dental fluorisis (suffered now by as many as 30% of children), skeletal fluorosis (feels like arthritis), thyroid and kidney problems.  Even the American dental Association agrees that infants should never be given formula made up with fluoridated water.  The Canadian Green Party also just announced they supported the end of Water Fluoridation.

All of this has been documented over the years, and is no doubt why now citizens are demanding their municipalities stop the practice.  A recent book launch in Canada, called the Case Against Fluoride, by Dr Paul Connett documents in detail what fluoride and fluoridation does, and does not do.

If you want the facts I suggest buying Dr Connett's book.

jas

I don't think I'll buy a book about it.

I just want to know what data the flouride supporters here are basing their arguments on.

siamdave

jas wrote:

I don't think I'll buy a book about it.

I just want to know what data the flouride supporters here are basing their arguments on.

- you could check out your library, inter library loan should be able to get it - if the guy has written a book there should be lots of facts and refs to help you decide if he makes a good case or not -

jas

I would actually rather hear it from the flouride supporters here on Babble, some of whom apparently have done their own research on it.

Snert Snert's picture

Or just believe that the many, many reputable researchers who've come to the conclusion that fluoridation isn't harmful aren't the bought and paid for stooges of Big Fluoride.

Sometimes it's appropriate to acknowledge that you're not a biomedical researcher.  Not that I wouldn't love to have ten years or so to bring myself up to speed, but since I don't I'm not going to "go with my feelings", Jenny McCarthy style. 

jas

Snert wrote:
Or just believe that the many, many reputable researchers who've come to the conclusion that fluoridation isn't harmful aren't the bought and paid for stooges of Big Fluoride.

I'm not asking for the data on why or how flouride in the water supply isn't harmful. I'm asking for the data that shows why or how its presence in the water supply is beneficial. So, for example, if the link between water flouridation and tooth health is as direct as flouride supporters claim, then, in non-water-flouridated cities, such as Vancouver and Montreal, we would expect to see higher rates of tooth decay, would we not? Is this the case?

Quote:
Sometimes it's appropriate to acknowledge that you're not a biomedical researcher.  Not that I wouldn't love to have ten years or so to bring myself up to speed, but since I don't I'm not going to "go with my feelings", Jenny McCarthy style.

Which is why I'm asking you for the data you're basing your support on. Not what your feelings are on the subject.

 

ascot2

To see the view on this from Dr Hardy Limeback, head of preventive dentistry at U of T, go to

 http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm

to see the worldwide data on cavity rates in countries that do vs don't fluoridate, over time, go to

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html

The results are undeniable....cavity rates have been falling everywhere...so fluoridation has no good purpose.

Unfortunately it has been linked to some very bad things.

wage zombie

Yeah, me too.  I am undecided about this fluoride issue.  I'd also like to hear from fluoride supporters, if they have information on the beneficial effects of putting fluoride in the water.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Which is why I'm asking you for the data you're basing your support on. Not what your feelings are on the subject.

 

Uh, data analysis is actually part of research, and as I said, I'm not a researcher. Beyond that, if you want primary data, you'll need to hunt your own snipe.

 

[url=http://www.ada.org/sections/professionalResources/pdfs/fluoridation_fact...'s some research[/url], including data, from the American Dental Association. Does that help? Or are they in the pocket of Big Fluoride? Or better yet, have you identified critical flaws in their research methodology?

ascot2

I am afraid the American Dental Association have been breathing their own exhaust on this issue so long that they are unable to open their mind to what the most recent data is telling them.

97% of Europeans no longer have fluoridated water, and their teeth continue to get better (see WHO data referenced in previous blog).  Stopping fluoridation is supported by the European dental associations....are they wrong?

The most recent book "The Case Against Fluoride" has over 80 pages of references to worldwide and North American studies, reports and surveys showing the latest data.  You can see much of this, including materials criticising the ADA at www.fluoridealert.org

That site will answer most questions...

Lord Palmerston

 

ascot2 wrote:
97% of Europeans no longer have fluoridated water, and their teeth continue to get better (see WHO data referenced in previous blog).  Stopping fluoridation is supported by the European dental associations....are they wrong?

This is highly deceptive.  You make it sound as it fluoridation has been stopped in Europe for safety reasons ("banned in Europe" is one of the main talking points of the anti-fluoridation crowd).

In much of continental Europe, they make use of fluoridated salt rather than fluoridated water.

ascot2

The Europeans (for the most part) decided against it. 

When one realizes that the only benefit is topical, and that ingestion of fluoride has been linked to health problems...not to mention that it is a toxic waste and has things like lead, cadmium and arsenic in it!

It seems to me just common sense to stop putting in our water.

Once again, it has been shown to do no good...possibly it does us harm...why can't our water just be water?

 

polly bee

ascot2 wrote:

Once again, it has been shown to do no good...possibly it does us harm...why can't our water just be water?

 

Is the flouride in the drinking water the same flouride that is found in toothpaste?  And if so, why are they adding to drinking water the same chemicals that they warn you not to swallow on the toothpaste tube?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

I am afraid the American Dental Association have been breathing their own exhaust on this issue so long that they are unable to open their mind to what the most recent data is telling them.

 

There's a reason why reputable research must be summarily dismissed?

 

Gee. I did not see that coming.

al-Qa'bong

Why are the alien believers, 9-11 truthers, cell-phone Jeremiahs, and those in the anti-fluoride temperance movement always the same people?

 

Do some folks get their kicks from thinking there are dark forces constantly conspiring against them?

ebodyknows ebodyknows's picture

"- and there will always, in modern societies, be a substantial majority who will believe whatever garbage the Authorities tell them, to avoid having to take a stand of any sort against tyranny, or to avoid having to think for themselves."

I think that is interesting to keep in mind.

I believe having fluoride in your toothpaste is still required to be approved by the CDA.  I tried to inquiry a few years ago as to why, if it's so important to healthy teeth and required for CDA approval so few tooth paste brands include it.  Perhaps 2-3 brands of tooth paste is about the maximum complexity the average consumer is willing to accept and the rest of the toothpastes are marketing to the cynical and critical choice lovers.  A friend of mine did an article a few years ago mentioning some of the possible effects of toothpaste ingredients and the wide variety of choices out there(see pg.7) and the idea the things you put in your mouth are readily absorbed into your body.

Whatever your verdict is on the usefulness of fluoride I am personally one of those critical choice lovers who would like to be able to choose if I am going to ingest fluoride or not. I'd appreciate that as much as I like being able to choose amongst a large variety of tooth pastes or being able to buy salt that doesn't have sugar in it if I so choose.

 

ebodyknows ebodyknows's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Do some folks get their kicks from thinking there are dark forces constantly conspiring against them?

It might be one factor.  In this situation too I'd personally prefer more choice.  Can you come up with a list of at least 5 reasons so I can choose al?

al-Qa'bong
  1. Not enough time spent outdoors
  2. Over-exposure to The X-Files as a child
  3. A crush on Dana Scully (see #2)
  4. Too much starchy food
  5. Love of adventure
ebodyknows ebodyknows's picture

I'd choose:

  • 35% #2;
  • 25% #4 and
  • 40% #5 as a side-effect of # 1.

But me.  Well I'm different. I'm not like other folks. Yep, I was grass fed as a child thus evading the effects of #4.  For me it's more having people experiencing things like this on my facebook friends list that has reduced my respect for unquestionable authority.

al-Qa'bong

Interesting link. 

It's odd that we don't have a Canadian version of the Michigan Militia...or do we?

Fidel

Fluoridation of water is the most monstrous communist plot ever conceived. Your commie has no regard for human life, not even of his own.

jas

Snert wrote:

[url=http://www.ada.org/sections/professionalResources/pdfs/fluoridation_fact...'s some research[/url], including data, from the American Dental Association. Does that help? Or are they in the pocket of Big Fluoride? Or better yet, have you identified critical flaws in their research methodology?

I don't know, this "fact" sheet cites six primary studies (and three reviews), three of which were from the '60s, and two of the three more recent ones whose methods were called into question. The last one was a study as much of fluorosis and dental sealants as fluoridation, and the conclusions of which use curiously qualified terms, such as: "average dental decay experience" [being] 61 - 100% higher in communities with "low fluoride levels" .

This is from the American Dental Association. It seems to me they could have a lot more recent and better data to offer, especially in our own case, with two major Canadian cities being non-fluoridated.

Some criticisms of two of the more often cited studies:

Quote:
Diesendorf M, Anglesey Fluoridation Trials Re-examined, Fluoride, 1989 Apr, 22:2, 53-58

The often-cited Anglesey fluoridation surveys are re-examined as a case study. In the 1974 and 1983 surveys, the non-random choice of a "control," 19 years after fluoridation, negated the benefit of blind examinations. Instead of a longitudinal controlled trial, there remain two cross-sectional surveys for which the test population was mainly rural while the "control" population was entirely urban. Two different categories of secular reduction in caries, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, occurred between 1974 and 1983. So, It is doubtful that these Anglesey studies, or the earlier 1955-1967 study, provide evidence of large benefits from fluoridation.

On the study of 40,000 schoolchildren across the U.S., cited by the ADA, using Brunelle and Carlos:

Quote:
Yiamouyiannis JA., Water Fluoridation And Tooth Decay: Results From The 1986-1987 National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren

This study and other recent studies (3-8) show that there is currently no significant difference in tooth decay rates in F and NF areas and that decreases in tooth decay rates over the last 25 years have been comparable regardless of fluoridation status.

...

Recently Brunelle (30), using the same database that we used, reported 260/o fewer dfs (decayed and filled deciduous tooth surfaces) in children who had always resided in F communities than those who never lived in F communities. This finding agrees reasonably well with the data outlined in our Table 3, which shows a statistically significantly lower dft rate in life-long 5-year-old
residents of fluoridated areas. However, by omission of age-specific data, the Brunelle study covers up the fact that this difference in tooth decay is no longer significant in 6-year-olds and disappears entirely among 8-year olds

...

Another recent study by Brunelle and Carlos, which also uses the in the F areas. the study of 65 same database that we used, reports a l7,7Vo lower DMFS rate. This study has a number of major deficiencies which render the study of little or no value.

It contains extremely serious errors...

It fails to report the tooth decay rates for each of the E4 geographical areas surveyed...

It fails to control for geographical differences in tooth decay rates...

It fails to do the statistical analysis (or even provide the data, i.e. the standard deviation and sample number) to determine whether the values found for F and NF areas are significantly different...

It fails to report the data for the approximately 23,000 schoolchildren who were not life-time residents of either the F or NF areas...

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Why are the alien believers, 9-11 truthers, cell-phone Jeremiahs, and those in the anti-fluoride temperance movement always the same people?

 

Do some folks get their kicks from thinking there are dark forces constantly conspiring against them?

Ah! I see what you're getting at now. It's just that we have this choice.

We can take seriously what public health doctors and medical researchers not in the hire of a cell phone industry have to say about actual medical studies on cell phones and human health, albeit widespread cell phone use is still in the early stages since the mid 1990s or so. Or?

 Or we can take the word of anonymous social forum babblers, like al-Qa'bong, that children are not at any risk whatsoever for developing deadly brain tumors later in life and on the same side of their heads as their heavy cell phone use.

We can consider the opinions of 1350+ certified architects and engineers with more than 25000 years of on the job experience concerning certain events of 9/11 as well as several 9/11 Commissioners themselves and a number of US Government whistleblowers.

Or we might be persuaded toward crazy George II and the FBI-CIA's version of 9/11 events by several very knowledgeable and reputable anonymous and self-described experts on the matter, and at least of one of whom experiences technical difficulties logging into babbble from time to time.

And WRT the subject of unidentified flying objects, fufos and the like, we have a number of former astronauts, world leaders, retired air force and army officials from a number of countries and some still employed by government, air traffic controllers, commercial pilots, police officers, and everyday ordinary people who swear that what events they have witnessed defy scientific and rational explanation.

Or we can turn to the ever anonymous and often cynical internet experts on babble and even the very dubious JREF forums where armchair debunkerists are encouraged to discuss physics and science in general from a lay point of view and driven by their intuition and instinctual understanding of nature and current events in general. As I always say, it's all about choices.

Nutrimom

Dr. Hoediono, who was ever present as a lobbyist for the ODA during the Waterloo campaign, was careful to preface his characterization of the Fluoride Free Waterloo members as misinformed with "perhaps". Jon Kay, who didn't interview anyone in Waterloo and certainly never read any of the science presented by the group, had no such decorum. There was some doubt in the good dentist's mind, especially as he had been avoiding the persistent requests of one of the Waterloo councillors for ODA to provide her with scientific evidence of benefit related to intake and proof of safety of the chemical actually used (a toxic hazardous waste called fluorosilic acid). Another Waterloo resident had conducted FOIA requests that yielded evidence of incompetence and wrongdoing by public health officials and coverup of fluoridation overfeeds and extended interruptions when the chemical was not added at all. There was evidence that lead at the tap dropped sharply during the fluoride interruptions. City hall was equipped with a high grade water filter due to poor water quality while the city spent money to promote tap water over bottled water. The Waterloo public was DISinformed - by the ODA, the mayor, and the Waterloo health officials. Not "perhaps".

The real issue is the anti-democratic sentiment that only those with the "right" beliefs should have input into their municipal public agenda. Frankly, it's no one else's business if a majority of Waterloo voters decide they don't want industrial waste fluoride in their tap water.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The real issue is the anti-democratic sentiment that only those with the "right" beliefs should have input into their municipal public agenda.
 

I've read compelling arguments for the idea that stupid behaviour is the only true proof of autonomy and free will. Doing what makes the most sense, as an organism, could be autonomy or it could be instinct. But doing what's wrong... that can only be explained by autonomy.

jas

Right and wrong, good and evil, and autonomy. Wow.

So, again, Snert, I'll have to ask you where the data is on the benefits of water fluoridation. If you want to push water fluoridation, you better have some pretty compelling stats to back it up. I'm sure you didn't really mean to suggest that a few studies from 40+ years ago is the entire body of evidence you're basing your opinion on.

Why don't you start with the Canadian Dental Association? What studies do they cite?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

Why don't you start with the Canadian Dental Association? What studies do they cite?

 

The same ones, only they add "eh?" to the end of every other sentence.

 

Beyond that you'll need to hunt your own snipe. I'm finally -- slowly -- learning not to get dragged down that path. It's like discussing evolution with a Creationist. You can bring anything you wish to that discussion and it's just not going to matter. The day that a conspiracy theorist -- any conspiracy theorist -- says "I guess I got the wrong end of this" then maybe I'll change my mind. But I should really believe that if I can find a CDA study that says fluoridation is safe then you'll say "Oh, OK, good enough then" and not "Big surprise, CDA is in the pocket of Big Fluoride!!"?

jas

Snert wrote:

I'm finally -- slowly -- learning not to get dragged down that path.

Down the path of providing evidence for your belief in the benefits of water fluoridation? You want us to accept this on faith?

If you can't actually produce any evidence unequivocally demonstrating that water fluoridation reduces the incidence of caries, then what basis do you have for calling others "wrong" and comparing them to Creationists? You're just as much operating on faith as you accuse others of -- in fact, moreso, as they at least appear to have done some research.

I'll ask you again: what evidence do you have that water fluoridation has any benefit whatsoever? If you can't answer this question, you might want to consider that, just possiby, you don't have enough knowledge to be offering an informed opinion, let alone be mocking others for theirs.

 

Lord Palmerston

On the extent of water fluordiation (this refutes the "banned in Europe" line):

http://bfsweb.org/One%20in%20a%20million/7%20extent.pdf

A critique of the "50 reasons to oppose fluoridation":

http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/0703/m50721_v1_50reasonsreplytotal.pdf

A critical examination of anti-fluoridationist literature, from an Australian public health journal

http://www.be-md.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/

 

jas

 

How about something on why we would put fluoride in our water supply in the first place? Is this really so hard to produce?

jas

Lord Palmerston wrote:

A critique of the "50 reasons to oppose fluoridation":

http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/0703/m50721_v1_50reasonsreplytotal.pdf

McDonagh et al., cited in the above report, is a review of all the old studies that were done. This is not a new study. Their conclusions:

Quote:

Results

214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries.

Conclusions

The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis.

Analysis

We included 214 studies; none was of evidence level A (high quality, bias unlikely). The study designs used included 45 controlled before-after studies, 102 cross sectional studies, 47 ecological studies, 13 cohort (prospective or retrospective) studies, and seven case-control studies.

There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies...

Comments

The most serious defect of the studies of possible beneficial effects of water fluoridation was the lack of appropriate design and analysis. Many studies did not present an analysis at all, while others did not attempt to control for potentially confounding factors. Age, sex, social class, ethnicity, country, tooth type (primary or permanent), mean daily regional temperature, use of fluoride, total fluoride consumption, method of measurement (clinical exam or radiographs, or both), and training of examiners are all possible confounding factors in the assessment of development of dental caries.

While some of these studies were conducted in the 1940s and 50s, before the common use of such analyses, later studies also failed to use methods that were then commonplace. Many studies lacked any measure of variance for the estimates of caries presented....

Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research.

What this study adds

A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low...

Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found, but they were smaller than previously reported.

The prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water. An association of water fluoride with other adverse effects was not found

Unionist

jas wrote:

 

How about something on why we would put fluoride in our water supply in the first place? Is this really so hard to produce?

No. [url=http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm]Here's the York University (UK) study.[/url].

[url=http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm]Here's the Australian govt. study.[/url]

[url=http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm]Here are National Academy of Sciences studies[/url] over several decades.

[url=http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/benefits.htm]Lots more here.[/url]

Now I'll go hunt for scientific studies that it gets lighter in the room when you switch on a lamp...

jas

Read my post above, Unionist. This was a review, commonly cited by fluoridationists, of all the old studies. I think you'll find all of your links somehow relate back to that report. Smile

Lord Palmerston

So where's your hard evidence that overturns what you dismiss as "old studies"?

jas

Um, I just posted it.

 

Unionist

jas wrote:

Read my post above, Unionist. This was a review, commonly cited by fluoridationists, of all the old studies. I think you'll find all of your links somehow relate back to that report. Smile

I've got no dog in this fight. You asked for studies about the benefits of fluoride in water supplies - I posted some. I thought you wanted to read them.

 

jas

I have.

Which are Babblers more interested in? Reading what the actual evidence says? Or appearing to be "right"?

Unionist

jas wrote:

Which are Babblers more interested in? Reading what the actual evidence says? Or appearing to be "right"?

Good question. When it comes to fluoridation, my main interest was to appear to be helpful. I'll bow out now.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Cancelling fluoridation programs in municipal water supplies is futile.

The water "remembers" the fluoride ions and thus it has an even greater effect than before.

Unionist

Homeofluoropathy!!!

Pages

Topic locked