Why fluoride-phobia refuses to go away

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 [i]harmful[/i]. I'm asking for the data that shows why or how its presence in the water supply is [i]beneficial[/i]. 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 [i]data[/i] you're basing your support on. Not what your feelings are on the subject.

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.

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...

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?

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 [i]that[/i] coming.

"- 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.

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

Interesting link. 

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

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...

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.

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 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.

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 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...

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

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.

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 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.

Homeofluoropathy!!!