Public Meeting - Water Fluoridation

[staaue]

Staaue - yes the very long term effects are not known of artificial flouridation. However after 50 years and millions of people trying it, I think something could be scientifically proved by now if there was a problem. However all good tyro scientists should keep an open mind in case something which can be proved ever appears. However I do not subscribe that artificial fluoride is different to naturally occuring. Of course its a different compound containing the fluoride ion but its the fluoride ion only that has the perceived beneficial effect on dental health. If it is accepted that natural and artificial are pharmacologically the same we are back to the 'tens of thousands of years drugs trial' scenario mentioned earlier.

 

Did you read this http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm I really would be interested to here your views on this guys story.

 

 

 

Save your sarcasm.

 

As with anything there needs to be tests. A finite area such as the Isle of Man is ideal. At times we really do believe the UK are nice anglo-saxon English speaking like minded people as us. Our friendly cousins. True to an extent. But by our very nature we are sticking two fingers up at the UK. That includes the UK people who come here to work and live. They come for the Manx Pound and to pay Manx Taxes.

 

Fuck You UK, type of thing.

 

And yet there is that 'special' relationship.

 

The Isle of Man is a money grabbing little shit heap as far as some of the powers that be over there are concerned.

 

So yeah, why not use us as a living simile of Winter Island, even better Porton Down.

 

Yeah, far fetched I know. You decide how far fetched . . . .

The gullibles' are going to slant you for this nipper.... But alas. I'm glad I'm not the only realist who understands how things are...

 

Saveourwater: the gullibles' are entitled to their opinion which we respect on this.

I, like many others see many facts warning us of the dangers - yet they do not - they see only a lack of evidence. I suggest your group place a simular ad in the papers counteracting what the gov't are saying and thusly balancing the tables to those who might have an opened mind. I'm not seeing parents and concerned citizens talking intellectually here, I'm seeing single minded individuals refusing to be educated to the dangers; in doing so are risking the health of others.... Flame away ye fecks

 

But on a lighter note.....

 

Hypothetically, if you heard amateur and professional astronomers claiming that a rather large rock was going to fall from space on the east coast of our country, and the gov't was saying no it isn't; and specialist astronomers brought in by the gov't were saying we'd be fine.... would you smile, relax, and go along with what you were told; or would you play it safe.???

[staaue]

Ultimately though I was just disappointed that the article did not deliver what the headline had promised as I had hoped to read something new that had been brought to the debate. Unfortunately though there appears to be little that is new instead each side just repackage it arguments and presents as if new which does not add to the debate

 

well said...

[nipper]

(and to Lost Login)

The Isle of Man is a money grabbing little shit heap as far as some of the powers that be over there are concerned.

 

So yeah, why not use us as a living simile of Winter Island, even better Porton Down.

 

Yeah, far fetched I know. You decide how far fetched . . . .

 

You're implying that they are looking to use us as a test bed - but they've had fluoridated water in the UK for decades already. Tinfoil hat ?

 

I didn't mention flouridation . . . . .

[Hermes]

The only quality peer-reviewed assessment of water fluoridation has commented on the very poor nature of scientific data of the studies they have reviewed (York).

The data about tooth decay (and that about diseases that some parties have suggested are linked with fluoridation) are from areas where there have been many years of continually changing definitions and manners of reporting of these conditions - this effectively invalidates any longer term assessment of risks, and the institution of fluoridation in these areas is based on outdated and discredited safety/efficacy assessments.

Our Dr Emerson has so far showed scant regard for demonstrating a sufficiently scientific and apolitical appraisal of the facts, although I commend his best intentions. In addition, there seem to be no end of ill-informed GP's and other doctors who trot out the same message without doing a full independant appraisal for themselves - they just toe the line of 'we are doctors so we must be right' (and I speak with qualification on the matter).

 

Few people have any credible facts to argue with except those who state the ethical viewpoint about enforced medication, and those members of the public who are disinclined to try something that is supporting a cheap government and industry-sponsored 'public health measure'. This is just a stop-gap solution for the deficiencies of the Manx public (NHS) dental service that is being run down and the ignorance/disregard many parents have for their kids' teeth. I have to say that I have never seen such a poor public dental service as I have here. Perhaps someone should ask how many desperate dental patients are being forced to attend their GP's, MEDS or the A&E department because they cannot get a dentist - I bet it is huge, and what can these services do? They have no proper dental training and can only help with medications...

The DHSS is on a cost-cutting exercise, and they think forcing a drug on you is a way of hitting their dental targets.

 

When are people going to be allowed to make their own decisions about how they live their lives and how they bring up their own children?

[saveourwater]

Some comment on the BMJ article by Dr Paul Connett, who will be returning to the Island on November 20th to present to Tynwald and also speak at another public meeting. Dr Emerson has said that he will field Professor Lennon, Chairman of the British Fluoridation Society to debate with Dr Connett.

 

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK

http://www.FluorideAction.net

 

FAN Bulletin 882: UK Government blasted on fluoridation

 

October 5, 2007

 

Dear All,

 

Forgive this long bulletin – but it will be the last for some time. I am off to China tomorrow to attend the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) conference in Beijing and then on to Australia to help communities fight off fluoridation in Victoria, NSW and Queensland. I will be back on November 1. Meanwhile, I hope everyone will try to get the number up on the Online petition to Congress. See the home page http://www.FluorideAction.net for the way to sign on. While I am away don’t forget to track the latest news – home page – left hand side.

 

In albeit genteel language three leading UK scientists delivered a blistering condemnation of UK policy on promoting fluoridation in today’s issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ). They point out that the UK government has funded the unabashed propagandist activities of the British Fluoridation Society and the government also twisted the findings of the York Review to suit their agenda of promoting fluoridation.

 

The BMJ, perhaps in order to soften the blow to the British dental establishment, also printed a fluffy anecdotal piece from Rod Griffiths, retired doctor and former regional director of public health, West Midlands. John Graham of the National Pure Water Association in the UK points out that Griffiths in his opening remarks uses a PR tactic which has been used countless times before in the history of fluoridation promotion. The tactic was documented by Dr. George Waldbott in his book “A Struggle with Titans” published by Carlton Press, New York, 1965. John quotes Waldbott as follows:

 

 

Chapter Ten, page 195

 

“A widely used promotional story has been circulated about Akron, O.; San Francisco, Calif.; Newburgh and Elmira, N. Y.; Charlotte, N. C.; E. Lansing, Mich.; Brantford, Ont., and many other places. It goes like this: Citizens swamped city hall with complaints of illness due to drinking fluoridated water when, to everyone's dismay, it was discovered that somehow fluoridation had not, as yet, been put into operation.

 

Since the same events are alleged to have occurred in many cities and since, according to the story, after introduction of fluoridation in the above-named cities no further complaints were registered, the veracity of the story is doubtful.”

 

 

The article by Cheng et al. could have been a lot stronger had not the commentators taken such an anglocentric view of the issue. For example, they fail to mention the National Research Council review of 2006, which has to be the most comprehensive overview of the toxicology of fluoride ever written. Moreover, the NRC review authors, unlike the York Review (McDonagh, et al, 2000), on which the authors of the BMJ piece seem to solely rely, did not limit themselves to epidemiological studies but availed themselves of all the evidence which might point to fluoride’s ability to do harm: epidemiological studies, clinical trials, animal studies, toxicological studies and theoretical models.

 

I would argue that if you are considering dosing the whole population with a substance known to be highly toxic, known to have ravaged millions of people in India and China where natural levels are high, then one should avail oneself of ALL the data that might indicate potential harm. The NRC review did this. The York review did not – preferring the more limited tool of meta-analysis.

 

Let me give just two examples of the limitations of the York Review (for which I was an invited peer reviewer).

 

When considering benefits the authors chose to limit themselves to longitudinal studies when some of the more convincing evidence of fluoridation’s ineffectiveness has come from cross-sectional studies. Longitudinal studies consider the same community at two different points in time. Cross-sectional studies compare communities at the same time. The largest and most expensive study ever conducted in the US was a cross-sectional study where the tooth decay of 39,000 children was compared in 84 communities. In this study Brunelle and Carlos (1990) found that children who had lived all their lives in a fluoridated community had an average saving of six tenths of one tooth surface (out of over 100 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth) compared to children living all their lives in a non-fluoridated community. How much risk would one take to save 0.6 of a tooth surface? Other cross-sectionals studies have found even less difference (Spencer et al. 1996) and others none (Armfield & Spencer, 2004). Figures published by the NY State Department of Health based on a survey of tooth decay in third graders (2002-04) – average by county – showed absolutely no relationship to the percentage of the county population drinking fluoridated water. Dr. Bill Osmunson has found a similar non-relationship when the percentage of children with good or excellent teeth (average by state) were plotted against the 50 states in order of the percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water. He did this for children from both high and low income families and both plots are essentially flat – no relationship with the degree of fluoridation. People can nitpick about confounding variables but Bill controlled for the biggest one – income levels. The trend is obvious and it does not need a rocket scientist or meta-analysis to see it.

 

It is interesting that the BMJ authors who having eschewed cross-sectional studies in the York Review, actually turn to a cross-sectional comparison in their first figure where they compared declines in tooth decay in several European countries using WHO figures. In doing this they essentially “borrowed” (without acknowledgement) the approach developed by Chris Neurath and used on our web site for several years, and subsequently published in the journal Fluoride. But we are not upset as it is in a good cause!

 

The second limitation of the York review was restricting themselves to effects at 1 ppm. So when they looked at the important Li et al. (2001) study (pre-publication copy) they considered that this study showed no difference in hip fractures in the elderly in two villages less than 1 ppm and the village (control) at 1 ppm. However, this same study showed a doubling of hip fractures at 1.5 ppm (not statistically significant) and a tripling above 4 ppm (statistically significant). The latter finding and the possible trend would be really important to someone trying to determine an adequate margin of safety to protect say high water consumers or people with kidney impairment from lifelong exposure to fluoride, but was not revealed by the meta-analysis used in the York Review.

 

One final comment: the British commentators correctly criticize the MRC for funding the pathetic study of 20 people to compare body accumulations of fluoride in people living in natural and artificially fluoridated areas, but they fail to mention that this “august” body committed worse sins. The MRC gave more priority to further studies on dental fluorosis than studies on the central nervous system, the endocrine system, the reproductive system or the kidney!

 

I do hope now that these three authors will read the NRC (2006) review and write another piece for the BMJ.

 

Meanwhile, we have to be grateful that this has raised an alarm about the British government’s bias in this matter and at least one major British newspaper, The Guardian (see below) and MedicalNewstoday.com, see http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84666.php

 

Paul Connett

 

Guardian Article - LINK

[staaue]

The MRC gave more priority to further studies on dental fluorosis than studies on the central nervous system, the endocrine system, the reproductive system or the kidney!

 

I do hope now that these three authors will read the NRC (2006) review and write another piece for the BMJ.

 

Meanwhile, we have to be grateful that this has raised an alarm about the British government’s bias in this matter and at least one major British newspaper, The Guardian (see below) and MedicalNewstoday.com, see http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84666.php

Guardian Article - LINK

 

This is another one of those scaremonger chaps putting the willies up the gullibles'. British Gov't Bias.... Never...

 

Social compliance and ignorance is king... Just carry on believing what the English tell you, you'll be fine...

[ballaughbiker]

Hermes

 

You are correct in saying the NHS dental service is poor. This all started in Thatcher's reign of power by reducing the effective renumeration of dentists. It was continued by further uk governments of both persuasions over the next 25 years until the dentist hourly rate was the same or less than some building trades. This has been the main reason for most dentists withdrawing from the NHS. I know someone very well who refused to do any private work on principle. He simply would not be in business now if he applied that same principle, in fact he is no longer in business.

 

All dentists own their own practice and its equipment and none of this is paid for by the NHS. They are not in receipt of a salary.Their income is like any other business and provided from the difference between income and expenditure. Income has been throttled and controlled for 25 years and expenses increased enormously. However it is easy for any government to pass the blame of the effects of this by intimating that "they've gone private 'cos the're greedy". This is easily believed by many people as "dentists is rich innit!" A MHK even appeared to suggest this on MR a few months ago. I wrote to him suggesting such a view was not his remit but of course received no reply.

 

Yes, blame the manx government. They chose to introduce the new contract back in the early 90s despite advice not to and have now forced another new contract on anyone still trying to earn a living from the NHS. However in mitigation, they have started their own surgeries (is it Carnane and Hillside?) which no other local authority wanted to do. I should say its easier to get NHS treatment here than anywhere else in the British Isles.

 

Don't however think that fluoridation can ever be viewed as a replacement for proper dental services. In reality this would take a generation before any significant effect could be seen. So yes blame them but don't accuse them of wanting to flouridate the water instead of providing dental care. It simply isn't true.

 

Staaue - still 'digesting' that article

[The Bastard]

I think they should start putting lithium in the drinking water, if the replies above are any judge.

[bluemonday]

Is it pitchfork and torch time?

[staaue]

I think they should start putting lithium in the drinking water, if the replies above are any judge.

 

How would Lithium help this debate!! Has it helped you..

[Lost Login]

I understand where you are coming from as this thread had potential for being a sensible discusion.

 

But when you start to get posters who refer those who agree with him as realists and those with the opposite point of views as the gulibels you know that it is time just to ignore the thread as you realise they have no real interest in the ddiscussion but just want to try to be smart arses by petty point scoreing to make themselves feel big. The give away is the luv of smile faces!

 

I think they should start putting lithium in the drinking water, if the replies above are any judge.

[staaue]

So which are you the 'kettle' or the 'pot' and who's the blackest....

 

Finally I like the last line of your post. "Are we really stupid to allow this to happen". Well judging from your post I think the answer to the first part of that unfortuntaely appears to be yes.

 

You were the one who mentioned conspiracy theory, you were the one who mentioned scaremongering; if you can label us who are anti-fluoridation with these derogatory names - then why can't I.... and yes it is petty.

 

I actually respect you Lost, unlike the others who have their say, bitch and run; you have stood your ground...

 

All that aside, I would really like to know what you make of this story.

 

I found it to be of the utmost interest and one of many strong rebuttle's to suggest fluorination is not worth the risk; from someone who obviously knows what they are talking about, a real scientist.

 

Staaue.

[Lost Login]

I would say that it is ten years old and that many on the anti fluoridation debate have argued that their is no "proof" that fluoridation is effective. Or what research that there is in effect is flawed despite their being plenty of evidence available from the millions who have had fluoride in their water for years to back it up. The weight of the evidence in favour of Fluoridation working is much greater that their are any risks. This seems to be accepted by even those who argue Fluoridation might not be safe, yet they discount the reports in favour of fluoridation but accept those against. To me there is no consistency there.

 

To me the evidencethat fluoridation works appears strong in that generally their is less decay in Fluoridated areas. This is based on the number of fillings and extractions in applicable areas. That is not to argue that it is the whole and sole reason for better and improving dental hygene which again appears to be one of the anti arguements. i.e they argue as their have been improvements in non fluoridation areas this proves improvement in dental hygene is not down to fluoridation. Nonsenese it just proves that fluoridation is not the whole and sole reason if fluoridation is one of the reasons for the decline in decay.

 

The arguments for non fluoridatiion appear to be on grounds that it is wrong to add a chemical to the water supply purely for the good of our health. That is an argument I understand has merit. Secondly there are questions of is it safe? Well I see no evidence of people suffering in huge numbers in areas where it has been fluoridated for 50 years so I struggle to with this claim that it is not known if it is safe when it appears to have been perefectly safe for millions for fifty years.

 

The two specific problems I see mentioned are mottling of teeth which many dentists say is not a problem that they see and I have a sympathy for this view as I have to admit I have never been struck when staying or visiting a fluoridated area that people have mottled teeth. In addition if there was a problem is that worse than the sight of a mouth of rotting or missing teeth? I do not pass an opinion only ask the question.

 

The second concern appears to be whether it casues an increae in hip fractures. Again there is no proof that it does purely that in boys in some areas where there is fluoridation their is a higher incidence. It could be fluoridation, it could equally be something else but if and until they discover the reason it could be virtually anything and currently the majority scientific view it is not fluoridation and those reports that say it is have not stood up to scrutiny. Again I am inclined to go with as nobody who believes there might be a link to fluoridation has explained why it is boys rather than girls who show this effect and why this effect is only in cetain places and not universal. Surely if it was a consequence of fluoridation it would be universal across everywhere water has been fluoridated and it is not.

 

There is little in the way of science in the above, just general comments that presently the majority scientific evidence, what I have experienced and some logic does not match the the cliams that it is unsafe etc. Equally although I have seen some of these claims I have not generally seen explanations to back up the claims.

 

That is what I currently wait for and in the meantime as I said before I wil now treat this as a dead discussion on which I will post no more, or if I do it will only be to point out that I am posting any more on the topic

 

All that aside, I would really like to know what you make of this story.

 

I found it to be of the utmost interest and one of many strong rebuttle's to suggest fluorination is not worth the risk; from someone who obviously knows what they are talking about, a real scientist.

 

Staaue.

[ballaughbiker]

Its hardly a scientific report with with evidence from results of controlled tests and double blind trials is it? I don't really think the author could be described as a scientist either. This is just a collection of opinions and uncorroborated evidence from a dentist who exact remit is questionable.

 

I have read much of this 'report' before on TF. I recognise parts of it in saveourwater's opinions and that's all this is, opinions. Why is dental fluorosis apparently rempant in Wellington NZ and not in Birmingham UK? How many people have you seen with mottled teeth? I've seen a few in half a century and it is far from unclear that 'artificial' fluoride was the cause. However if they did live in Birmingham the antis could say aha, fluoride has got to be the cause! That is not science.

 

I admit to being an anti but not on the evidence in this or any other report. I just don't think it is right to put this in the water resulting in denial of choice. However I should be lying if I didn't admit that I wished it had been in my drinking water in the 50s. If it had, I would not have a mouthful of fancy and possibly quite toxic metals. Had it not been for the NHS, I should certainly have a mouthful of porous acrylic instead(dentures).

 

It is an interesting and well honed technique of any anti group to try to dilute or dismiss the benefits of any course of action and this opportunity has not been forgotten these antis either. There is overwhelming evidence that the dental heath of the population in fluoride areas is significantly (yes significantly) better. The people with the worst teeth benefit the most. If that's little children having a gas mask forced on them two or three times before they are 10, and that could be avoided, then it should be. If you've got good teeth, I am very happy for you but that's not good reason to deny that possibility to others who really need it, is it? One of my visits to the dentist cost over £2k for one tooth alone and I should have very happily avoided that. Dental disease can cost the health services and the patients an absolute fortune over a lifetime never mind the pain, inconvenience and fear, the vast majority of which could be avoided. These are the reasons I should like my/my family's water fluoridated to 1ppm but I agree that this should not be forced on my neighbours. It's true that dental health has improved dramatically over the last 50 years but it is far from becoming a minor problem as intimated in some of these reports!

 

A final thought, I wonder if there are any vociferous antis here that have little to do with the Island apart from this issue. In other words could there be a group of anti-fluoride flying pickets travelling the world? I haven't a clue but I should like to know. I have no evidence whatsoever to make me wonder this, but it doesn't stop me from wondering.

[saveourwater]

A final thought, I wonder if there are any vociferous antis here that have little to do with the Island apart from this issue. In other words could there be a group of anti-fluoride flying pickets travelling the world? I haven't a clue but I should like to know. I have no evidence whatsoever to make me wonder this, but it doesn't stop me from wondering.

 

Not that I am aware of. Our group are Manx based. We invited Dr Paul Connett to the Island to speak at the first public meeting back in May, initially because DHSS were to attend and would be bringing over their own 'expert' speaker. Dr Connett was not paid for this, he gave his services free of charge as he was already in the UK speaking at other locations. Dr Connett is co-founder of the Fluoride Action Network, a worldwide coalition calling for the end to artificial water fluoridation.

 

At the end of the meeting Quintin Gill MHK invited Dr Connett to return to the Island in November in order to make an address to Tynwald, he has again offered his services free of charge.

 

Liz Vaughan - Information Officer of UK Councils Against Fluoridation and Doug Cross - Toxicologist, and Forensic Ecologist have visited the Island twice now to assist in our campaign from their base in Cumbria.

 

The vast majority of the work done so far in our campaign has been carried out by our locally based members.