Brainwash Mouthwash?

[Albert Tatlock]

Whats next forced seditives in school meals to keep kids in order.

[Skeddan]

I think at the end of the day the issue is not concerning the benifits or downfalls of fluoridation but the fact of should people be forced to accept chemical additives against their will in drinking water. whats next forced seditives in school meals to keep kids in order.

Not quite. Rather than sedatives its more likely to be forcing stimulants like Ritalin to keep kids in order - possibly to treat the problems created by water fluoridation. Maybe just put the methylphenidate in the water supply along with the fluoride

 

But I agree - the ethical issue is the overriding one. It is not being done to treat a life threatening plague for which there is no alternative way of addressing. If it was a medical or scientific experiment it wouldn't get past an ethics committee. That consideration alone should be sufficient.

[ade]

Just to throw my tuppence into the ring.

 

I live in the Isle of Man, therefore I tend to heed the advice of health professionals who are based and work here.

 

Here is some advice I picked up from 2 such professionals.

 

* A piece in Manx Tails recently by Dr Kishore stated that the effects for flouridation in our water supply would be beneficial.

 

* At a periodic check up on our 4 month old and regarding the onset of teething, the nurse recommended and provided us with a tube of adult toothpaste (with flouride), stating that because of the lack of flouridation in the water supply, we should use said toothpaste when the teeth start to come through.

 

 

Now I will admit that I haven't read through the back issues of flourideresearch, and most of my time is spent enjoying life rather than scouring the internet for damning evidence, but as a bog standard member of the public, why shouldn't I put my trust in the people who have been put in charge of researching and recommending the healthiest way to live?

[oogie boogie]

forget drinking water. Fizzy Vimto is well better for you

[Skeddan]

AT - schools coercing parents to have their children on medication does happen all too often. Often these are the real bright gifted kids from lower socio-economics who don't fit into the one-size-fits-all schooling. It's a real issue which can be devastating on the children and their parents and no laughing matter. Using psychoactive medication for shoehorning kids into an education system that does not accommodate the normal psychological differences of a minority is a real human rights issue. It's like making a joke that giving ECT treatment to homosexuals is 'Bright Ideas'.

[Albert Tatlock]

Just to throw my tuppence into the ring.

 

I live in the Isle of Man, therefore I tend to heed the advice of health professionals who are based and work here.

The simplest solution IMO would be to offer flouride filters to the probable handful of people that will reject this. You can get decent ones for £60, so even if 500 houses opted for a filter (I don't think it will be that high) it would cost £30K, plus 3 or 4 months for a couple of guys to go around fitting them (probably cost less buying a few in bulk). A survey would identify the likely true costs.

 

Opt-outers would then have to replace their own cartridges after the first time they needed replacing (average probably £50 a year) - given that it is likely to be a government decision to push flouride - an instant/fair compromise IMO. We have to pay for water, and it costs money to put flouride in the water as well as take it out so everyone will be paying more anyway. I like compromise, but if you want to opt out and the government aren't willing to chip into that compromise - you can always buy your own filter.

[jimbms]

Just to throw my tuppence into the ring.

 

I live in the Isle of Man, therefore I tend to heed the advice of health professionals who are based and work here.

I bet you also believe the cheques in the post, I love you and I promise I wont c.....lets stop there

 

The simplest solution IMO would be to offer flouride filters to the probable handful of people that will reject this. You can get decent ones for £60, so even if 500 houses opted for a filter (I don't think it will be that high) it would cost £30K, plus 3 or 4 months for a couple of guys to go around fitting them (probably cost less buying a few in bulk). A survey would identify the likely true costs.

 

Opt-outers would then have to replace their own cartridges after the first time they needed replacing (average probably £50 a year) - given that it is likely to be a government decision to push flouride - an instant/fair compromise IMO. We have to pay for water, and it costs money to put flouride in the water as well as take it out so everyone will be paying more anyway. I like compromise, but if you want to opt out and the government aren't willing to chip into that compromise - you can always buy your own filter.

 

Why not the other way let the ones who want it have a flouride pack and add it when needed and the ones who dont require forced chemical infusion omit it

[Fossils]

whats next forced seditives in school meals to keep kids in order.

What a useful suggestion.

 

[Albert Tatlock]

Why not the other way let the ones who want it have a flouride pack and add it when needed and the ones who dont require forced chemical infusion omit it

Because at least 95% will 'accept it', the majority apathetic about it I suspect - so it will be cheaper for people to have to opt-out not opt-in. Politicians and 'civil' servants rely on apathy these days - because it works time after time.

[Skeddan]

as a bog standard member of the public, why shouldn't I put my trust in the people who have been put in charge of researching and recommending the healthiest way to live?

You should be able to put your trust in them. But, in case you are interested, here are some extracts from a recent paper which they might not have read at the time they told you. This is largely non-technical summary in an editorial. This isn't the best and there's a great deal more, but it gives something of an 'evidence based perspective'.

 

What is noteworthy is the discussion of ‘availability creep’ in public health policy - that is being seen to be dealing with the problem - leading perhaps to low cost high profile solutions of marginal effectiveness over what may be more effective ones – i.e. better dental education and better access to dental services.

 

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/404/files/...n4_p229-237.pdf

 

++++

Paradigms and Public Health Policy Versus Evidence.

...

 

[benefits]

 

The concept that ingestion (swallowing) of fluoride is not required to help

prevent tooth decay is difficult to change even though the alleged benefits can be

shown to be insignificant. A 1986–87 survey by the US National Institute for

Dental Research (NIDR) of 39,207 US schoolchildren, ages 5–17, showed a

decline in caries prevalence in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas compared

to previous surveys. Analysis of these data by Brunelle and Carlos of the NIDR in

1990 showed a “benefit” of 17.7%, amounting to less than half of one tooth

surface.11 This figure is significantly lower than the 35% less decay quoted as a

“benefit” in the report from the Council on Health Promotion. An independent

review of the same NIDR data revealed there was no statistically significant

difference in caries prevalence in fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and

nonfluoridated populations.

 

Since the 1960s, World Health Organization (WHO) data have shown a decline

in tooth decay in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated countries. These data do not

support fluoridation as being the reason for the decline. The most recent analysis

by Neurath demonstrates this conclusion.13 His study is based on data for 12-yearolds

residing in the year 2000 in 16 nonfluoridated and 8 fluoridated countries.

….

A significant decrease in dental caries after suspension of

water fluoridation has been recorded in Japan, the Netherlands, Prague, and the

former German Democratic Republic.15

 

There is, therefore, an evidence base sufficient to demonstrate that the systemic

use of fluoride (water fluoridation) is not effective in preventing dental caries. The

existing paradigm must give way to an alternative. Attention needs to be placed on

dental education, nutrition, avoidance of acid beverages and sugar, supervised

tooth brushing, and better access to dental services.

 

[safety]

 

It is the prevalent view that approximately 50 percent of ingested fluoride is

retained in the body, primarily in the skeletal system but also in other tissues,

including the pineal gland. Fluoride has been shown to be a potent enzyme

inhibitor and to interfere with DNA repair. Therefore, it is possible that adverse

effects are ubiquitous and can, theoretically, involve all functions in the body,

including the endocrine and the immune systems.

 

…

The real problem is the possible effect of regularly ingesting relatively

low amounts of fluoride over a lifetime.

 

…

 

The 2006 NRC report reviews studies of the endocrine system. There is

evidence of a relationship between fluoride intake and thyroid dysfunction. Other

relationships supported by evidence involve impaired glucose tolerance leading to

type II diabetes and impeded sexual maturity. Studies of the effects of fluoride on

the brain, especially in conjunction with aluminum, are reviewed along with other

adverse effects

[Paradigm]

Many public health policy issues and their paradigms invite questioning with

regard to the evidence that supports them. Recently, for example, Tom Jefferson,

coordinator of the Cochrane Vaccines Field study, has analyzed policy versus

evidence for influenza vaccination.27 Jefferson discovered that “the large gaps

between policy and what the data tell us (when rigorously assembled and

evaluated) are surprising”. He introduces the concept of “availability creep.” In

their efforts to deal with, or be seen to deal with problems, policy makers favor

intervention with what is available: in this case, registered influenza vaccines.

 

++++++++++++++++++

[Skeddan]

Why not the other way let the ones who want it have a flouride pack and add it when needed and the ones who dont require forced chemical infusion omit it

The research seems to show that fluoride is most effective when applied topically (e.g. toothpaste) and not when ingested in water (which is where there is primary risk of bio-accumulation). People can buy fluoride toothpaste if they want to, and can brush three or four times a day.

 

What is accepted is that fluoride should be avoided by infants and pregnant women. Will you have fluoride filters for them? What about in cafes and restaurants etc. will they be able to avoid fluoridated water?

 

As I gather the dental problem being addressed is the limited one - i.e. one or two thousand people - mainly children who could be assisted by dental care services. Rather than spend this extra, it seems those in favour of fluoridation are prepared to take risk of major public health problems of the kind currently encountered in US - e.g. autism, ADHD, diabetes, auto-immune disorders, sterility, behavioural problems, etc. etc.

 

Some people might insist that Russian Roulette should not be considered unsafe unless you can prove there is actually a bullet in the chamber. I favour towards the precautionary approach, especially when benefits are minimal and risks potentially devastating.

[Lost Login]

You should be able to put your trust in them. But, in case you are interested, here are some extracts from a recent paper which they might not have read at the time they told you. This is largely non-technical summary in an editorial. This isn't the best and there's a great deal more, but it gives something of an 'evidence based perspective'.

 

What is noteworthy is the discussion of ‘availability creep’ in public health policy - that is being seen to be dealing with the problem - leading perhaps to low cost high profile solutions of marginal effectiveness over what may be more effective ones – i.e. better dental education and better access to dental services.

 

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/404/files/...n4_p229-237.pdf

 

I know you have cut and pasted bits but I started to read the whole text and I noted that it starts by stating that the editor of the Btitish Columbia Medical Journals, which I understand is an impartial medical journal refused to post on the grounds

 

“Your initial foray into the world of premise writing was quite encouraging. However, after an interesting first few pages your focus drifted back to fluoridation and never seemed to make it back to paradigm debunking. … I have no problem with the premise that we all need to look closely at many of our long-held non-evidence-based clinical/scientific paradigm if there is good evidence denouncing [them]. However, in the same breath I have to emphasize that printing what at times appears patronizing and potentially libellous personal opinion is not the

way to do it.”

 

It is pleasing that the magazine you have copied this from have been honest enough to print that and it is always good that us laypeople can have a chance to make up our own mines. But I am that lay person and if an independent respected medical journal believes the article was not fit for purpose then I am going to go with that opinion and not really go any further.

 

In this and other debates I am always reminded of a some lines from Yes Minister when Jim Hackers asks somelung like "Why do you experts think you are always right?" to which the reply is "Why do you thing that the more inexpert you are the more likely you are to be right"

[Albert Tatlock]

"An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until eventually he knows everything about nothing.”

[Lost Login]

What is accepted is that fluoride should be avoided by infants and pregnant women.

 

Hang on but I appear to have missed these warnings if they relate to fluoridated water. Can you advise me where I can find this advise. My kids and wife generally drink water and milk, the kids do not like fizzy drinks, so it is quite important to me

[Lost Login]

"An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until eventually he knows everything about nothing.”

 

As opposed to somebody who knows nothing about everything?