Brainwash Mouthwash?

[Skeddan]

Yes I had reticence over the opinion feature too, but it gave a quick summation and I thought the point on paradigms and public health interesting. Like other scientific jouranls the rest of the journal has studies which are objective in nature and abstracts, reviews etc. and has a good editorial board.

 

I tried to pick out the bits from the opinion paper which were supported in studies and to give an overall intro. Really you should look at the independent research studies. In any event the material there is a lot more grounded than one generally finds in the debate.

 

After citing the rejection you quote, the journal's editor states:

 

Readers can judge for themselves whether what Dr Foulkes wrote was “patronizing and

potentially libellous personal opinion” or whether it was backed up with solid scientific

evidence. If it was “potentially libellous” as Dr Wilson contends, perhaps he would be willing

to present his documentation for that view?

 

That journal is also an impartial one - so have to look further at the citations and look into the studies and research cited.

[Skeddan]

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

This crops up in various places - including if I remember an NIH report. ADA also issued the following which can be found here.

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/57490.php

 

Other than infants I'd be concerned with children having long term ingestion (particularly boys). Have a look over some of the articles in the journal linked to.

 

Meanwhile there are plenty of things can do for dental health that do not require fluoride in water. I wouldn't rule out using fluoride toothpaste either - topical application IS effective, whereas ingestion is only minimally effective. (and can lead to false sense of security - hence perhaps partially explaining improvements in dental health after discontinuing fluoridation, and anecdotal increase of dental problems arising where there is fluoridation (see opinion piece).

[Chinahand]

I haven't time to read all the details, but whenever I read things like the article Skeddan posted I get skeptical.

 

Of course fluoride at certain levels is a health problem - large efforts have been made to understand where that level is, as large populations unfortunately have no choice but to live in and drink the water from areas where water naturally contains high levels of fluoride. The costs of providing water containing less fluoride have to be examined compared to the costs of the health problems prevelent.

 

The parts Skeddan has highlighted talking about ill effects, I believe, refers to doses well above the 100 ppm levels used in artificial fluoridation, though I haven't had the time to confirm this.

 

I believe this is similar to posting scientific articles about the damage done to livers of alcoholics and then saying don't touch the sherry before Sunday lunch.

 

I can already predict the posts about the precautionary principle - but that is I feel seriously over blown. The Isle of Man is not some unique place where we should be ignoring the evidence from the millions of people who have drunk fluorinated water for many many decades.

 

At 100 ppm there is, as far as I have been able to discover, no evidence of any increase of ill effects, compared to regions with 0-10 ppm (and that includes fluorosis, the most minor, but still unsightly side effect). People can jump up and down that I am over caveating my statements, but that is where the debate should be framed.

 

I fully understand that the increased use of fluoride toothpaste has lessened the need for fluoridation - but the operative word is lessened: the Island would still need thousands fewer fillings per year if we fluorinated. Plus there is the sad fact that certain socio-economic groups do not take advantage oral health care including the use of fluoride toothpaste.

 

The health message to scrub your teeth, use fluoride toothpaste has been made for decades now, and it is not getting through in certain areas.

 

A solution is to fluorinate - I am honestly neutral in this - I will use fluoride, my kids will take tablets. But I believe there are no measurable ill effects, and many scientists have spent their careers trying to measure those ill effects. And so why should I veto a measure which will help 1000's of kids and will have no effect on me.

 

I find the people who say "oh if they fluorinate the next stage will be compulsory medicating with mood controllers" or whatever, simply moronic. It is dishonest, simplistic and scare mongering; which sums up the majority of the anti-fluoridation mobs efforts.

[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

This crops up in various places - including if I remember an NIH report. ADA also issued the following which can be found here.

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/57490.php

 

That does not mention pregnant women and only says that in respect of babies who are bottle fed "Recent studies have raised the possibility that infants could receive higher than optimal amounts of fluoride through liquid concentrate or powdered baby formula that has been mixed with tap water, and thus become more susceptible to enamel fluorosis. While more research is needed before definitive recommendations can be made on fluoride intake by bottle-fed infants, the American Dental Association (ADA) has issued this interim guidance for parents and other caregivers who are understandably cautious about what is best for their children".

 

It also says "A proper amount of fluoride is essential to help prevent tooth decay. But fluoride intake above optimal levels creates a risk for enamel (dental) fluorosis, which affects teeth during the development stage before emerging through the gums. Enamel fluorosis is not a disease but affects the way teeth look. Most cases of fluorosis result in faint white lines or streaks on tooth enamel that are not readily apparent to the affected individual or the casual observer."

 

That does not day fluordie shoulde be avoided infants and pregnant women which is what you posted!. I can also post to many sites which say therre are no harmful effects eg. Net Doctor which contradicts again you statement that it is generally accepted.

 

 

 

Other than infants I'd be concerned with children having long term ingestion (particularly boys). Have a look over some of the articles in the journal linked to.

 

I have looked at the articles you have linked to and many others but there appears to be no definite scientific concensous on this

 

 

Meanwhile there are plenty of things can do for dental health that do not require fluoride in water. I wouldn't rule out using fluoride toothpaste either - topical application IS effective, whereas ingestion is only minimally effective. (and can lead to false sense of security - hence perhaps partially explaining improvements in dental health after discontinuing fluoridation, and anecdotal increase of dental problems arising where there is fluoridation (see opinion piece).

 

Yes there many things that can be done, by education, diet, oral hygiene but in the main the message is not being followed by the general public. They like fizzy drinks, sugary sweets etc. From what I have read I believe that fluoridation of the water would assist general health care and the down sides in trms of health are minimal.

 

That does not mean I believe other measures should not be encouraged or that fluoride should not be given in some other way e.g. milk or salt if at all or that there are not ethical questions about it being added to a water supply which should overide the potential health benefits of adding it. But I accept the science and overwhelming expert opinion on the effects and safety.

[manxblue]

Don't understand this flouridation thing thats going on at the moment. I can only speak from personal experience : My daughter (10 years old ) had her 6 month check-up today and given a clean bill of health !.

 

She has had a check-up at the dentist since she was 4 years old and has always had a clean bill of health.

 

She drinks fizzy drinks, eats crisps and chocolates as most kids do, but SHE BRUSHES HER TEETH BEFORE BED AND BEFORE GOING TO SCHOOL !.

 

There you go, no need for flouridation in my opinion, just good health care.

 

As for me, well, I'm a toothless git, but I grew up eating raw turnips and potatoes in my dads fields !!!.

[Skeddan]

Chinahand –

 

At 100 ppm there is, as far as I have been able to discover, no evidence of any increase of ill effects, compared to regions with 0-10 ppm (and that includes fluorosis, the most minor, but still unsightly side effect). People can jump up and down that I am over caveating my statements, but that is where the debate should be framed.

I agree about the dosage being relevant. Lab studies generally look at high dosage over short time rather than low dosage with accumulation over years. I agree about need to consider effects of same dosage – IMO you are not over caveating.

 

It is something I also looked to when reading studies. Generally they are higher concentrations and I haven’t seen much compelling empirical evidence from studies which conclusively establishes harmful effects (other than accumulation in parts of the brain such as pineal gland).

I believe this is similar to posting scientific articles about the damage done to livers of alcoholics and then saying don't touch the sherry before Sunday lunch.

 

Can you provide any evidence that the dosage effect is non-continuous as you suggest in your analogy with sherry and liver damage? (Is this just as assumption without any evidence to support it?). Most studies I’ve seen show a dosage-dependent effect – i.e. a correlation between dose and effect, so the more the greater the effect, and even a little has an effect – it is possible as little as would be introduced in water fluoridation could have an effect.

 

Here the analogy might be with cigarettes – each one does you harm, and the tar and damage to lungs gets progressively worse. The difference is the effect can also be on parts of the brain which are really quite sensitive.

 

I can already predict the posts about the precautionary principle

I already made it clear that my objection was on the basis of precautionary principle.

 

The Isle of Man is not some unique place where we should be ignoring the evidence from the millions of people who have drunk fluorinated water for many many decades.

Like the USA where they have had a huge and as yet unaccounted for explosion in autism, ADHD, sterility, auto-immune disorders, and kidney problems in the past 40 years or so – roughly corresponding to the time when water fluoridation was introduced there.

 

This is circumstantial. But with lab studies and theory (e.g. we know it crosses blood brain barrier, can cause DNA damage, etc. etc. there is a genuine real possibility this might have harmful effects which have not been examined in studies). There is a need for more research to assess. Until then its safety is unproven.

 

Potentially it could turn out to be a public health disaster. Against that the benefits of water fluoridation vs. topical application are minimal and there are alternative ways of dealing with the problem.

the Island would still need thousands fewer fillings per year if we fluorinated

… a measure which will help 1000's of kids

Do you know how many kids and how many fillings? Water fluordiation has relatively minor effect – fluoride works best when used topically. If kids can be identified then can be addressed with individual treatment / preventative interventions. This would be much more effective that water fluoridation.

 

I wouldn’t suggest it, but if you really want you could make the kids drink fluoridated water at school to dose up their ingested levels. Better still would be to have kids brush teeth at end of each break at school (when they’ve generally snacked out), dental education in school, and dental checkups by hygenist in schools. Cost per filling saved probably would be lower – and probably would be more effective in fewer fillings and extractions.

 

You have minor benefit with potentially huge hazard. Precautionary principle is sound, otherwise you play Russian Roulette for a dime.

 

 

These are links to specific articles that I found persuasive, and I believe taken together present compelling reasons (on precautionary principle) for not fluoridating when benefits are so minimal.

 

WHAT DOES THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE MEAN FOR EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY? (abstract)

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/401/files/...n1_p069-074.pdf

 

FLUORIDE NEUROTOXICITY AND EXCITOTOXICITY/MICROGLIAL

ACTIVATION: CRITICAL NEED FOR MORE RESEARCH

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/402/files/...n2_p089-092.pdf

 

DOSE-DEPENDENT EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON NEUROCHEMICAL MILIEU

IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS AND NEOCORTEX OF RAT BRAIN

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/402/files/...n2_p101-110.pdf

 

TRANSPLACENTAL PASSAGE OF FLUORIDE IN PREGNANT POLISH

WOMEN ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF FLUORIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN

MATERNAL AND CORD BLOOD PLASMA

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/401/files/...n1_p046-050.pdf

 

EFFECTS OF HIGH FLUORIDE ON SPERM QUALITY AND

TESTICULAR HISTOLOGY IN MALE RATS

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/391/files/39117-21.pdf

 

WATER FLUORIDATION INTERVENTION: DENTISTRY’S CROWN

JEWEL OR DARK HOUR?

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/404/files/...n4_p214-221.pdf

 

Abstracts:

 

COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION AND CARIES PREVENTION: A CRITICAL

REVIEW

 

FLUOROSIS AND ITS HEMATOLOGICAL EFFECTS

 

SUPPRESSION OF MALE REPRODUCTION IN RATS AFTER EXPOSURE TO SODIUM FLUORIDE

DURING EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

 

 

FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER: A REVIEW ON THE STATUS AND STESS EFFECTS

 

DOSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRINKING WATER FLUORIDE LEVELS AND DAMAGE TO

LIVER AND KIDNEY FUNCTIONS IN CHILDREN

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/402/files/...n2_p149-154.pdf

 

 

EFFECT OF FLUORIDE ON THE SECRETION OF INSULIN IN THE RAT

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/...n3_p240-246.pdf

[Chinahand]

Like the USA where they have had a huge and as yet unaccounted for explosion in autism, ADHD, sterility, auto-immune disorders, and kidney problems in the past 40 years or so – roughly corresponding to the time when water fluoridation was introduced there.

 

This is circumstantial.

 

More than that. I'm pretty certain there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that the occurance of these conditions is confined to areas with fluoridation. I'm willing to bet quite the opposite. There is overwhelming evidence that these conditions occur generally in the weastern world without correlation to fluroide.

 

This is the advantage of fluoride research - especially at the epidemiological level - large areas and populations have fluoridation and others do not. There is no evidence of measurable, repeatable ill effects.

[Chinahand]

I am always suspicious when someone only posts links (especially on science) from a single source.

 

Fluoride: The Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research: website http://www.fluorideresearch.org.

 

Info:

 

The International Society for Fluoride Research may sound respectable, but it is actually an antifluoridation group.

 

Skeddan, I am highly sceptical of the research quality of the articles you are posting.

 

I think most people looking at the tactics being employed by the anti-fluoridation mob on the Island will recognise what this article is talking about.

 

Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You!

 

How Poisonmongers Work

The antifluoridationists' ("antis") basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that fluoridation causes cancer, heart and kidney disease, and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating them -- because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.

 

A variation of the big lie is the laundry list. List enough "evils," and even if proponents can reply to some of them, they will never be able to cover the entire list. This technique is most effective in debates, letters to the editor, and television news reports. Another variation is the simple statement that fluoridation doesn't work. Although recent studies show less difference than there used to be in decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, the benefit is still substantial. In fact, the Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills.

 

A key factor in any anti campaign is the use of printed matter. Because of this, antis are very eager to have their views printed. Scientific journals will rarely publish them, but most local newspapers are willing to express minority viewpoints regardless of whether facts support them. A few editors even welcome the controversy the antis generate -- expecting that it will increase readership.

 

The aim of anti "documents" is to create the illusion of scientific controversy. Often they quote statements that are out of date or out of context. Quotes from obscure or hard-to-locate journals are often used. Another favored tactic is to misquote a profluoridation scientist, knowing that even if the scientist protests, the reply will not reach all those who read the original misquote.

[Skeddan]

More than that. I'm pretty certain there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that the occurance of these conditions is confined to areas with fluoridation. I'm willing to bet quite the opposite.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsover that the occurrence of cancer is confined to areas with radiation leaks.

(does this therefore show radiation cannot cause cancer? or that there might be higher rates of cancer where there is radiation leak?)

 

There is overwhelming evidence that these conditions occur generally in the weastern world without correlation to fluroide.

Can you cite the relevant studies please. Not the bland generalisations of some quango report, but actual epidemiological studies with stats analysis etc.

 

There is no evidence of measurable, repeatable ill effects.

There is no evidence of it being safe either.

[Skeddan]

I am always suspicious when someone only posts links (especially on science) from a single source.

 

Fluoride: The Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research: website http://www.fluorideresearch.org.

 

Info:

 

The International Society for Fluoride Research may sound respectable, but it is actually an antifluoridation group.

 

Skeddan, I am highly sceptical of the research quality of the articles you are posting.

 

 

Hmmm - I checked editorial board names, and the research papers seemed to come from variety of sources, and be legit, and there didn't appear to be bias as with anti fluoride mob. I'd like to see the basis for the claim that it is antifluoridation group (i.e. substantiation to support that). It may be 'antifluoridation' from fact that publish evidence based research that raises concerns about fluoridation. However....

 

At the moment I don't have access to Medline or PsyInfo - so cannot cross check with reliable sources.

 

Meanwhile do you have any evidence that contradicts what has been presented in these articles? (which might show this is fraudulent and distortion of data as you suggest) Dishonest science pisses me off more than any issue I have over fluoridation. By the same token I am also highly sceptical about the British Fluoridation Soc - or whatever the main pro group is in the UK - whose corporate funding is undisclosed.

[WTF]

all you need do is brush your teeth, too many lazy people who can't be bothered to teach their kids good oral hygeine. kids will tell you they have cleaned their teeth and have just slurped a bit of tooth paste for a minty breath. there are lots of things we 'need' according to medical bods, bet we don't get it forced down our throats. they will be putting vitamins in water next and banning cars so we all have to walk for the exercise we all need? you can have 2 kids in the same house hold with the same teeth cleaning regime and one can have no fillings and the other lots, some people have a deficiency in something that can cause week teeth so no amount of brushing prevents decay, and no amount of floride would stop the decay either, but the dentist will assume you don't clean your teeth properly. the flouride in toothpaste is all that should be required ( if at all ) and that is brushed on to the teeth ( bit like polish on shoes ) there is no need for us all to be swilling down the stuff cos someone says so. many years ago babies were given a jab of vitamin K cos it was supposed to be 'necessary' according to some bod, but that practice stopped after a few years. after all, why would we be born without the abillity to survive without medical intervention in the form of injections. humanity would have been extinct years ago if we couldn't. improved diets could help so we actually get the nutrients and vitamins are bodies need naturally to look after themselves.

[jimbms]

Don't understand this flouridation thing thats going on at the moment. I can only speak from personal experience : My daughter (10 years old ) had her 6 month check-up today and given a clean bill of health !.

 

She has had a check-up at the dentist since she was 4 years old and has always had a clean bill of health.

 

She drinks fizzy drinks, eats crisps and chocolates as most kids do, but SHE BRUSHES HER TEETH BEFORE BED AND BEFORE GOING TO SCHOOL !.

 

There you go, no need for flouridation in my opinion, just good health care.

 

As for me, well, I'm a toothless git, but I grew up eating raw turnips and potatoes in my dads fields !!!.

 

QED We dont need it added in our water spend the money on oral hygiene education instead

[Albert Tatlock]

all you need do is brush your teeth, too many lazy people who can't be bothered to teach their kids good oral hygeine.

Too true - I have two grown up kids, each without a filling in their head and perfect teeth. We drummed cleaning their teeth into them when they were old enough to do it for themselves, and cleaned them for them when they were too young to reliably do it. We also made sure they never had beakers full of sugary drinks etc. - too many parents a few years ago left their kids with sugary drinks (e.g. even dilute to taste drinks) all day. That, along with insisting they eat decent food, and that sweets are treats only, is the way to go IMO. The longer it is before young kids discover and become addicted to the taste of sugar the better, and when they first drink coffee and tea in their teens get them used to the taste of it without sugar - though mine tend to keep away from tea and coffee and drink mostly water or non sugary drinks these days - or beer.

[thebees]

We will use bottled water should they force fluoride upon us and deduct the cost of it from our water rates (I will ofc, write and warn the govt of this intention first).

[Albert Tatlock]

We will use bottled water should they force fluoride upon us and deduct the cost of it from our water rates (I will ofc, write and warn the govt of this intention first).

I'm pretty sure Fluoride can be absorbed through the skin. Evian Baths will be expensive!