Brainwash Mouthwash?

[thebees]

Oh dear. Ah well.

[VinnieK]

There is no evidence of measurable, repeatable ill effects.

There is no evidence of it being safe either.

 

That's a very flawed response: it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to prove that something is safe in absolute terms - only relative categories of risk (with the lowest being a lack of evidence of injury of illness) exist.

 

I have to say, the fluoride research journal looks a bit iffy. For a start, I can find little mention of it anywhere other than on anti-fluoride websites, and a journal dedicated solely to fluoride seems a little dodgy anyway - how many journals dedicated to just copper or zinc are there? In any case, surely any serious results on fluoride and its addition to the water supply would be submitted to the big medical and toxicology journals.

 

It's an entirely unscientific criticism I know, but then I'm not a toxicologist or a doctor and so I'm bound to place my faith mainly in the findings contained in the more reputable and well known scholarly journals, which doesn't seem to include fluoride research.

[Skeddan]

VinnieK - I share some of your concerns and those of Chinahand in this respect.

 

However...

 

A journal dedicated to Fluoride research does not strike me as that iffy. There are thousands of small specialist independent scientific journals that are highly focussed and have good editorial boards etc. as this seems to. (e.g. a journal on Laterality which is also hard to find and does not show up in online electronic sources like PsyInfo or Medline).

 

Most of the results and studies are not earth-shattering stuff, and a dedicated journal is the place you would expect to find them.

 

Second I note the credentials of those associated with ISFR, e.g Prof Ming-Ho Yu.Author of Environmental Toxicology: Biological and Health Effects of Pollutants. His credentials seems pretty darn solid to me, and I wouldn't suggest he would be associated with quack hysterical mob in this way.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~ietc/CV%20Yu.html

 

Also the journal is cited in a World Health Organisation publication ‘Fluoride in Drinking-water’ (Fawell et al.)

 

I find it hard to accept that the research studies they publish from academics in reputable univesities are unfounded. The design and methodology appears in order. The results and conclusions arrived at tend to be dry academic and conservative (rather than polemical, sensationalist and ‘poisonmongering’). It would be outrageous if these were committing fraud by falsifying data. If that is what Quackwatch are claiming, then presumably this allegation has some foundation – i.e. failure to replicate in other studies, and evidence of deliberate falsification. If that were the case, I would expect Quackwatch would set this out very plainly to expose this fraud – which they do not.

 

While should tread with caution the listing in 'quackwatch' raises issues over the accusation - they provide no foundation for this, and I can only assume they accuse the journal as being quack and unscientific for raising any issue over fluoride since according to them:

 

"fluoridation's safety is established beyond scientific doubt"

 

"All adverse claims and accusations which had the slightest plausibility have been scrupulously investigated by scientists and government officials and have been found to be baseless. But nothing seems to keep the more determined opponents from repeating old accusations and making new ones."

 

Looking into quackwatch, I find a lot of what they say on fluoride to be highly suspect - dare I say it - unscientific 'quack'.

 

VinnieK, Chinahand - I think we all go with evidence, proper analysis of benefits, risks, ethics etc. It's a bugger when phoney's muddy waters and obviously this topic is rife with that. I have a question over ISFR, but a bigger one over quackwatch and other pro F groups - as well as some antis.

 

IMO ethical considerations and precautionary principle are first and foremost. Safety must be established convincingly - which it has not yet been and benefits must be such as to outweigh any theoretical risk (and IMO mere fact F crosses blood brain barrier, is enzyme inhibitor, and accumulates over time poses theoretical risk).

 

Yes it is hard to prove anything is safe. e.g. Ibuprofen - where safety concerns arise over time. Point is that precautionary principle should apply - if it is possible to achieve outcomes by means that are known to be safe (dental services, education etc.) then is the risk justified given the ethical considerations, potential hazzard, and economic cost. To assert F is safe beyond scientific doubt is to distort that model.

[Chinahand]

When ever I find papers in reputable scientific journals I find the same thing - the scaremongering is NOT supported by evidence.

 

Check out the British Dental Journal a part of the Nature stable of publications:

 

Safety of water fluoridation

 

 

The question of the safety of water fluoridation has been investigated time and time again by a variety of national and international commissions, most notably in recent times by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination in 2000 (the York Review)5. This was a Systematic Review - which means that all relevant studies in all languages and in all publications were searched for and critically evaluated using validated guidelines. Over 3,000 studies relevant to dental and general effects of water fluoridation on humans were identified. York's main conclusion was that there was no clear evidence of any adverse effect from water fluoridation other than staining of enamel (dental fluorosis).

 

The York Review has been followed up in the United Kingdom by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in 2004. The MRC's view is that there is very little cause for concern on any potential general health issue in relation to water fluoridation. In Ireland, the York Review was reviewed by the Forum on Fluoridation, which also interviewed some of the key personnel involved in the systematic review. The Forum drew similar conclusions to those of the York team.

 

Allegations have been made that water fluoridation is linked to almost every conceivable condition known to medicine - and some conditions beyond. The range of allegations covers such diverse items as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, effects on salmon spawning, and even increasing crime rates in American cities. The fact that none of these have so far been found to have any substance should not be surprising; there are populations that have been drinking naturally fluoridated water at around 1ppm for centuries for whom no obvious adverse effects have been demonstrated. Recent studies have supported the proposition that there is no chemical or biological difference between naturally and artificially fluoridated water.

 

The above brought the Medical Research Council research from 2004 to my attention for the first time - Skeddan I disagree with you that these studies are out of date!

 

This further analysis again found no evidence of cancer risk - or any other serious health problem.

 

This included further large studies examining 125,000 incident cancers and 2.3 million deaths with follow-up for up to 35 years of fluoridation.

 

It also showed that the York report was over conservative in its assessment of fluorosis risk - which as I've posted previously the York review showed was not a significant problem at 1.0 ppm.

[Skeddan]

The above brought the Medical Research Council research from 2004 to my attention for the first time

This further analysis again found no evidence of cancer risk - or any other serious health problem.

 

Chinahand - to clarify this analysis does not find "no evidence of cancer risk - or any other serious health problem"

 

I accept that it found no association with bone fractures and bone development problems, no clear association between F and incidence of cancer.

 

However it does not say anything about autoimmune disorders, effect on brain, autism, kidney damage, sterility, or a dozen other health issues.

 

What the MRC report says is:

 

3.5. Twenty-nine included studies examined the relationship between bone fractures and other bone development problems and water fluoridation. No association was found.

3.6. Twenty-six included studies examined the relationship between water fluoridation and cancers. No clear association was found between water fluoridation and incidence of or mortality from bone cancers, thyroid cancer or all cancers.

3.7. The authors noted that 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. Any future research into the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with appropriate research methods to improve the quality of the existing evidence base.

 

(my highlighting).

 

What you posted from British Dental Journal looks to me like an 'advertorial supplement' (i.e. not a peer reviewed paper) - but I may be wrong - can you clarify if this is the case.

 

Anyway, what this says is:

 

York's main conclusion was that there was no clear evidence of any adverse effect from water fluoridation

 

Where does York say this? This strikes me as an extrapolation which is misleading to the unwary - perhaps deliberately.

 

Create some new exotic designer drug. There is no scientific evidence of it having any adverse effect. Well if there hasn't been any study, that's a fairly safe bet. Does that make you confident it's safe? Of course it does - there's no evidence of any harmful effect! Err...

 

What the MRC report is saying is that there ought to be high quality research in to the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation, and this should be carried out with appropriate research methods. Does that give you confidence that as quackwatch says: "fluoridation's safety is established beyond scientific doubt"? Chinahand, I think you know better - it is evidently wrong to suggest such a conclusion can be drawn.

 

The sleight of hand is saying 'no evidence of any harmful effect' - lack of evidence doesn't give any assurance unless you know that there have been extensive and comprehensive studies using proper research methodology by independent reputable experts. MRC is clearly and expressly saying there has not been.

 

I'd think the high quality research on safety using appropriate methods should be done before it is introduced into the public water supply. You seem to want to say that to suggest that is 'scaremongering' - have I understood you right??

[VinnieK]

A journal dedicated to Fluoride research does not strike me as that iffy. There are thousands of small specialist independent scientific journals that are highly focussed and have good editorial boards etc. as this seems to. (e.g. a journal on Laterality which is also hard to find and does not show up in online electronic sources like PsyInfo or Medline).

 

True, but fluoride is and has been an issue of public interest for decades now, and important to both the medical and government establishments - Laterality is not. Given this, there's a suprising lack of mention of either the journal, or citation of its contents.

 

Also, it has to be said that the majority of the articles and papers (and even the book reviews) published in fluoride research are overwhealmingly negative and present fluoride as unambiguously dangerous. This raises questions: many surveys and studies have been done that conclude such fears and perceived dangers are unfounded and their lack of inclusion in a supposedly specialist and serious peer reviewed journal such as Fluoride Research smacks of bias and agenda. Indeed, Burgstahler himself strongly hints at his own bias in one of his book reviews:

 

"Increasingly, former advocates of water fluoridation are thinking for themselves rather than blindly accepting the views of so-called “prestigious” authorities and organizations."

 

Burgstahler has made up his mind - the authorities are wrong, and those who support fluoridation (which surely includes fellow academics) are guilty of "blindly accepting" their views.

 

I find it hard to accept that the research studies they publish from academics in reputable univesities are unfounded.

 

I don't. It's sadly the case that whenever a public controversy erupts, there are plenty of academics only too happy to start making a name for themselves via bitchslapping "the establishment". Take the global warming debate - plenty of academics in entirely largely or entirely unrelated fields (engineers, economists, astronomers, etc.) decided to come up with all kinds of vaguely convincing crap (flawed surveys of data, superficial analysis of trends that happily ignore the devil lurking in the details, etc) and think themselves capable of doing a climate scientist's job.

 

The design and methodology appears in order.

 

I'm not sure it is, at least not in relation to the claims and position taken by the journal. Take for example the paper "DECREASED INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN EXPOSED TO FLUORIDE AND ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER". The study in question takes a sample of 155 pre-interviewed children from rural areas from central Mexico, applies a particular measure of IQ (thus incorporating into their study all the attendant concerns about the reliability and usefulness of IQ tests) using a particular index regarding how socio-economic background influences IQ, and extrapolates a perceived statistical trend to the entire population of Mexico (and, as suggested in the title of the study, the world).

 

Now the design and methodology of the experiment are indeed fine, and the academics in question certainly aren't guilty of fraud; the problem is that the result is actually quite weak and of questionable usefulness (indeed, the study is in part called into question by the results of a previous study by the same authors, who acknowledge in the above paper that a sample taken from San Luis Potosi showed no effect of fluoride and arsenic on IQ scores).

 

What fluorideresearch seems to excell at is taking a lot of little studies that suggest this or that, and present them as if taken together they make one strong argument, which isn't how it works: what is needed is a series of big, solid studies (not simply ones based on passive observation) and large scale surveys.

[Skeddan]

VinnieK, you make good sound points about this.

 

Re the studies, the one's I had in mind were dosage dependent effects of F in rats. i.e. Lab studies. where a bit more rigour and less confounds that the one you critique (very soundly).

 

I agree about the Journal having an implicit position in this. That seems to be very much the case in the debate. 'Paradigm' and challenge to paradigm comes to mind.

 

Overall there IS reason to be sceptical about this journal - indeed sceptical about most literature on the topic.

 

YES what is needed is good solid studies. I couldn't agree more. Until then I am frankly wavering and cannot come to any clear and conclusive view on possible adverse effects - other than that until studied there might be such effects.

 

What is downside of not introducing wF? Possibly slightly higher cost to have same level of prevention of caries. (however there will be capital cost of wF and ongoing cost). What is downside of introducing wF - possibly finding out it has harmful effects in long term. We don't know if that will happen with wF or not or how damaging it might be if it did. Given current quality and state of research the whole topic is iffy and I'd think precautionary principle should prevail. That goes hand in hand with ethical considerations IMO.

 

BTW, from the brief look I've had, some of the more sober anti views are being put here:

http://www.appgaf.org.uk

[Fossils]

Having read many of the impressively reasoned arguments in this thread both for and against fluoridation, I have drawn the conclusion that:

 

Fluoridation may have some advantages, but it may have many very serious disadvantages.

 

There is considerable doubt, so leave it out.

 

I can see no reason for introducing fluoridation unless those in favour of it have an undeclared financial interest. Many medical/health disasters have occurred in similar circumstances.

[Skeddan]

Fluoridation may have some advantages, but it may have many very serious disadvantages.

 

There is considerable doubt, so leave it out.

 

I can see no reason for introducing fluoridation unless those in favour of it have an undeclared financial interest. Many medical/health disasters have occurred in similar circumstances.

Fossils - IMO that's a very nice succinct summary. However it makes no mention of the ethics - the discussion over safety is just one dimension to the issue of wF. Subjecting people to a treatment without their informed consent is IMO a no-no regardless of what one thinks about whether it is safe or not.

[ballaughbiker]

Subjecting people to a treatment without their informed consent is IMO a no-no regardless of what one thinks about whether it is safe or not.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself although it's highly debatable what treatment means. I personally don't regard it as a treatment or a drug but my objection arises as there is no choice. If you want to avoid, say, aspartame for whatever reason, you have a choice not to buy products with it in. It would not be practical to avoid fluoride in the water if that's what you wanted to do.

[nipper]

Never forget that 'they' wanted to just go ahead and flouridate our water without any consultation to us mongies whatsoever.

 

What-so-fucken-ever.

[Declan]

Why are people still going on about this?

 

This is symptomatic of the crappy Brown government. They have sunk so low that they are holding a year long public consultation on this trivial matter. We pay their wages, to make decisions and run the island so we don't have to. But they have to make a minor administration decision and they come groveling to us "oh lackaday! what shall we do!" and a legion of moronic tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists crawl out of their Ramsey homes to bombard us with fictional paranoia quasi-facts and hysteria. When this should have been a simple matter for the government to decide -

 

Chief medical doctor - Can we add flouride to the water?

 

Minister - why?

 

Chief medical doctor - umm err less tooth decay?

 

Minster - No.

 

Unless they come up with a half decent reason to add chemicals to everybody's water supply, why waste everybody's time with this pathetic and irrelevant discussion. They must have known this would unleash a tidal wave of bullshit from the Ramsey nutcases, and it is the Government's duty not to issue an open invitation to them to rant gibberish for a year trying to stop something that never should have been started in the first place.

[nipper]

Chief medical doctor - Can we add flouride to the water?

 

Minister - why?

 

Chief medical doctor - umm err less tooth decay?

 

Minster - No.

 

The point being is that the minister said words to the effect of "Aye, go ahead fucken do it pal, I haven't got a clue but you do because you are a Doctor so it must be ok."

[simmo]

I guess thats the joy of living in a Democracy.

If you disagree with the decisions or recommendations of any Government or `Expert`,

you instantly become a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut.

 

The trouble with the Flouride issue is, it is not a cut and dried case.

If you have absolute trust in our great leaders then I guess its not an issue for you.

 

Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives. This is because 1) some people (e.g. manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink more water than others, and 2) we receive fluoride from sources other than the water supply. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water , fluoridated dental products , mechanically deboned meat , teas , and pesticide residues on food .

What kind of physician in his right mind would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay?

 

Mock the people who question the sanity of this move.

[Skeddan]

Why are people still going on about this?

...

a legion of moronic tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists crawl out of their Ramsey homes to bombard us with fictional paranoia quasi-facts and hysteria.

....

Declan could you clarify your view on this. It seems as if you might be saying that there is no sound rational case & human rights considerations which can be made to argue against wF, and anyone against wF is a tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorist etc.? (But sparing people from such rants is good enough (rational?) reason to be against proposing wF??)

 

(However I note you say - "something that never should have been started in the first place." - are you saying it shouldn't have been started because it would unleash tinfoilers or because IYO there are (other) sound reasons against wF?)

 

BTW, apart from 'precautionary principle' and ethics issues, there is in addition a basic economic question mark over wF for IoM. Given IoM has pop. of approx 80,000, consider:

 

In 1998 the University of York Health

Economics Consortium undertook a further,

detailed, examination of the costs and benefits

of water fluoridation and concluded:

‘In areas where the average number of decayed,

missing or filled teeth per child (dmft) is

2.0 or more (and especially if there are

districts where it is greater than 2.6), and

where the local water treatment works serve

populations of at least 200,000 people, the

benefits of water fluoridation are likely to be

significantly greater than the costs.’ [15]

 

(My bold and italics). Source: http://www.bfsweb.org/One%20in%20a%20million/11%20cost.pdf (p.1)

 

Doesn't this raise a question? Or is this question over economic benefit of wF in IoM being tinfoil hatted?

 

Presumably there has been a full economic analysis of wF for IoM. (assuming this isn't just a 'me too' initiative which may prove wastefully uneconomic). If there is such an analysis, it would be very interesting to see this if it is in the public domain (and not 'secret' and unavailable due to lack of FOI and transparency in such matters.). Maybe not having to bother with such analysis is the joy of living in a flawed democracy? .