Fluoride

[HeliX]

3 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Fair point  however, I am making an assumption that the people of Birmingham brush their teeth at the same frequency as every other city. 

But my point is that the improvement will have been in those, primarily, who don't. The amount of beneficial fluoride you get from water will be so incredibly negligible compared to the topically applied fluoride during twice daily brushing that it'll make sod all difference to those who are brushing their teeth.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

The amount of beneficial fluoride you get from water will be so incredibly negligible compared to the topically applied fluoride during twice daily brushing 

True if you only consider the topical effects of the fluoridated water.

What about the systemic effects over a decade or three ?

[Panopticon]

Did water fluoridation clear the Council of Ministers yet?

The UK legislation (for more centralised control - implementation is subject to local (non-binding) consultations) was passed but it is unclear whether HMG's advisers cited the contraindicative references in this academics' letter:

https://www.ukfffa.org.uk/boris-johnson-letter-december-2021
- including not least: "It's worth repeating: several peer-reviewed research studies have found a link between fluoride exposure in the womb and infancy and swallowed fluoride and reduced IQ of 5-7 IQ points.  The research was robust and reproducible."

The academic authors of that submission wrote the book

"The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There" (2010),

Chapter 26: "The Promoters' Motivations" is particularly interesting.

Chlorine in water also is problematic - but when in a hole, stop digging?

 

https://www.manxradio.com/podcasts/manx-radio-update/episode/ranson-tribunal-question-sub-judice-garff-commissioners-emergency-meeting-benefits-system-going-online-homestay-closes-at-midnight-tomorrow-and-a-dentist-speaks-on-fluoride-in-our-water-its/

Thursday 13th April 2023 - from 7m:46s: a local dentist says he fully supports fluoride use in dental practice, but his personal opinion as an individual: not in favour of mass medication.
 

 

[Dirty Buggane]

Common sense, well I'll go to the foot of my stairs. And other such nonsensical sayings.

 

[Panopticon]

Update 20 June 2023:

https://www.manxradio.com/podcasts/manx-radio-update/episode/crisis-after-current-spending-tt-two-escape-prosecution-flour-mills-may-quit-laxey-future-care-costs-huge-ba-pilot-had-six-knives-and-water-fluoridation-on-agenda-its-update-with-andy-wint-io/     

From 24:06.  I had to try and transcribe it to get a handle on what the current status might be but I may have been unable to decipher in one or two places. Here in full, instead of my editorialising it by quoting only part.

"Health Minister Lawrie Hooper MHK ... I was quite surprised that just by way of example they didn't talk to any dentists; I mean if I wanted to have information about children's oral health probably [I] would like to talk to the dentists that actually deliver the service. They also really didn't talk to the Department [they] didn't take any proper oral evidence, it was a bit of a... it felt like the report had been written before they'd even bothered to take any evidence which was quite frustrating; and then when you look at the recommendations in the report a number of them were telling us to do things that were already under way and if they'd have asked the question 'are you already doing this?' the answer would have been: yes. To my mind I was quite disappointed by that committee report and I said as much to Tynwald. The next step up from what we do already is we should put fluoride in the water...[well] that's the next logical step, that's what all the evidence would suggest is the right thing to do, the public health arguments... But I think [if I tabled] an amendment to the report saying we should put fluoride in the water Tynwald would absolutely go apoplectic about it. I thought, obviously quite wrongly, that tabling an amendment that said 'let's get the evidence out there in public and have a proper informed debate about it... even that, that kind of halfway house, even that didn't get through Tynwald, because Legislative Council said no. The Keys said we should do that but Legislative Council said no thanks we don't want evidence-based policy... not all of them, there were a number of members of [LegisCo] that voted quite sensibly. So that's the challenge I've got, is: on the one hand  you have a committee or a [parliament? inaudible] and a public saying government: we need you to go out and be bold and do more; and every time you try, actually you're just dragged back again by Tynwald saying actually no we don't really want you to do that. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place really."

 

In the US, litigation has been going on for about 6 years against the Environmental Protection Agency (case of Food and Water Watch vs. EPA) in part to get fluoride banned.
This scientific report (draft) reviewing studies on the issue was ordered by the court considering the case: 
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2023/fluoride/documents_provided_bsc_wg_031523.pdf
and (tl;dr for me right now) commentary exists at https://childrenshealthdefense.org
The case is now set down for substantive hearing in iirc, 2024. That might be interesting to follow because in a full trial, expert witnesses on both sides can be formally tested by going under searching cross-examination on oath - perhaps for days...

 

[Happier diner]

5 hours ago, Panopticon said:

Update 20 June 2023:

https://www.manxradio.com/podcasts/manx-radio-update/episode/crisis-after-current-spending-tt-two-escape-prosecution-flour-mills-may-quit-laxey-future-care-costs-huge-ba-pilot-had-six-knives-and-water-fluoridation-on-agenda-its-update-with-andy-wint-io/     

From 24:06.  I had to try and transcribe it to get a handle on what the current status might be but I may have been unable to decipher in one or two places. Here in full, instead of my editorialising it by quoting only part.

"Health Minister Lawrie Hooper MHK ... I was quite surprised that just by way of example they didn't talk to any dentists; I mean if I wanted to have information about children's oral health probably [I] would like to talk to the dentists that actually deliver the service. They also really didn't talk to the Department [they] didn't take any proper oral evidence, it was a bit of a... it felt like the report had been written before they'd even bothered to take any evidence which was quite frustrating; and then when you look at the recommendations in the report a number of them were telling us to do things that were already under way and if they'd have asked the question 'are you already doing this?' the answer would have been: yes. To my mind I was quite disappointed by that committee report and I said as much to Tynwald. The next step up from what we do already is we should put fluoride in the water...[well] that's the next logical step, that's what all the evidence would suggest is the right thing to do, the public health arguments... But I think [if I tabled] an amendment to the report saying we should put fluoride in the water Tynwald would absolutely go apoplectic about it. I thought, obviously quite wrongly, that tabling an amendment that said 'let's get the evidence out there in public and have a proper informed debate about it... even that, that kind of halfway house, even that didn't get through Tynwald, because Legislative Council said no. The Keys said we should do that but Legislative Council said no thanks we don't want evidence-based policy... not all of them, there were a number of members of [LegisCo] that voted quite sensibly. So that's the challenge I've got, is: on the one hand  you have a committee or a [parliament? inaudible] and a public saying government: we need you to go out and be bold and do more; and every time you try, actually you're just dragged back again by Tynwald saying actually no we don't really want you to do that. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place really."

 

In the US, litigation has been going on for about 6 years against the Environmental Protection Agency (case of Food and Water Watch vs. EPA) in part to get fluoride banned.
This scientific report (draft) reviewing studies on the issue was ordered by the court considering the case: 
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2023/fluoride/documents_provided_bsc_wg_031523.pdf
and (tl;dr for me right now) commentary exists at https://childrenshealthdefense.org
The case is now set down for substantive hearing in iirc, 2024. That might be interesting to follow because in a full trial, expert witnesses on both sides can be formally tested by going under searching cross-examination on oath - perhaps for days...

 

Various groups have been trying to get it banned in the US for about 60 years. Without any success

[Cambon]

They got away with mass mediation due to covid. I think they fancy their chances of a second success. Flouride in water is virtually pointless, only helping the kids of a few feckless parents, at cost to the rest of the population and it’s visitors. The current quality of our water is something to be proud of. A quick taste of most tap water in the world quickly confirms this. 
The problem is, some politicians just want to be remembered as, for example, Oh, he was the one who had flouride introduced to our drinking water. When it was drinkable. So often we have politicians like this where it ends up costing the Island dearly. Some examples, IRIS, liverpool part time dock, manx care, the airport, bus station. 
The one that really gets me is the decision to allow dogs into cafes and restaurants. Horrendous decision. Apart from the hygiene aspect, one of the last times I went out for lunch, there were two groups of dogs barking at each other, wjich ended ip in a short dog fight. Everyone apart from the dog owners was appalled. The restaurant has since closed down, and I cannot help but think that situations like this caused people to stop going. 
Either way, I am very much against fluoridation, and very much for education. Flouride does very little compared to good oral hygiene. Educate the kids. Educate the parents too! 

[ADELE]

I am very much against fluoridation but have never seen a dog fight in any eating establishment just a lot of well behaved dogs, I would rather sit at the next table to people with a dog than a load of badly behaved children any day of the week.

[Happier diner]

21 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Educate the kids. Educate the parents too! 

And educate those bloody fighting dogs.

[Roxanne]

26 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

And educate those bloody fighting dogs.

It's not the dogs. It's the owners.

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

It's not the dogs. It's the owners.

What the owners were fighting as well. Disgraceful. 

I was kidding btw😁

[Panopticon]

Update amplifying the verbal summary above:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-66000795
"Public Health considers impact of putting fluoride in Manx water"

"...The public health directorate will now prepare a research paper, which will be considered by the Council of Ministers by December 2023. . . . The report and any conclusions and recommendations is due to be placed on the Tynwald register in February next year. ..."

Does anyone have any information on which sources of expert testimony the public health directorate will be consulting for its report?  Regardless, I hope it will not disregard the academics' report to UK Government (above) at
https://www.ukfffa.org.uk/boris-johnson-letter-december-2021

Given the US case is going to full trial next year, it might in fact be wise for government to defer any decision till the case outcome (based on cross-examined expert testimony) is known.
 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

2 hours ago, Panopticon said:

Update amplifying the verbal summary above:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-66000795
"Public Health considers impact of putting fluoride in Manx water"

"...The public health directorate will now prepare a research paper, which will be considered by the Council of Ministers by December 2023. . . . The report and any conclusions and recommendations is due to be placed on the Tynwald register in February next year. ..."

Does anyone have any information on which sources of expert testimony the public health directorate will be consulting for its report?  Regardless, I hope it will not disregard the academics' report to UK Government (above) at
https://www.ukfffa.org.uk/boris-johnson-letter-december-2021

Given the US case is going to full trial next year, it might in fact be wise for government to defer any decision till the case outcome (based on cross-examined expert testimony) is known.
 

Have you checked who you're citing?

You can read about Prof Connett here: https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Connett_Can-You-Trust.pdf

Of course, you should know about biased sources, Director of the fluoride action network may introduce some of that bias.

[Panopticon]

Thanks for referring me to the "fluoride action network" where I see there is an interesting excerpt from the book at 

https://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/proponent_claims.pdf

"25. A Response to Pro-Fluoridation Claims"
which everyone following this thread might want to read.

The pdf issued in 2013 by iLikeMyTeeth.org you linked to disappoints - it does not cite facts which could have served to rebase opinions, but comprises just generalised ad hominems. Professor John Spencer's remark at the end might have been insightful had it said in what respect and to what degree the alleged "misinterpretation" had occurred. Did Connett ever reply to these generalisations and appeals to authority? Regardless, the claims are insubstantial because:

1. the book was co-authored by Connett, Beck and Micklem, whose biographies may be found on pp357-358. They are all heavyweight doctorates in relevant sciences from premier universities. Nothing to the contrary being visible to me, they can be assumed to be jointly responsible for the content, but no hit piece has been levelled against the latter two - unless you can find one.

2. Page 287 of the book has a url
http://fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride.refs.html
which seems dead now but it is in wayback machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101215203953/http://fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride.refs.html

which gives the book's sources (as well as their being laid out in the book itself). A rough count indicates there are over 1,200 references and even assuming some will have been cited more than once, it is odd that no critique based on sampled errors of methodology or interpretation has been cited.

For an example of data suppression however, here is a good example which seems fairly typical of the genre:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_ULik20Bc
"California's Dental Director Buried Data Linking Fluoridated Water to IQ Deficits"
2023-06-19 
The greater point of interest here is because it notes recent further studies on adverse effects of fluoride on IQ.

In addition to the Connett/Beck/Micklem book, there are other materials, e.g.

Christopher Bryson - The Fluoride Deception (2006). 
ISBN 1-58322-526-9, Seven Stories Press, NY.
374 pages, well over 650 notes. 

John Yiamouyiannis PhD - Fluoride / The Aging Factor: How to Recognize and Avoid the Devastating Effects of Fluoride (1983). 
ISBN 9780913571002, Health Action Press, Delaware, OH.
210 pages and the Appendix containing references is pp165-198. Unlike with Connett/Beck/Micklem these are not serially numbered but the flyleaf states "Hundreds of references to the original scientific papers are presented to document the statements made".

Government policy on this issue seems to be premised on the notion that the health of teeth can somehow be viewed as separate from that of the rest of the body and can be addressed in isolation. To the contrary: see the above books but in particular, Yiamouyiannis. 
Dentist Weston A. Price MS., D.D.S. in "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" (1939) had some informative findings on dental health and degenerative disease which he concluded resulted from "modern" diet. See for example the photoplates and commentary in Chapter 4: "Isolated and modernized Gaelics":

https://archive.org/details/price-nutrition-and-physical-degeneration/page/44/mode/2up
(A) Figure 5 "The basic foods of these islanders are fish and oat products with a little barley. Minimal caries."
(page 45)

- compare and contrast with

https://archive.org/details/price-nutrition-and-physical-degeneration/page/50/mode/2up
(B) Figure 6. "Above: brothers, Isle of Harris. The younger at left uses modern food and has rampant tooth decay. Brother at right uses native food and has excellent teeth. Note narrowed face and arch of younger brother. Below: typical rampant tooth decay, modernized Gaelic. Right: typical excellent teeth of primitive Gaelic."
(page 50)

 

[genericUserName]

I am opposed to the government putting flouride in water.

Unfortunately however - much of the anti-flouride lobby come across as being fairly similar in tone, presentation and outlook to the anti-vaxxers. Which does not help.