Pages

Translate

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Fluoride Increases Blood-Lead-Levels in Children, Studies Show

A new study reports that children who drink typically-fluoridated tap water have higher blood-lead levels (BLL) than children, who drink bottled water, according to dental researchers Sanders and Slade (American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Nov 2017). 

While this wonky study is flawed, several previous studies link fluoridation chemicals to higher BLL; others link blood-lead to more tooth decay.

We're not sure if Sanders and Slade are protecting dentistry's sacred cow, fluoride, instead of America's children and future, when they oddly put tooth decay on the same level with brain damaging lead. 

Without knowing the fluoride content of any of the water consumed by their test subjects, they imply that tap water drinkers have less tooth decay and the reason is the presumed fluoride content of tap water. They hint that parents might need to choose between damaging their children’s brains with lead or save their teeth with fluoride.

No!  Cavities can be fixed but lead poisoning is irreversible.

Further, good diet and dental care can prevent cavities without exposure to fluoride’s adverse drug effects. For instance, vitamin D deficiency is linked to more tooth decay

But lead is a brain-damaging poison that can cause life-threatening diseases without any safe level (American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Environmental Health).

Even low blood-lead-levels are linked to lower IQ, according to the CDC

The three artificial water fluoridation additives are fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate (both silicofluorides) and sodium fluoride (CDC)  All can contain contain lead when added to public water supplies. 

Masters and Coplan (Neurotoxicology 2000) reported a link between fluoridation chemicals (silicofluorides) and children’s lead absorption.

A CDC study (Macek) attempted but failed to dispute Masters and Coplan’s findings. Macek’s research also revealed that  fluorosilicic acid was associated with an elevated risk for high blood-lead-levels, according to the  Fluoride Action Network (FAN). Macek decided the findings weren't significant except among children living in houses of unknown age who had a 530% increased risk for high-blood-levels, reports FAN

A re-analysis of Macek's data, after placing children exposed to fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate in one group (silicofluorides) and all others in another, Coplan et al. found that the children exposed to silicofluoridated water had a significantly elevated risk of having high blood lead levels. 

Coplan explained to this writer that, since silicofluorides don’t come apart totally in water, a breakdown product may enhance the uptake of lead  into children’s blood – lead that’s already in the environment (not necessarily in the water). Sodium fluoride completely comes apart in water.

An Environmental Health Perspectives 2002 study, supports Masters and Coplan’s findings. Children in the silicofluoridated  Boston area have more tooth decay and higher blood lead levels than children in non-fluoridated Farmington, Maine. 

Lead is linked to more tooth decay

Several studies link blood lead levels, even low amounts, to higher rates of tooth decay. (BMC Oral Health Jan 2017Caries Research 2015Journal of the American Medical Association 1999 ; Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2013 & 2017; Vojnosanit Pregled 2013 )

In fact, “Associations between childhood lead exposures and dental caries in children have been reported for over 30 years,” according to Science of the Total Environment (2007)

Children’s teeth with a high lead and high fluoride content had significantly more cavities than teeth with less lead and fluoride (Journal of Dental Research 1977).

Fluoride Can Increase the Uptake & Toxicity of Lead 

Rats exposed to lead and sodium fluoride accumulates higher lead concentrations in their blood than rats only exposed to lead, according to NIH government researchers in 1976.

Lead intensifies fluoride’s teeth damaging effects causing a greater incidence and severity of dental fluorosis. (Leite 2011) 

Exposure to lead exacerbates dental fluorosis. (Arch Oral Biology) 


In fact, there's some evidence that fluoride caues cavities.

“Despite significant financial, training, and program investments, US children’s caries experience and inequities continued to increase over the last 20 years.” American Journal of Public Health 2017). This after  72 years of fluoridation, reaching 2/3 of Americans, promising to substantially reduce tooth decay, especially in poor children.

65% of poor 6-8 year-olds and 12-15 year-olds have cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, respectively. 
 
“The prevalence of pediatric caries in the United States has remained consistent for the past 3 decades,” reports Dye. 
 
"… there has been little improvement in preventing caries initiation," said Dye.

Perhaps Sanders and Slade are protecting organized dentistry or just can't believe  the obvious. Fluoride is harming America’s children and America’s future.  Fluoridation must be halted right now!


It’s up to every individual to urge legislators and water departments to stop adding this unnecessary, health-robbing, ineffective and money-wasting chemical, fluoride, into your bodies via the water supply.  If you don’t, nothing will change.  It’s time to speak truth to power and see the dominoes fall just as the powerful predators are being taken down by courageous women in the workplace.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Is Fluoride in Water Good or Bad, by Susannah Shmurak

Most Americans drink fluoridated water. Is that a good thing? by Susannah Shmurak

Research raises new questions about whether fluoridation’s benefits outweigh its risks. 

If you’re like many Americans, you drink fluoridated water without questioning its safety or efficacy. For decades municipalities have been adding fluoride to water supplies to reduce the incidence of tooth decay at the advice of numerous highly credentialed entities, including the World Health Organization, the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

But in late 2016, a coalition of activist groups — Food and Water Watch, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Fluoride Action Network, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, the Organic Consumers Association, and Moms Against Fluoridation — together with private citizens from around the United States petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the addition of fluoride to water supplies, citing research pointing to health risks linked to exposure to fluoride.

What exactly are the benefits of fluoridating municipal water supplies? What are the risks? And how does a conscientious society balance the two? These questions are finding new urgency as a growing body of research calls into question its safety. 

Fluoride’s Benefits

The practice of adding fluoride to drinking water began in the 1940s after dentists observed that children living in communities with naturally high levels of fluoride had fewer cavities than those who didn’t. Several communities began adding fluoride to municipal water supplies as a public health measure to lessen the prevalence of dental decay. Studies revealed that cavity rates in those communities were lower than in comparison communities that did not fluoridate, and increasing numbers of municipalities decided to fluoridate in ensuing decades. Rates of dental decay continued to drop. Today, more than 200 million Americans live in communities with fluoridated water. (Most, but not all, major U.S. cities fluoridate.)

However, some argue that other factors during this period, such as advances in dental care and widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste, are likely behind these declines. In fact, European countries that never fluoridated have seen very similar drops in cavity rates

Howard Pollick, professor at the University of California, San Francisco School of Dentistry and spokesperson on fluoridation for the American Dental Association, says it has become “harder and harder to separate the benefit of water fluoridation in light of the use of fluoride products” such as toothpaste and fluoride varnishes. Designing a study that can tell us with certainty that fluoridated water confers benefits above and beyond what we derive from other sources of fluoride and dental care like sealants, he says, is “very difficult.”

In an effort to quantify the benefits of fluoridating water, the Iowa Fluoride Study has followed 570 participants from infancy to young adulthood. Researchers have found that children living in communities that fluoridate their water don’t have statistically significantly fewer cavities than those in unfluoridated communities. 

Steven Levy, who directs the study, says that the demographics of study participants, who report brushing regularly and receiving consistent dental care, likely affect results. For those who lack access to fluoridated dental products and preventive dental care, Levy speculates that fluoridated water’s impact on dental health may be considerably greater. In fact, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that fluoridated water reduces cavities by 25 percent which includes low-income populations who Levy says generally have much higher rates of tooth decay. Critics point out that this reduction amounts to perhaps one cavity per person and argue that these benefits to teeth — minimal for those who brush regularly with fluoride toothpaste and see a dentist regularly — must be weighed against the risks to other parts of the body.

Potential for Harm?

The EPA in February 2017 denied the 2016 petition on the grounds that it lacked “scientifically defensible” proof of neurotoxic harm caused by fluoridated water. But Kathleen Thiessen, senior scientist at Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis who has three decades experience assessing fluoride’s risk, maintains that the agency dismissed many high-quality studies. Further, Thiessen says the sheer number of studies, despite their limitations, requires taking the possibility of harm from fluoride more seriously. And Harvard adjunct professor of environmental health Philippe Grandjean, who has spent his career investigating the effects of environmental pollutants on children’s development, says evidence suggesting fluoride’s potential for harm warrants reconsidering its addition to drinking water.
Indeed, over the past two decades, numerous studies have begun to challenge assumptions about the safety of ingesting fluoride.

2014 paper on developmental neurotoxins Grandjean and colleague Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York published in The Lancet included fluoride in a list of chemicals with developmental neurotoxic effects. In 2012 Grandjean worked on a systematic review of studies from China showing lower IQ in areas with naturally high levels of fluoride. Though these studies had some design issues, Grandjean contends that when more than 20 discrete studies point to a similar effect, they should receive serious consideration rather than be dismissed for their limitations. If anything, he says, the imprecision in these studies likely “led to an underestimation of the effects” of fluoride on neurodevelopment. 

study published in Environmental Health Perspectives in September 2017 sought to address the shortcomings of previous studies. Looking at nearly 300 mother-child pairs, researchers  analyzed samples of pregnant mothers’ urine archived in the Mexican Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) project. The study measured maternal urinary fluoride and cognitive performance in children and found significantly lower cognitive performance in children whose mothers had higher levels of fluoride. Howard Hu, founding dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto and co-author of the study, says that results may underpredict the relationship between fluoride and IQ.

Research currently underway aims to clarify the relationship between fluoridated water and urinary concentrations of fluoride. ADA’s Pollick has reviewed studies on fluoride’s health effects and says that the dental community has taken them into consideration. He reports that at present “the evidence points to its being safe” and notes that we lack information about urinary levels in Americans. 

Research currently underway aims to clarify the relationship between fluoridated water and urinary concentrations of fluoride. The Canadian “Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals” (MIREC) study is examining urinary fluoride levels of women during pregnancy and subsequent behavior of their children. The MIREC study took samples from 1,960 pregnant women in 10 Canadian cities, half of which fluoridate drinking water. Preliminary findings suggest urine levels in women from fluoridated communities in the Canadian study are comparable to those found in the Mexico research, according to study director Christine Till, associate professor of clinical neuropsychology at Toronto’s York University.

Linda Birnbaum, director of the U.S. National Toxicology Program, oversaw a 2016 review of animal studies on fluoride that she says determined the available evidence inconclusive. The NTP is currently reviewing human epidemiological data, including the recent ELEMENT study. Its findings, says Birnbaum, help confirm conclusions drawn from the Chinese studies on fluoride and IQ and show that smaller increases in fluoride concentrations are associated with impaired cognitive performance. While she calls it “an important study,” she also notes that it requires replication.
Researchers face numerous difficulties, Birnbaum says, including quantifying how much fluoride people ingest, since “it’s everywhere now,” including in prepared foods and beverages, such as soup, soda and coffee  made with water sourced from fluoridated community water supplies that reach people living in communities without fluoridated water. Since everyone is likely consuming some fluoride, finding a comparison group that doesn’t is nearly impossible. What additional research will hopefully help us do, says Birnbaum, is “understand differential susceptibility — are there some people because of genetics or past history who are more sensitive [to fluoride] than others?”

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is another area of scrutiny. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is another area of scrutiny. A study published in Environmental Health in 2015 found that every 1 percent increase in the prevalence of water fluoridation in 1992 was associated with 67,000–131,000 additional cases of ADHD between 2003 and 2011. Till, who co-authored the study, says that such observational studies cannot prove causation. She and other researchers are using the Mexican ELEMENT and Canadian MIREC study data to better understand possible relationships between fluoride exposure and ADHD.

Because fluoride can interfere with absorption of iodine and affect thyroid function, some research has looked into the possible links between drinking fluoridated water and the prevalence of thyroid disorders. A 2015 study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health looking at the association between drinking water fluoride and hypothyroidism in two regions of the United Kingdom found the prevalence of hypothyroidism prevalence was almost two times higher in the fluoridated area as in the unfluoridated one. Critics have challenged the study design and argued that other confounding factors should have been accounted for. A 2017 Canadian report using data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) found no association between fluoride exposure and incidence of reported thyroid disorders in fluoridated communities. Other research has found some correlation between fluoride exposure and elevated or lowered levels of different thyroid hormones.

Burden of Proof

The coalition that petitioned the EPA in 2016 has since filed a complaint with the U.S. district court in northern California calling for a new review of the evidence. If the court decides that water fluoridation indeed poses an “unreasonable risk” of harm, it can require the EPA to ban the addition of fluoride to drinking water supplies. The EPA has filed a motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs have requested a trial they expect to take place in 2018.

Challenging the status quo on chemical safety has become increasingly difficult, says Bruce Lanphear, a public health researcher at Simon Fraser University whose work focuses on disease and disability prevention. The evidence required to alter policy, he says, has risen dramatically in the last several decades, thanks in part to powerful industry lobbies.
Lanphear urges public health officials to reconsider long-held assumptions as science yields results that call them into question. Lanphear urges public health officials to reconsider long-held assumptions as science yields results that call them into question. Scientists used to believe there was a safe threshold of exposure for virtually all chemicals. In the case of compounds such as lead and benzene, Lanphear says, “the evidence suggests that assumption is no longer valid,” with “proportionately greater harms at lower levels” of exposure. Further, he explains, our bodies are “bombarded” by a huge range of chemicals that may collectively predispose us to greater risk of disease. While each individual toxicant may have a limited impact on health, when combined they could greatly increase the risk of negative health effects.

At present, many focused on preventing tooth decay are not persuaded of fluoride’s health risks, while fluoridation opponents argue sufficient evidence exists of fluoride’s negative effects on the body that far outweigh its marginal benefit to teeth. As research on fluoride continues to clarify its biological effects and litigation pushes government to reconsider policy, governing bodies, communities, and individuals may find themselves grappling anew with how to weigh the potential benefits of fluoride with its possible harms to human health. View Ensia homepage
 Editor’s note: Susannah Shmurak produced this feature as a participant in the Ensia Mentor Program.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure Lowers Babies’ Intelligence, Study Shows

Pregnant women’s urine fluoride levels are linked to lower intelligence in their offspring, according to a US government-sponsored study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (September 2017), and at levels commonly found in US adults.

Fluoridation lobbyists cavalierly dismissed this study because it was conducted on women from Mexico which makes it irrelevant to the US, they claim.  However, urine fluoride levels in healthy US adults in US fluoridated areas are similar and is a measure of one's total fluoride intake from all sources. 

The lead researcher, Dr. Howard Hu, also disagrees with their assessment. He is quoted in the media as saying “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the US, seems disingenuous.”

Most US water suppliers add unnecessary fluoride chemicals into public water supplies in a failed attempt to reduce tooth decay for political not scientific reasons.

Hu says the study “also suggests that the prenatal nervous system may be more sensitive to fluoride compared to that of school-aged children.”

This new careful investigation, by respected researchers from respected institutions and published in a respected peer-reviewed journal, adds to a frightening trend.  Over 300  studies  now link fluoride to neurotoxic effects – 50 of them human – over 20 at fluoride levels allowed in US water supplies. Taken together, with this new study added, the evidence is now very strong that fluoride exposures common in the USA is causing IQ loss in at least some children.

A New Zealand study (Broadbent, et al) is often touted as proof fluoride is not neurotoxic.  However, that study showed no difference in total fluoride intake between children in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas since most of the children in nonfluoridated areas were given fluoride supplements.


According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), “The loss of IQ is very large.  The child of a mother who was drinking 1 ppm fluoride water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points lower than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero fluoride in it… Such a drop of IQ in the whole population would half the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and double the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).”

The researchers adjusted for a wide range of other factors including lead, mercury, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy.


Urine fluoride is a good indicator of total fluoride intake from all sources. When drinking water is the dominant source of fluoride, urine fluoride and water fluoride are usually about the same So, the average urine fluoride level in this study of 0.9 mg/L implies that women were ingesting the same amount of fluoride as women drinking water with 0.9 mg/L fluoride, according to FAN.

Up until 2011, government agencies advised artificially fluoridating water up to 1.2 mg/L.  Because of the growing dental fluorosis epidemic, they revised it downward to 0.7 mg/L.  But it’s just a recommendation. Not all water suppliers comply. Also, many US communities are served naturally fluoridated water up to 4 mg/L.

Fluoridated water is not the only fluoride source that adds to the bodies total fluoride burden.  Virtually all foods and beverages have some fluoride. Fluoride is absorbed into the bloodstream from topical application of fluoridated dental products and is a component of air pollution.

Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health  said to Newsweek: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water. These new insights raise concerns that the prenatal period may be highly vulnerable and may require additional reconsideration.” 


Fluoridation lobbyists, such as the American Dental Association, the American Fluoridation Society and the Children’s Dental Health Project (sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics) erroneous claim that
Mexican mothers had fluoride exposures higher than found in the USA and therefore the study isn’t applicable to American women.  They fail to understand the urine levels come from a mix of sources.  What’s relevant is that the fluoride levels found in Mexican mothers urine is similar to that found in Americans regardless of the sources of exposure.

After fluoride gets into the body and can be measured in the urine, as was done in this study, it is immaterial what the original source of that fluoride is.  The fluoride may have come from fluoridated water, fluoridated salt, swallowed toothpaste, fluoride supplements,  dental office fluoride treatments and/or air pollution.  Once fluoride  is ingested or absorbed into the bloodstream, it is all the same in terms of toxic effects on the fetus.  The developing brain in the fetus can't tell which source the fluoride came from.

This study was performed by respected leading researchers in environmental neurotoxins.  It was funded by $3 million in grants from the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
. It was published in the premier journal for environmental health after undergoing peer-review. 

Understandably, this study cuts to the heart of the dental profession's support of fluoride to combat dental decay.  But rather than a knee-jerk reaction to deny the importance of this study in the interests of teeth, perhaps dentists should take a more holistic perspective and consider the entire child, including his cognitive development.  How many IQ points loss would you consider is worth one cavity prevented???
 



                             END FLUORIDATION


Sunday, August 13, 2017

Dentists Responsible for Tooth Decay Epidemic?


After 72 years of fluoridation, reaching 2/3 of Americans, promising to substantially reduce tooth decay, especially in poor children, the American Journal of Public Health (2017) reports
“Despite significant financial, training, and program investments, US children’s caries experience and inequities continued to increase over the last 20 years.”
 
Children are fluoride-overdosed while oral-health-disparities between poor and non-poor increase. “America's shockingly poor dental care system,” is profiled in the Yakima Herald.

The silent oral-health epidemic, declared in 2000 by US Surgeon General David Satcher, persists today, he says.

For example: 2001 statistics show that tooth decay doubled after fluoridation was mandated in Kentucky in 1977
in 2016, cavities in Kentucky children increased again despite more oral health education, dental visits, sealants,
fluoride varnish and supplements on top of water fluoridation as the below graphic depicts.


By avoiding the real problem - lack of dentists who care to treat poor people - has organized dentistry created this dental health epidemic the US faces today?

Fluoridation, an outdated 1945 concept, predicted only 10% would suffer mild dental fluorosis (white-flecked teeth). However, 58% of adolescents are now afflicted - some with more severe fluorosis (stained, pitted teeth) without benefit of less tooth decay.  Dentists are profiting from covering dental fluorosis.

65% of poor 6-8 year-olds and 12-15 year-olds have cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, respectively.

Dye reports: “The prevalence of pediatric caries in the United States has remained consistent for the past 3 decades.” 
"… there has been little improvement in preventing caries initiation," said Dye.


Is organized dentistry, leading fluoridation promoters, to blame?  They wrote in December 2016, 

"the ADA will need to increase efforts in communities not only where fluoridation is challenged but increase efforts to assist members in identifying and initiating fluoridation efforts in those communities where fluoridation might be successfully implemented." (This link has been removed from public view after this was published.) 

80% of dentists refuse government-sponsored dental insurance (i.e. Medicaid and CHIP)  They prefer to treat the water of but not the teeth of low-income folks.  Fluoridation gives the illusion that organized dentistry cares about the poor folks who aren't welcomed in their dental chairs.

Legislators are often intimidated by fluoridation-promoting dentists who threaten to unseat them if they vote against fluoridation as happened in Pinellas County, Florida.  Too many legislators prefer to keep their jobs than protect their constituents.

Organized dentistry is possibly protecting its political viability by supporting fluoridation. But are the American people protected? Researchers report fluoridation safety doubts persist

Some say to follow the money.  In fact,  organized dentistry misinformed and manipulated California legislators to mandate fluoridation in 1995 . And they continue to thwart  perceived threats to their lucrative monopoly as occurred when  the Massachusetts' Governor attempted to legalize Dental Therapists in the state but was dropped due to strong opposition by dentists.
 
Reason Magazine reports “The over-the-top intimidation tactics of the ADA [American Dental Association] and its shiny-toothed shock troops,” contributed to high healthcare costs. A lawmaker is quoted as saying “I put their power right up there with the NRA.” 

The Washington Post (“The unexpected political power of dentists”) quoted a Harvard dentist comparing the ADA to ISIS.

In July 2017, a California newspaper reports the "Dental lobby prevails again in Legislature," by blocking legislation intending to save children's lives.


Free once-a-year “pop-up” dental clinics “fail to relieve the suffering of marginalized people but also can produce it,” according to a dissertation by Raskin. 

Raskin explains extractions are routine and “incentivized” instead of preventive or restorative care. Dentist volunteerism declined; patients are turned away.

Organized dentistry has priced low-income Americans out of dental care but spent millions of dollars unsuccessfully trying to thwart Dental Therapists from working in rural Alaska where dentists refused to work or live and where people were pulling out their own teeth.  They claimed patients would get substandard care; but 11 years later reports show Dental Therapists are successful.  For example:

-- more children and adults received preventive care

-- Fewer children under age 3 had extractions of the front four teeth
-- Fewer adults ages 18 and older had  tooth extractions


In 2008, the New York Times profiled the political clout of the New York State Dental Association.

July 2017, the New York Post reported that that NYS Dentist PAC donated $4M to political campaigns in 2010 and “the mint from the dentist’s chair has paid off – the trade group has blocked legislation in the statehouse that could spur competition and hurt business.”

Evidence that fluoridation failed New York State is here and here

.People need to take back their water systems from special interest groups.

Despite growing evidence that fluoridation is a failed concept, the American Dental Association and its constituent groups are aggressively pursing increased fluoridation throughout the nation without discerning or caring that our children are already fluoride overdosed.. Are they serving the public or the political viability of organized dentistry?


  
                                             END FLUORIDATION
 

Monday, July 17, 2017

Stop Fluoridation: It's Ineffective & Harmful, Say Chilean Researchers

Water and milk fluoridation haven't reduced tooth decay but is potentially harmful, report researchers from Chile (Medical Journal of ChileFebruary 2017,Translated with Google Translate). They recommend the government of Chile change its laws to stop adding fluoride chemicals into drinking water and milk in all regions of the country.

They show how fluoride intake can cause bone, thyroid, neurological and skin damage without reducing tooth decay. For example, they explain that, in the 1950s, fluoride was used to depress or reduce overactive thyroid glands (hyperthyroid) at doses which corresponds to the doses in drinking water of some fluoridated areas.(between 2 and 5 mg per Liter per day)

So it's not surprising that a recent study found a link between fluoridation and hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid)

Unnecessary fluoride chemicals are added to public water supplies, in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers. Many theories which gave birth to fluoridation in the early 1900's have been scientifically disproved making fluoridation a waste of money and a detriment to health.

The Chilean researchers report, “The fluoridation of drinking water does not significantly impact on caries prevention... effectiveness is rather a topical and non-systemic effect, as demonstrated by countries that do not fluoridate drinking water, and do not use milk or fluoride salts," yet have similar decay rates.

The research team based their analysis on a review of irrefutable scientific studies which included control of confounding variables.

They report that, according to WHO data, between 1970 and 2013, a decrease in 12-year-old's tooth decay occurred and at the same rate whether a country fluoridated its water or not. The same holds true for countries that fluoridate drinking water vs countries that do not fluoridate drinking water or salt.

Many European countries that have substantially decreased dental decay have never had massive fluoridation programs for milk and milk products (and/or drinking water).

"Therefore, fluoridation of drinking water and salts have no incidence at all in reducing dental [decay]," they conclude. 

About 3 million Chilean children consume fluoridated milk, diluted with water that naturally has at least 0.3 mg/L of fluoride. Considering consumption of at least  3 glasses of milk a day (200 ml), the intake of fluoride would be 2.59-3.6 mg/day which is above any international recommendation, they report.

"...the fluoridation of milk has no relevance in reducing dental decay. In addition children who have received fluoride salts are at increase risk of developing not only dental fluorosis [discolored teeth], but diseases such as those described in this review," they write.

This isn't the first review to expose the fluoridation boondoggle.

The respected UK-based Cochrane group of researchers could not find any quality evidence to prove fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” Neither could they find valid evidence that fluoride reduces adults’ cavity rates nor that fluoridation cessation increases tooth decay.

"Peckham and Awofeso concluded that the evidence suggests that fluoride has the potential to generate health problems, while it only has a discrete effect on the prevention of dental caries," the Chilean research team reports.

Three expert committees (NRCSCHERYORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, report Israeli  researchers,  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz  ( Journal of Risk Research, August 2016) 

“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016).

In July 2012, Cagetti, et al, reported "Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs...these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable."

Even respected dental researchers have reported in dental textbooks that fluoridation is based more on unproven theories than scientific evidence.


                                    END FLUORIDATION