Being criminally naive, I ask if, instead of fluoridation of our water it wouldn't be better (and perhaps cheaper) to reduce the amount of sugar in food and drinks, for kids and adults? That might even reduce obesity ...
When it comes to human behavior (and specifically, trying to persuade people to do or not do things), addition is a lot, lot, lot easier than subtraction.
There are lots of efforts to curb sweets, to be honest, though. In the U.S. there are many cities that tax soft drinks, for instance. I'm not sure about the approach but the adherents claim it has some effectiveness. It seems to me that the issue is that the forces that want people to consume are much stronger than the forces that might suggest there is something else to life.
You only have to go back a few decades and we had people called "parents" who could educate children and limit their supplies to unhealthy foods. These days, it appears that many of these "parents" expect the government to do their job for them. How well has that worked out?
well, here in the UK a certain former PM - Tony Blair, you might have heard of him - started suggesting a tax in sugar. It came to nothing, but successive governments always bring it to the table. Now that we have yet another extreme-far-hard left Labour government, ready to squeeze out as much tax money from us as they can, I think this 'tax on sugar' might reappear. It remains to be seen if the fluoride-in-water lobby will be stronger than the tax-on-sugar lobby ... We the people won't get asked, we'll be told ...
So here we have a good example of a population wide intervention introduced before the absence of significant toxicity has been established in randomized controlled trials.
It seems we agree pharma should try to show this before a new product is marketed, but governments don't need to conduct such trials before population wide implementation.
This is hard for me to understand the reason for this double standard. It should be for advocates to show a lack of toxicity of a new intervention, not opponents to show this exists.
Osteosarcoma is a rare malignant bone tumour, commonly occurring in the age group of 10 to 24 years. In one study of such cases the serum, and drinking water, fluoride levels were higher in patients with osteosarcoma as compared to controls (_P_ > 0.05, _P_ > 0.001, respectively), so it is difficult for Public Health England to claim there is no evidence of such an association.
In my opinion, while the jury is still out, we should be cautious.
The points raised here remind me of a discussion from nearly a quarter century ago (https://donellameadows.org/archives/scientists-fluoride-loonies-and-the-evidence/). There, Donella Meadows wrote (and which I've paraphrased): Given the uncertainties in the evidence, the intake from other sources, the possibility of overdose, and the known toxicity to other forms of life, there must be a better way to protect people’s teeth. Why fluoridate the whole water supply -- the millions of litres with which we flush toilets, take showers, and water lawns -- if the only focus is people's teeth? Why expose everyone to a chemical with arguable benefit and some risk in a way that has little control? Why dump a chemical into water supplies and then sewage plants and then back out to the environment with little understanding of what happens to it after that?
indeed Gwen; the old argument was it should be integrated into permanent teeth; ie imbibed age 5-8; fluoride toothpaste ensures it gets into the poor toddler's brain; there to lower its IQ: this fact was agreed by a US judgement recently; a toddler will lose their first set of teeth, as most of us are aware.
in about 1999, the dental advocates seem to have agreed fluoride is only topical; if it has an effect; but like the jabs "stopping transmission dead in their tracks": old myths die hard; so there is still advocacy that F needs to be built into teeth; anyone over age 8 would never benefit; teeth are formed for life, by then
Isn't that why there is age specific toothpaste for kids? I am probably naive but I assumed that the toddler age toothpaste had lower or zero fluoride in it? I'm probably wrong 😂
There is indeed age specific toothpaste as manufacturers know young kids will inevitably swallow some. There is always guidance on the amount of toothpaste to put on a kids brush, usually the size of a pea.
you are absolutely right; I need to rat around to find the reference; but even the American College of Paediatrics says no fluoride for small children;
the stuff is poison for everyone: we have finally recognised mercury, lead, arsenic, asbestos etc etc ..... we just need to have fluoride join that group
there is nowhere in nature that fluoride exists in living things; actually, there is one: sponges extract fluoride from seawater and form poisons, to punish things that would eat them;
in the way that the first statin was a fungal toxin; isolated; purified; the fungus makes the toxin in the same way; to punish deer etc that would eat them. Later statins were tweaks of pure fungal toxin
I remember going to the dentist as a child in pre-flouride days (in the U.S.), having lots of cavities, eduring the painful experience of getting them filled and then, when I was about 9 years old, hearing of flouride in the water. I don't think the public was consulted, it just happened. IStill got cavities, despite having a good home cooked diet with lots of greens with not a lot of sugar. This process stopped in my early teens and my teeth seemed to recover, and I'm not sure why. From my point of view, I'm not sure how well it worked. RFKjr is a very intelligent and committed to good health for U.S. children, and is keen on making decisions by understanding the 'evidence'. Novel concept isn't it?
Good job countering the blinkered MSM reporting again! As the old geezers didn't have time/space to mention, excessive fluoride also contributes to low iodine uptake which can lead to hypothyroid disease: the halides chlorine, bromine, and fluoride all compete with iodine for uptake into your thyroid https://www.glutenfreesociety.org/healing-thyroid-disease-naturally/. According to Dr David Brownstein, iodine deficiency can also lead to cancer of the breast, prostate, ovaries, uterus and thyroid https://drronehrlich.com/dr-david-brownstein-holistic-health-and-debunking-the-low-salt-myth/. "The Devil's Poison: How Fluoride Is Killing You" by Dean Murphy DDS references a lot of research - the book was written over 15 years ago, but maybe the research is a bit more recent than the studies quoted by the CDC!
search on images of "skeletal fluorosis India": be prepared to be shocked
first described as condition in Denmark circa 1932 (Moller and Gudjonsson) as cryolite was dug from mines in Greenland; shipped to its ruling country (Denmark) and men shovelling cryolite dust developed frozen spines and various conditions; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajim.4700030215
Folks should look for "Fluoride Deception"; a book by Christopher Bryson: https://www.sevenstories.com/authors/112-christopher-bryson .. a so-called investigative journalist, back in the days when that meant something. At heart, the whole fluoride thing is a con: dreamed up by the aluminum industry in the US in the 1930s; as the toxic effluent from their smokestacks was killing peach trees and cattle near by; (horses and cattle are very sensitive to fluoride in their long bones).
Folks have finally woken up to mercury; lead; asbestos; arsenic; so imagine the tobacco industry telling you cigs were good for you; the lead industry telling you eating a small amount of paint containing lead each day was good for you ...... well, that seems to be the way it is;
and Vivian is so right: it is sugar rotting teeth: refined sugar;
I wish someone would publish a paper as to how dreadful fruit juice and smoothies are for kids teeth. Acid plus sugar combined and promoted by food and drink producers and even some 'health gurus' as one of your 5 a day ( which we all now acknowledge is an invented number).
By the way,grazing is the biggest modern issue for tooth decay,as its not the quantity of sugar consumed but the frequency. Bacteria produce acids which attack the teeth for 20 minutes after consumption of sugar or starch. Scoff your whole box of chocs in one go was always my professional advice 🤣🤣
Yes, that's what our dentist has always told us. Chocolate is a far better treat because you can't eat as much of it (I find that comment bewildering, I know he's married, to a woman I hasten to add, surely he's seen a pre menstrual woman in action? 😂) and we've always heavily diluted fruit juice, when they actually wanted to drink that. They both now drink water, although our youngest does like Coke. Yes, the full sugar - he's asthmatic and the sweetener in diet coke kicks his asthma off. He only has one filling, at nearly 14 so he's not doing too bad. Eldest hasn't any.
You may like to read articles by Dr. Chris Exley who asserts that "well established science demonstrates that fluoride in the diet significantly increases the absorption of dietary aluminium from the gastrointestinal tract".
I've just checked and Yorkshire Water do not add fluoride to our water.....in fact only 6m people in the UK have artificially fluoridated water. I'm guessing it's London....which explains the dim wittery of our political class and their hangers on 😬
So if Mutans acquires resistance and you don't know what effect the messaging/response in biofilm is to more exposure to fluoride then you may find yourself playing whac-a-mole. Brilliant.
Thank you for this. As he smoothed off a temporary filling, my dentist announced I’d be glad to know it was enriched with fluoride. When I said I wasn’t partial to fluoride, he set off on a rant about the undisputed benefits of fluoride and the lunatic flat earth people who deny it.
Which implies that fluoride toothpaste, being all but ubiquitous, has reduced the effect of water fluoridation on reducing caries.
Yet again it's worth remembering that dental extractions are the leading reason for general anaesthetia in children- which of course have risks, and lead to malocclusions,time off school, eating difficulties,pain,etc
Perhaps set up studies of those who only, or mainly, drink bottled water. It might be hard to find them and engage.
Another possibility; here in Wales many people have their own water from springs etc so no fluoride. Councils keep a list of those on private supplies. It would be a big and expensive job consulting these people but perhaps Climate Change could be mentioned in a grant application and watch the £millions coming your way!
indeed; FDS: fluoride deficiency syndrome; these folks are a little smarter than their peers; perhaps healthier kidneys; they have less aching joints and limbs; (fluoride can be concentrated 5000X times in bones) so while 1ppm may seem trivial in drinking water; bone conc can be 5000ppm;
Being criminally naive, I ask if, instead of fluoridation of our water it wouldn't be better (and perhaps cheaper) to reduce the amount of sugar in food and drinks, for kids and adults? That might even reduce obesity ...
When it comes to human behavior (and specifically, trying to persuade people to do or not do things), addition is a lot, lot, lot easier than subtraction.
There are lots of efforts to curb sweets, to be honest, though. In the U.S. there are many cities that tax soft drinks, for instance. I'm not sure about the approach but the adherents claim it has some effectiveness. It seems to me that the issue is that the forces that want people to consume are much stronger than the forces that might suggest there is something else to life.
You only have to go back a few decades and we had people called "parents" who could educate children and limit their supplies to unhealthy foods. These days, it appears that many of these "parents" expect the government to do their job for them. How well has that worked out?
well, here in the UK a certain former PM - Tony Blair, you might have heard of him - started suggesting a tax in sugar. It came to nothing, but successive governments always bring it to the table. Now that we have yet another extreme-far-hard left Labour government, ready to squeeze out as much tax money from us as they can, I think this 'tax on sugar' might reappear. It remains to be seen if the fluoride-in-water lobby will be stronger than the tax-on-sugar lobby ... We the people won't get asked, we'll be told ...
So here we have a good example of a population wide intervention introduced before the absence of significant toxicity has been established in randomized controlled trials.
It seems we agree pharma should try to show this before a new product is marketed, but governments don't need to conduct such trials before population wide implementation.
This is hard for me to understand the reason for this double standard. It should be for advocates to show a lack of toxicity of a new intervention, not opponents to show this exists.
Osteosarcoma is a rare malignant bone tumour, commonly occurring in the age group of 10 to 24 years. In one study of such cases the serum, and drinking water, fluoride levels were higher in patients with osteosarcoma as compared to controls (_P_ > 0.05, _P_ > 0.001, respectively), so it is difficult for Public Health England to claim there is no evidence of such an association.
In my opinion, while the jury is still out, we should be cautious.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3876610/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7d716a40f0b64a5813f09b/Water_fluoridation_health_monitor_for_England_2014_executive_summary_1Apr2014.pdf
The points raised here remind me of a discussion from nearly a quarter century ago (https://donellameadows.org/archives/scientists-fluoride-loonies-and-the-evidence/). There, Donella Meadows wrote (and which I've paraphrased): Given the uncertainties in the evidence, the intake from other sources, the possibility of overdose, and the known toxicity to other forms of life, there must be a better way to protect people’s teeth. Why fluoridate the whole water supply -- the millions of litres with which we flush toilets, take showers, and water lawns -- if the only focus is people's teeth? Why expose everyone to a chemical with arguable benefit and some risk in a way that has little control? Why dump a chemical into water supplies and then sewage plants and then back out to the environment with little understanding of what happens to it after that?
What about the amount of floride toothpaste ingested by the average toddler 😄
indeed Gwen; the old argument was it should be integrated into permanent teeth; ie imbibed age 5-8; fluoride toothpaste ensures it gets into the poor toddler's brain; there to lower its IQ: this fact was agreed by a US judgement recently; a toddler will lose their first set of teeth, as most of us are aware.
in about 1999, the dental advocates seem to have agreed fluoride is only topical; if it has an effect; but like the jabs "stopping transmission dead in their tracks": old myths die hard; so there is still advocacy that F needs to be built into teeth; anyone over age 8 would never benefit; teeth are formed for life, by then
Isn't that why there is age specific toothpaste for kids? I am probably naive but I assumed that the toddler age toothpaste had lower or zero fluoride in it? I'm probably wrong 😂
There is indeed age specific toothpaste as manufacturers know young kids will inevitably swallow some. There is always guidance on the amount of toothpaste to put on a kids brush, usually the size of a pea.
you are absolutely right; I need to rat around to find the reference; but even the American College of Paediatrics says no fluoride for small children;
the stuff is poison for everyone: we have finally recognised mercury, lead, arsenic, asbestos etc etc ..... we just need to have fluoride join that group
there is nowhere in nature that fluoride exists in living things; actually, there is one: sponges extract fluoride from seawater and form poisons, to punish things that would eat them;
in the way that the first statin was a fungal toxin; isolated; purified; the fungus makes the toxin in the same way; to punish deer etc that would eat them. Later statins were tweaks of pure fungal toxin
friends in NZ told me of a disease called facial eczema; seemingly a fungus living on rye grass; makes a toxin (sporidesmin); that damages the liver and elsewhere of sheep https://www2.zoetis.co.nz/livestock-solutions/sheep-solutions/flock-health-challenges/facial-eczema; you learn something new every day?
Dear TTE,
I remember going to the dentist as a child in pre-flouride days (in the U.S.), having lots of cavities, eduring the painful experience of getting them filled and then, when I was about 9 years old, hearing of flouride in the water. I don't think the public was consulted, it just happened. IStill got cavities, despite having a good home cooked diet with lots of greens with not a lot of sugar. This process stopped in my early teens and my teeth seemed to recover, and I'm not sure why. From my point of view, I'm not sure how well it worked. RFKjr is a very intelligent and committed to good health for U.S. children, and is keen on making decisions by understanding the 'evidence'. Novel concept isn't it?
" Novel concept isn't it?"
indeed; frankly a threat to democracy
Good job countering the blinkered MSM reporting again! As the old geezers didn't have time/space to mention, excessive fluoride also contributes to low iodine uptake which can lead to hypothyroid disease: the halides chlorine, bromine, and fluoride all compete with iodine for uptake into your thyroid https://www.glutenfreesociety.org/healing-thyroid-disease-naturally/. According to Dr David Brownstein, iodine deficiency can also lead to cancer of the breast, prostate, ovaries, uterus and thyroid https://drronehrlich.com/dr-david-brownstein-holistic-health-and-debunking-the-low-salt-myth/. "The Devil's Poison: How Fluoride Is Killing You" by Dean Murphy DDS references a lot of research - the book was written over 15 years ago, but maybe the research is a bit more recent than the studies quoted by the CDC!
thanks for pointing out how it can drive hypothyroid state
At this point in time if the CDC says something, I would not trust it and tend towards the opposite view.
indeed; many say that applies to modern medicine as a whole: a deluded and evangelical crusade; so often driven by covert zealots it seems
As a nation of tea drinkers we get plenty of fluoride without needing to top up:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-93548-3
According to the tea advisory panel the amount of fluoride per cup depends on how strong you like your tea: https://www.teaadvisorypanel.com/assets/uploads/files/news/ec161-fluoride-content-of-tea.pdf
indeed; much fluoride deep underground in India/Sri Lanka; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30060-7/fulltext
skeletal fluorosis prevalent across India;
search on images of "skeletal fluorosis India": be prepared to be shocked
first described as condition in Denmark circa 1932 (Moller and Gudjonsson) as cryolite was dug from mines in Greenland; shipped to its ruling country (Denmark) and men shovelling cryolite dust developed frozen spines and various conditions; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajim.4700030215
but hush: you are not allowed to talk about this
Folks should look for "Fluoride Deception"; a book by Christopher Bryson: https://www.sevenstories.com/authors/112-christopher-bryson .. a so-called investigative journalist, back in the days when that meant something. At heart, the whole fluoride thing is a con: dreamed up by the aluminum industry in the US in the 1930s; as the toxic effluent from their smokestacks was killing peach trees and cattle near by; (horses and cattle are very sensitive to fluoride in their long bones).
Folks have finally woken up to mercury; lead; asbestos; arsenic; so imagine the tobacco industry telling you cigs were good for you; the lead industry telling you eating a small amount of paint containing lead each day was good for you ...... well, that seems to be the way it is;
and Vivian is so right: it is sugar rotting teeth: refined sugar;
I wish someone would publish a paper as to how dreadful fruit juice and smoothies are for kids teeth. Acid plus sugar combined and promoted by food and drink producers and even some 'health gurus' as one of your 5 a day ( which we all now acknowledge is an invented number).
By the way,grazing is the biggest modern issue for tooth decay,as its not the quantity of sugar consumed but the frequency. Bacteria produce acids which attack the teeth for 20 minutes after consumption of sugar or starch. Scoff your whole box of chocs in one go was always my professional advice 🤣🤣
Yes, that's what our dentist has always told us. Chocolate is a far better treat because you can't eat as much of it (I find that comment bewildering, I know he's married, to a woman I hasten to add, surely he's seen a pre menstrual woman in action? 😂) and we've always heavily diluted fruit juice, when they actually wanted to drink that. They both now drink water, although our youngest does like Coke. Yes, the full sugar - he's asthmatic and the sweetener in diet coke kicks his asthma off. He only has one filling, at nearly 14 so he's not doing too bad. Eldest hasn't any.
You may like to read articles by Dr. Chris Exley who asserts that "well established science demonstrates that fluoride in the diet significantly increases the absorption of dietary aluminium from the gastrointestinal tract".
https://drchristopherexley.substack.com/p/fluoridation-fluoridation-fluoridation
I've just checked and Yorkshire Water do not add fluoride to our water.....in fact only 6m people in the UK have artificially fluoridated water. I'm guessing it's London....which explains the dim wittery of our political class and their hangers on 😬
Why not start with S. Mutans when the fluoride issue comes up.....
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5508371/#:~:text=On%20the%20other%20hand%2C%20fluoride,%2Dfree%20medium%20%5B15%5D.
So if Mutans acquires resistance and you don't know what effect the messaging/response in biofilm is to more exposure to fluoride then you may find yourself playing whac-a-mole. Brilliant.
Thank you for this. As he smoothed off a temporary filling, my dentist announced I’d be glad to know it was enriched with fluoride. When I said I wasn’t partial to fluoride, he set off on a rant about the undisputed benefits of fluoride and the lunatic flat earth people who deny it.
You might like to take a gander at this Cochrane review
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub3/full
Which implies that fluoride toothpaste, being all but ubiquitous, has reduced the effect of water fluoridation on reducing caries.
Yet again it's worth remembering that dental extractions are the leading reason for general anaesthetia in children- which of course have risks, and lead to malocclusions,time off school, eating difficulties,pain,etc
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10565295/#:~:text=Dental%20caries%20remains%20the%20most,under%20general%20anaesthetic%20(GA).
I wonder what proportion of the population now mainly consumes bottled water and whether they are suffering from a lack of fluoride?
Perhaps set up studies of those who only, or mainly, drink bottled water. It might be hard to find them and engage.
Another possibility; here in Wales many people have their own water from springs etc so no fluoride. Councils keep a list of those on private supplies. It would be a big and expensive job consulting these people but perhaps Climate Change could be mentioned in a grant application and watch the £millions coming your way!
indeed;
"assess the impact of climate change on the lesser spotted toad of Abergavenny and its fluoride intake"
Essential work to prove that they are doomed and at a tipping point.
indeed; FDS: fluoride deficiency syndrome; these folks are a little smarter than their peers; perhaps healthier kidneys; they have less aching joints and limbs; (fluoride can be concentrated 5000X times in bones) so while 1ppm may seem trivial in drinking water; bone conc can be 5000ppm;