Fluoride Is Not a Nutrient.
The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Humans, therefore, do not need fluoride for the prevention of any human disease. This distinguishes the practice of fluoridating water from the practice of adding iodine to salt; humans need iodine, they do not need fluoride.
Not a Single “Randomized Controlled Trial” Has Ever Proven Fluoridation Works.
Despite over 60 years of water fluoridation, there has yet to be a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) to demonstrate its benefits (or safety). An RCT is the gold standard for medical treatments and, under current medical standards, most drugs are not allowed to enter the market without one. Were fluoridated water defined as a medical treatment (which, logically, it is), it would not have sufficient evidence to gain approval from licensing bodies.
Fluoride Works Topically, Not Systemically.
Water fluoridation began in the 1940s under the premise that swallowing fluoride is the most effective way to strengthen teeth. It is now known, however, that fluoride’s main benefit comes from topical contact with teeth, not from ingestion. Even if fluoridated water has a benefit, therefore, there is no need to swallow it.
No Difference in Tooth Decay Between Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Countries.
The CDC’s Oral Health Division has called water fluoridation one of the “top 10 public health achievements of the twentieth century.” Yet, according to comprehensive data compiled by the World Health Organization, there is no discernible difference between the few western countries that fluoridate their water, and the majority that do not. WHO’s data also shows that, over the past 40 years, non-fluoridated countries have experienced the same large decline in tooth decay as fluoridated countries.
Fluoridation Prevents Cavities in Less than 1 out of 100 Tooth Surfaces.
In 1986 and 1987, the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) conducted the largest study on dental health ever conducted in the United States, examining over 39,000 children in 84 areas of the country. When the results of the study were later obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, it was shown that children who lived their whole lives in fluoridated areas had no less decayed teeth (“Decayed, Missing, or Filled Teeth,” DMFT) than children from non-fluoridated areas. This finding has never been refuted. However, when a more sensitive measure of tooth decay (DMFS) was used, a difference of 0.6 tooth surfaces was found between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. A difference of 0.6 tooth surfaces, however, represents less than 1% of the 100+ tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth! Other large, modern studies have found similar results: very small differences in DMFS, and no difference in DMFT.
Fluoridated Does Not Prevent Oral Health Crises in Low Income Communities.
Despite some claims and insinuations to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health crises that result from rampant poverty, lack of access to dental care, and lack of access to healthy food. This is evident by the fact that oral health crises are occurring in major urban areas. As but one of many examples, the Dental Director in Cincinnati (a city that has been fluoridated since 1978) described the oral health situation as follows:
‘We cannot meet the demand. It’s absolutely heartbreaking and a travesty. We have kids in this community with severe untreated dental infections. We have kids with self-esteem problems, and we have kids in severe pain and we have no place to send them in Cincinnati. People would be shocked to learn how bad the problem has become.’”
This raises the obvious question: If fluoridation in America’s urban areas has failed to prevent the current oral health crisis, why should anyone believe it can prevent the next one?
Fluoridation Does Not Prevent Baby Bottle Tooth Decay (Early Childhood Caries).
Published research has also found that fluoridation is ineffective at preventing the most serious oral health problem facing poor children, namely “baby bottle tooth decay,” otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992; Shiboski 2003). Low-income communities need dental care, not cheap industrial chemicals in their water.
Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped.
Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, the rate of tooth decay did not increase. Instead, the rate of tooth decay continued to decline.
Fluoridation Is Much More Likely to Cause Dental Fluorosis than Reduce Decay
When the water fluoridation program was endorsed by U.S. health authorities in the 1950s, proponents argued that fluoride intake in fluoridated communities would produce a very sharp reduction in tooth decay with only a very minimal effect on dental fluorosis. Proponents argued that fluoridated water would reduce tooth decay by over 60% while limiting dental fluorosis to only about 10% of children. This prediction did not prove true. The failure of the prediction is readily apparent when comparing the predicted relationship with the actual relationship observed in the NIDR’s national survey.
The failure of the prediction has also been highlighted by a multi-million dollar, decades long NIH-funded study that investigated the relationship between daily fluoride intake, tooth decay, and dental fluorosis from birth through adolescence. In 2009, the investigators reported that they could detect no significant association between tooth decay and total fluoride intake, but that a clear association existed between total fluoride intake and dental fluorosis. In other words, the daily intake of fluoride had little relationship with beneficial tooth outcomes (prevention of cavities), but a significant relationship with detrimental tooth outcomes (dental fluorosis). This was not the risk-benefit trade-off on which the water fluoridation program was sold.
The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation
[caption id="attachment_10205" align="alignleft" width="190"] Paul Connett, PhD[/caption] Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so "safe and effective" that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms
Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water
April, 2000 To whom it may concern: Since April of 1999, I have publicly decried the addition of fluoride, especially hydrofluosilicic acid, to drinking water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay. The following summarize my reasons. New evidence for lack of effectiveness of fluoridation in modern times. [caption id="attachment_10211" align="alignleft" width="150"] Dr. Hardy
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
Introduction [caption id="attachment_11821" align="alignleft" width="200"] Dr. Paul Connett[/caption] In Europe, only Ireland (73%), Poland (1%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), and the U.K. (11%) fluoridate any of their water. Most developed countries, including Japan and 97% of the western European population, do not consume fluoridated water. In the U.S., about 70% of public water supplies are
Fluoride & IQ: The 51 Studies
As of September 2017, a total of 58 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and over 40 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 51 of the 58 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ,
Fluoride's Effect on Fetal Brain
The human placenta does not prevent the passage of fluoride from a pregnant mother's bloodstream to the fetus. As a result, a fetus can be harmed by fluoride ingested pregnancy. Based on research from China, the fetal brain is one of the organs susceptible to fluoride poisoning. As highlighted by the excerpts
Fluoride's Neurobehavioral Effects in Humans & Animals
In addition to studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ in humans, and impaired learning/memory in animals, human and animal studies have also linked fluoride to a variety of other neurobehavioral effects. These studies, which are excerpted below, provide yet further evidence that fluoride is a neurotoxin. The importance of considering other
Email Exchange with FDA re: Fluoride Supplements
Email exchange regarding FDA's reasons for not approving fluoride supplements.
Harvard's Statement on Chester Douglass/Scientific Misconduct
Statement Concerning the Outcome of the Review into Allegations of Research Misconduct Involving Fluoride Research BOSTON-August 15, 2006-The Harvard Medical School and School of Dental Medicine (HSDM) review of Chester Douglass, DMD, PhD, professor of oral health policy and epidemiology at HSDM, has concluded that Douglass did not intentionally omit, misrepresent,
The 'Altered Recommendations' of the 1983 Surgeon General's Panel
"We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon Generals panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon Generals panel were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride."
Related Miscellaneous Content: