The authors all work at the University of Calgary
The “infodemic” of false or misleading information unleashed during this COVID-19 pandemic has its roots in past attacks on public health measure on the web and social media.
Last year, two senior academics warned about the “torrents of misinformation” that circulate online. Indeed, two of the loudest U.S.-based groups that attack vaccines and fluoridation are in a coalition.
Fluoridation is a particular interest in our home city of Calgary, Alta., because its city council voted in 2011 to cease fluoridation, ignoring the advice of Health Canada and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which reports that fluoridation reduces dental cavities by about 25 per cent. Fluoridation opponents have encouraged many North American communities to end fluoridation by disseminating misleading or false information online. Like anti-vaccine groups, fluoridation critics shrewdly use social media platforms.
Fluoridation foes create a veneer of science to enhance the appeal of their claims. The professional-looking website of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) with its “study tracker” database, for instance, encourages people to think that FAN’s anti-fluoridation arguments are rooted in rigorous science. Yet many of the studies cited on this tracker are irrelevant to water fluoridation or are seriously flawed. For example, the tracker includes items such as an irrelevant study about fluorine enrichment of vegetables near an abandoned aluminum plant. Likewise, it contains a 1983 study whose authors contend that their data “seem to support” a link between fluoride toothpaste and a skin rash, even though the authors studied only 21 people and one-third of them did not complete the study. A journalist investigating the assertions made by FAN’s leader reported that this man “often relies on studies of fluoride use in other countries, where concentrations are significantly higher.”
Beyond citing irrelevant or poorly conducted research, FAN has also misrepresented studies. The group has cited an animal study that purported to find “that fluoride and low iodine have ‘mutually interacting effects’ on the thyroid gland.” But the coauthors of this study wrote it is “generally believed that fluorine does not influence either thyroid function or structure” at the amount used in water fluoridation. The authors noted an exception “if fluorine intake is extremely high such as in an endemic fluorosis area” but such circumstances are extraordinarily unlikely in U.S. or Canadian communities. Likewise Paul Connett claimed that a 2019 study “found a staggering 284 per cent increase in the prevalence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to non-fluoridated ones.” Yet the lead author of that study has said that the FAN leader misrepresented her work.
At times, fluoride critics simply deviate from the truth. For example, a writer for an organic food website claimed that fluoridation’s scientific support rests on a 1940s study conducted “in a single community in Michigan by adding fluoride to the water supply,” and added: “No investigation into the possible adverse effects was done.” Both assertions are false. First, the foundational research occurred not in a single community but in cities in Michigan, Illinois, New York State and Ontario and these studies eventually revealed that fluoridation reduced tooth decay. Second, accompanying medical studies determined that the children drinking fluoridated water were meeting normal growth and health guidelines.
Fluoridation opponents also cloak their messages in science by operating their own “journal,” Fluoride, that permits fluoridation opponents to publish without the proper independent peer-review process offered by mainstream health science journals. The results are not surprising. A 2005 Fluoride article purported to explore the “possible connections between water fluoridation and crime in America.” Yet the author disclosed no credentials in criminology, epidemiology or related academic field and stated that he collected crime stories “based on their content and on my intuition” rather than from a methodical search, effectively admitting that he didn’t use any scientific methodology,
When misinformation convinces elected officials to make misguided health decisions, people can be harmed. Indeed, research has confirmed the serious impact of Calgary’s decision. A carefully designed study comparing tooth decay rates of Grade 2 children in Calgary and Edmonton revealed that, once fluoridation ceased, the average decay rate in Calgary rose at a much higher pace than in Edmonton: 146 per cent. Fluoridation opponents then personally attacked the study’s lead author.
Thankfully, Calgary’s city council members are seriously considering reinstating water fluoridation. Yet, even as they do, council members are still receiving misinformation that lacks scientific rigour, according to one councillor.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, many citizens have gained a richer understanding of public health expertise. It has become even more obvious that standing up for safe and effective public health measures helps promote healthier communities. Standing up for vaccination and fluoridation also means taking a stand for science.
Print 
PDF
The comments section is closed.
I have a brutal headache please have your Team add Aspirin – Johnny needs his commission too thank you.
Who is moving to BC in October? Currently about 60% of Calgarians want to taint their drinking water… #WearAMask etc. keep the water non artificial. #FakeWater #FakeWorld #MoneyMatters
#FluorideTrial
What is perhaps most disturbing about this opinion piece by Prof. Guichon and her colleagues is the fact that they accuse their opponents of misrepresenting the science, and then proceed to falsely represent one of the most important animal studies in the literature on fluoride effects on thyroid hormone metabolism.
Fortunately, a hyperlink to the study by Zhao et al. (1998) is provided [click on “the coauthors of this study wrote” ]. The reader, therefore, has an immediate opportunity to verify the information presented.
Guichon et al. take a few sentences from the discussion section of the Zhao paper – where authors normally cite and discuss relevant work already done on the subject and compare to their own results – and then make it appear as if those sentences were the actual conclusions by the authors.
Far from it. The actual results from Zhao’s hallmark study show very clearly the “mutually interacting effects” of fluoride and iodine at various doses given, and at concentrations highly relevant for water fluoridation programs. [The “excess fluoride” in this study was 30 ppm. The reader needs to be aware that in rodent studies much higher amounts of fluoride are required to produce similar effects as are observed in humans. For this reason, levels used in most experimental studies are in the range of 25-100 ppm (Bronckers et al., 2009).]
Zhao and his colleagues had published on this matter for over 10 years, confirming their earlier findings from 1988 with this 1998 publication.
Instead of further dismissing the hundreds of studies on the effects of fluoride on thyroid hormones, over 250 of which have appeared in the last 20 years alone – Prof. Guichon and colleagues should honour their position of responsibility as public health officials and accurately inform on the toxicity of fluoride.
Yes – Prof. Guichon and her colleagues correctly accuse the anti-fluoridation contingent of “misrepresenting the science”. Your comment is an excellent example of how fluoridation opponents manipulate ‘evidence’ to try and support their opinions. That’s understandable, since the actual scientific evidence does NOT support their opinions.
It is true that in rats, “a 5-fold increase in the dose of fluoride ions is required to achieve comparable human serum fluoride levels. (Fluoride in Drinking Water p. 98)
https://www.nap.edu/download/11571
So, to approximate an optimal level of fluoride (0.7 ppm or mg/L) from CWF, a rat would have to drink water containing 3.5 ppm F–, and rats drinking water containing 20 ppm F– would be equivalent to a human regularly drinking the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4 ppm F– (or 4 mg/L).
So, the 30 ppm “excess fluoride” in the 1998 Zhao study was the equivalent of a human drinking water containing 6 mg/L of fluoride – nearly 10 times greater than the optimal concentration in fluoridated water. So, the “levels used in most experimental studies are in the range of 25-100 ppm (Bronckers et al., 2009)” are equivalent to human exposure to fluoride ions at 5 – 20 ppm — that’s 7 – 28 times the recommended level of exposure.
The fact is – none of the studies you referenced have anything to do with demonstrating any alleged thyroid harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water.
Using your “logic” someone could make the case that drinking dihydrogen monoxide was dangerous and should be banned because consuming 7 to 28 times the recommended exposure level will have deadly consequences.
https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Contrast the Zhao’s 1998 study with the 2018 Study, An Evaluation of Neurotoxicity Following Fluoride Exposure from Gestational Through Adult Ages in Long-Evans Hooded Rats, designed and conducted by the NTP to evaluate potential harm of fluoride concentrations at levels 2.5 to 5.7 times higher than found in optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm). “Long-Evans hooded male rats maintained on a standard diet (20.5 ppm F?) or a low F? diet (3.24 ppm F?) with drinking water exposure to 0, 10, or 20 ppm F? from gestational day 6 through adulthood. … Equivalent human daily water intakes of 1.74 mg F/day for an adult or 0.63–1.23 mg/day for 1 to 14 years of age have been approximated in rodents using drinking water concentrations of 7 to 9 ppm F?. In the current study, the top dose of 20 ppm F? was selected based upon the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Maximum Contaminant Level of 4 ppm [5.7 times higher than optimally fluoridated water] and the conventional wisdom that a 5-fold increase in dose is required to achieve comparable human serum levels.
Conclusions: “At these exposure levels, we observed no exposure-related differences in motor, sensory, or learning and memory performance on running wheel, open-field activity, light/dark place preference, elevated plus maze, pre-pulse startle inhibition, passive avoidance, hot-plate latency, Morris water maze acquisition, probe test, reversal learning, and Y-maze. Serum triiodothyronine (T3), thyroxine (T4), and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels were not altered as a function of 10 or 20 ppm F? in the drinking water. No exposure-related pathology was observed in the heart, liver, kidney, testes, seminal vesicles, or epididymides. Mild inflammation in the prostate gland was observed at 20 ppm F?. No evidence of neuronal death or glial activation was observed in the hippocampus at 20 ppm F?.”
Hi
Comment about Fluoride.
The whole of Europe and Asia reject Toxic Fluoride because their Scientists are not Puppets of Big Pharma
and they have acted to protect their populations.
I can send you copies of 15 or so letters from European Officials in charge of their Water Authorities where they
all claim that their Countries DO NOT add toxic fluorides to their drinking water.
Regards Ray
Beyond citing irrelevant or poorly conducted research…. There is always the periodic table to consult.
F is the most electronegative element, that is a fact. Elemental Fluorine is not naturally present – it is bound to another molecule .. in nature that would be calcium.
Put it in.. The world needs to heal too many people are having kids. Slow Chronic suffering will work as no one tends to listen or care. Profits over People anyways. https://www.facebook.com/CTVW5/photos/a.10151314032413582/10159196662813582/?type=3&theater
$afe & Effective.
Well, well well. Another critique of the Fluoride Action Network, an organization with a website that has the largest repository of fluoride toxicity studies in the world. This ‘critique’ by J. Guichon, a lawyer, and her MD colleagues in Calgary, presents its own ‘sciency’ propaganda. The illustration says that there is a benefit to fluoridation at the recommended ‘optimum’ fluoride level is 0.7 ppm, which is only ? double the natural level of fluoride that is sometimes found in the Bow River. So there’s ‘clear’ evidence to support fluoridation eh? There hasn’t been a single study conducted to show that fluoridation at 0.7 ppm works when you start with a water source with similar fluoride levels as the Bow River. There has not been a single double-blinded randomized study anywhere in the world that shows fluoridation works, at ANY level. We critiqued the Calgary-Edmonton study and published it, but that seems always to be ignored. Public Health is embarrassed they don’t have better science to convince people to accept mass medication. Why should Calgarian trust them? Just because they said so? Provide the evidence please. And, oh, by the way, who’s going to pay to fix kids teeth when they end up with permanent damage from dental fluorosis which HAS been proven to increase when fluoridation starts?
Is it 2021 or 1921 in the 1940’s unknown levels were “added” than they lowered this 1.5PPM. Wait that’ didn’t work out over half of the children’s teeth got fluorosis in the US. If you see that on the teeth please show us what happens to the brain, bodies organs etc. very difficult to do. So let’s try again how about 0.7? At what levels is dumping an aluminum fertilizer pesticide by-product benefits a pregnant mother? A parent who can’t afford $2.00 for a tooth brush!? #FluorideTrial It’s not the pharmaceutical grade that gets added to the water folks. In any case it may work topically if you are the lucky one… To be continued……………………………………………………….
The Fluoride Action Network is an organization that fully deserves severe critiques, because it falsely represents the evidence – manipulating it so it some studies appear to support their agenda of creating fear about fluoridation within communities.
I have asked you this question numerous times – and you have never provided a reply. If any legitimate scientific evidence existed that actually supported the anti-Fluoridation opinions, how do you explain these three facts?
Fact 1) Why is it that the World Health Organization and over 100 other major science and health organizations worldwide (and their hundreds of thousands of members) continue to publicly support fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental decay?
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WHOSupportsCWF.html
Fact 2) Why do none of the major science and health organizations in the world publicly support the anti-fluoridation opinions if there is any legitimate, verifiable scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water is a neurotoxin (that reduces IQ) a carcinogen and a poison that causes diabetes, thyroid disease, arthritis, cardiovascular disease, endocrine disruption, kidney disease, etc.?
Fact 3) Why is it fluoridation opposition only comes from: a very small minority outliers with relevant science/health training/experience (you and Connett, for example), a handful of alternative ‘health’ organizations like the IAOMT, alternative-health marketing proponents like Joseph Mercola, vocal activist groups like FAN and the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and a number of conspiracy theory proponents like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News]?
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/CWF-Opposition.html
I have also asked you to provide an outline of how you would design and conduct a “double-blinded randomized study” on fluoridation that would cover several years and prevent anyone from finding out whether or not their water was fluoridated.
If you can provide an explanation, don’t forget to include verifiable evidence to support your claims. I have never encountered a rational, verifiable explanation from you or any other fluoridation opponent.
Not one person knows or can control the dose.. A guessing game with the EPA etc. to dump by-products in your drinking water is not misinformation but reality whether people want to believe it or not.. (Many do not want to.)
1. Unknown levels PPM.
2. Kids were getting sick, let’s reduce the levels to 1.5PPM.
3. Kids still getting cavities & fluorosis (That is what we see on the teeth.) Just imagine the damage done to their bones, brain and other chronic causing illnesses.) Just get another prescription dont’ question your water you will be labeled anti science etc.
4. Finally they lowered this to 0.7PPM (Sure what occurs in the water already is low & is natural so is lead should we increase that too.) But what they add to levels devil knows what is not.
5. This is what happens when you play with water.. https://www.deseret.com/2019/4/20/20671320/report-shows-239-people-sickened-in-utah-fluoride-overfeed-investigation-continuing
6. Get 1.2 Million to vote no because bathing in this has also caused allergies to human skin.
7. Can we add vitamin C instead?
8. Other provinces in Canada are removing this or voted no – less than 6% add this chemical in worldwide!
We are not to be tested on – water is a human right is it not?
They say the truth will set you free…. https://twitter.com/jstandards/status/1346929613289582592?s=20
CDC is a business – Careless Disease Control (Mean you don’t have control of your water they do.)
#GetAFilter or move to BC..
Got asbestos?
No Fluoride in our water its poison!
I SAY NO TO FLUORIDE!!!!!!!!
This is Karma and misinformation it was more like 100K+ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/university-calgary-ransomware-cyberattack-1.3620979
https://obrieniph.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/FINAL%20-%20O’Brien%20Institute%20for%20Public%20Health%20-%20Report%20on%20Community%20Water%20Fluoridation%20-%20July%2018%202019.pdf
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country ($afe & Effective) You can repair a cavity from poor parenting but not a brain. Universal Dental Care is needed. Alberta has the worst rates in the country and Edmonton has MORE caries than YYC…
All about the mighty dollar – Dentists are the Mafia unless you are Dr. Hardy Limeback
https://twitter.com/drlimeback?lang=en
30 million to dump waste vs $3.00 for a toothbrush – this insanity is hard to comprehend at times..
Recent studies have demonstrated an increase in decay after stopping fluoridation in communities which did not make any other recorded changes to oral health risk factors:
~> Does cessation of community water fluoridation lead to an increase in tooth decay? A systematic review of published studies: McLaren &Sonica Singhal, J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 – “Overall, the published research points more to an increase in dental caries post-CWF cessation than otherwise.” Note, the studies that showed no change in decay rates after stopping fluoridation mentioned that other decay reduction methods (fluoride tablets and government fluoride programs) were implemented.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5013153/
Three recent studies have demonstrated an increase in dental decay in cities after CWF was halted:
~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health201818:215, “Additionally, the age group that underwent the most dental caries procedures and incurred the highest caries treatment costs on average were those born after CWF cessation.”
https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-018-0684-2
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/tag/juneau/
~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unit
https://www.wechu.org/reports/oral-health-2018-report https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-council-water-fluoride-1.4947723
~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short?term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children using tooth surface indices: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12215
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/05/05/students_rotting_teeth_show_inequality_of_health.html
Does Johnny offer any warranty? So eat more candy and don’t brush because pregnant mothers can drink fertilizer instead? For shame.
Will they add WD40 next? https://www.epcor.com/products-services/water/water-quality/Documents/flouride-MSDS.pd
Read the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health. 100% of the water you drink go into your stomach with toxic chemicals like residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts. Why aren’t you fighting against disinfection? Unlike fluoride ions that reduce the risk of dental decay at appropriate levels (either ingested or topical), disinfection byproducts like chloroform have absolutely no beneficial effects – only potential of harm. Presumably you you trust the science and regulations that pertain to disinfection and other water treatment processes, but you ignore the science and regulations from the same sources related to the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
i know thats a tough one. there is the National Institute of Health meta analysis on fluoride policy.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18584000/
one of the best, and the academy of sciences report.
My feeling is, that if there is any reasonable question around safety then it should be personal choice. But this is much more than that. a place where mid wits try to distract themselves from boredom by joining a rag tag bunch of internet troll pirates. the facts about fluoride and neurotoxicity are pretty self evident. feed a mouse fluoride, track behaviour, pull the brain out after you kill it humanely of course. What do we find?
There is no “reasonable question around safety” of drinking water fluoridation. And there are no ” facts about fluoride and neurotoxicity are pretty self evident”. In fact, there are no relevant, legitimate studies conducted over the last 76 years that demonstrate any harm from community water fluoridation. Your reference above to the 2008 NHMRC “systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation” concludes, “Fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride. ” There are a number of reviews over the past decade that have come to the same conclusion.
https://cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html
Are you suggesting that there is a one-size-fits-all ‘dose’ of disinfectant byproducts (like chloroform) and residual water treatment products for EVERYONE, regardless of age, sex, race, or underlying conditions? Those chemicals, like fluoride ions, are ingested at levels determined by the amount of water consumed. However, many like chloroform, have no beneficial effect on the body, while fluoride ions at low exposure levels helps reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems. All chemicals added to treat water (as well as residual chemicals) are carefully controlled to be safe at levels for those who drink the water. Optimally fluoridated water does not cause dental fluorosis that “WILL cost [anyone] a lot down the line.” The costs of preventable dental decay, however, are well documented.
Fluoride ions protect teeth by both topical and systemic exposure at appropriate levels. Read the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health. Of course, if you don’t trust the WHO or any of the dozens of other respected science and health organizations world that support fluoridation, it is unlikely you understand the science and are simply parroting anti-fluoridation propaganda.
How exactly swallowing fluoride helps with cavities? When I drink liters of water, the water barely comes in contact with all my teeth, however 100% of water goes into my stomach with the toxic chemical called fluoride.
If the government cared about our teeth, they’d give out free toothpastes instead of making us swallow the toxic chemical that ends up harming us.
Control… https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634
https://documentaryheaven.com/an-inconvenient-tooth/
US and Canada have a low IQ – everyone who wants it is already damaged.. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country
I think this is biased the other way. I think given systematic reviews in the UK which highlight the poor research on both sides of the argument, a little bit more caution and less hubris would be a more rational stance. See this paper for a more balanced view – a bit old now but not much evidence since then to reduce uncertainty. https://www.bmj.com/content/335/7622/699
How much money has the Cumming School of Medicine received directly or helped disperse on behalf of the multi-billion dollar Fluoride industrial was disposal industry? That includes all sources like Colgate-Palmolive, their postdoctoral fellowhips, consultancy fees, travel allowances, free accomodation and meals.
Geoff, you are surely aware this is a cheap slander – and attempt to discredit honest research findings without actually critically inspecting those findings. If you had some scientific confidence you would be critiquing the research rather than slandering.
It is particularly cheap as it comes from an activist involved in the anti-F/anti-vaccination movement which is financed by the “natural”/alternative health industry. This big business doe s not finance research but finances the campaigns of misrepresentation and distortion of the research – all for their own commercial interests.
The big business founding of the anti-F/ati-vaccination movement is a scandal.
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/big-business-funding-of-anti-science-propaganda-on-health/
WikiLeaks will eventfully tell us..
I read an interview with the lead author of this piece during which the following question was asked:
What qualities distinguish your preferred colleagues, collaborators and suppliers?
Her reply was:
… people who are curious, knowledgeable and humble.
I guess opposites attract, because I have offered many times to share the evidence that formula fed infants are being over exposed to fluoride and Ms Guichon has never once taken me up on this offer. Her lack of curiousity about information that opposes her position is keeping her from being knowledgeable.
David, if you have the evidence you claim why not publish it in a scientific journal to enable scrutiny by the scientific community as Christine Till did with her data? If you had confidence in your evidence that is surely what you would have done. That is the normal procedure – science does not work by people making biased personal representations.
David Green – Curiosity about information that opposes any current scientific position is precisely what is required for science to progress, establish a scientific consensus and continue to challenge it. If all scientists agreed with an initial interpretation of evidence the world would be flat and the universe would revolve around the earth. Evidence lead to (and continues to support) the scientific consensus that the earth is spherical, revolves around the sun, etc.
The evidence that initially lead to the scientific consensus that exposure to optimal levels of fluoride ions is safe and reduces the risk of dental decay (and related health problems) continues to be strongly supported by current evidence. The “evidence” provided by opponents is not of sufficient quality to prove (or even strongly suggest) that fluoridation is ineffective or harmful. That is the reason fluoridation opponents must distort study conclusions and fabricate “evidence” to try and scare well-meaning members of the public into accepting their beliefs as true. Those are exactly the same tactics used by vaccination opponents and other anti-science activists. Unfortunately, fear is often a far stronger motivation of public opinion than a considered discussion and evaluation of the actual scientific evidence – which can be extremely complex and difficult to understand.
https://cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-AntiScienceTactics.html
https://cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html
https://cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationInformation-Consensus.html
This isn’t about individual rights in the American or Alberta sense and we should realize after 90 years that emotional ill informed opinions that have been thoroughly and exhaustively refuted by science should be ignored for the proven public health benefits for all age groups particularly when people are now taking their teeth with them to the grave. The alternative is rampant decay and ill fitting dentures that have to be glued in or prohibitively expensive implants. Access to fluoridated water is a basic human right. Prevention is always better than treatment. Science is a methodology not a belief system. See: https://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-75/issue-6/451.pdf
Teaching your children to brush their teeth consistently and routinely, would have a better outcome. Than forced medical treatment with fluoride, through town water supply. Raising my children on tank / rainwater. Now aged between 30 to 40 years old my five
children have just 1 filling between them.
An excellent article! Thanks to these faculty members for raising awareness of the ways in which a handful of people are trying to distort what the science shows to fit their own ideologies. Will we listen to researchers and health experts who recommend fluoridated water? Or will we listen to critics of fluoride who design a study based on “my intuition”? It’s an easy choice.
For your assistance in this matter, I didn’t design this study, the UK NHS did. Then HSJ News had to publish it their way, i.e. according to Matt Hancock’s intuition. Halfway through the pandemic when my colouring-in became a routine intuitive loss for the fluoridated people, it seems everyone’s intuition changed from expressing all deaths to date as a rate per 100,000, to intuitively counting weekly deaths, i.e. by number and not by rates.
The good news for #fluorothink is that counter-intuitive longditudinal analysis could not continue. How sciencey is that? Inconvenient comparisons according to that particular metric have been impossible since. Hurra for sir! https://twitter.com/turizemptuj/status/1265225689894211584
With 15 points from the #fluorothinkometer, this article is second only to the BBC World Service for its high level of #fluorothink. Here’s the table. Please stop trying to help us!
@BBCWorld feat. @ClioCatherine 24
@julietguichon et al 15
@WaterOnline 9
@EWG 5
https://twitter.com/samknowsnow/status/1270915162648662017 5
@AnatGEdelsburg 4
@business Bloomberg 4
https://twitter.com/turizemptuj/status/1272157370353885185 4
@lawbc in @natlawreview -1
@green4EMA https://twitter.com/FluorideAction/status/1271522656291086336 leads the sanity with -7
Calculate the spin on your fluoridatedness if any and derive a #fluorothink bias value for science articles and broadcasts. The #Fluorothinkometer Mk.6 assigns points for media bias in coverage of fluoride added to community biomes and you. Check it out on Twitter, after visiting the antidote for #fluorothink at http://nfl.si/foi100001
I’ve had these weird ideas for some time now. Can anybody help?
https://twitter.com/turizemptuj/status/1272261012721410049
Yes, Julian – you can help getting over your weird ideas by trying very hard to actually understand the way in which legitimate science progresses and how that progress can be derailed by strong, inflexible beliefs that dictate and demand a certain conclusion be reached (regardless of the actual scientific evidence) – like fluoridation and vaccination are harmful and ineffective, the earth is flat and 6-10 thousand years old, etc.
https://twitter.com/FluorideFreeYYC/status/1151931079911256065?s=20
This is an outstanding article and infographic! I hope the Calgary city council will reinstate community water fluoridation for community members.
This CWF thing is really mislabelling though and only a political drumbanger would be blind to the deleterious effect of such weasel words upon the public’s understanding of fluoridating them, etc…could we agree on CBF for Community Biome Fluoridation? http://www.nfl.si/ed
To suggest that fluoride is a mineral is ludicrous. Numerous peer review studies have demonstrated that fluoride affects the brain of infants and this is partly why there is currently a Court case being conducted by FAN and other concerned parties. Any reputable scientist only has to examine the peer review studies of harm displayed on PubMed to know that fluoride is harmful to humans and the environment. Here is just one recent one example of how reckless those promoting this poison as a “health product” are. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/the-influence-of-fluoride-on-chronic-kidney-disease-of-uncertain-aetiology-ckdu-in-sri-lanka/
John, it is easy to find scientific papers demonstrating harm in areas of endemic fluorosis – but these simply are not relevant to community water fluoridation where dietary intake is very much lower.
In fact, if one takes an objective look at the data from the studies made in areas of endemic fluorosis one usually finds the data for the lower concentration of drinking water-F or urinary-F, more typical of community water fluoridation, show that there is no harm,
I did this for a couple of recent papers – see my articles “Another study used by anti-fluoride activists actually shows community water fluoridation OK” (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2020/06/04/another-study-used-by-anti-fluoride-activists-actually-shows-community-water-fluoridation-ok/), “New study touted by anti-fluoridation campaigners actually indicates fluoridation is safe” (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2020/05/20/new-study-touted-by-anti-fluoridation-campaigners-actually-indicates-fluoridation-is-safe/).
You might also read this recent review “Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-020-02725-2) – it gives a very objective and very recent summary of the findings in the scientific literature.
Help the science by calculating your own fluoride intake: http://www.nfl.si/calc
The fluoride intake situation in the UK as we speak…
https://twitter.com/turizemptuj/status/1272255056906276864
Let me rephrase that… https://twitter.com/turizemptuj/status/1272257757350187009
Help the science by understanding it and how it can be misrepresented by those with strong, inflexible beliefs. Strong beliefs can direct the path scientific research takes, but strong beliefs should never dictate how the evidence is collected and evaluated.
https://cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridation.html
https://cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationInformation-Consensus.html
Dude, dude ,dude. If your going to join a debate please leave the numptey dumbarse comments at home. A mineral is something made from a number of elements, fluoride is a mineral created when fluorine elements join with other elements to create a fluoride salt which is a mineral.
Aj – If you are going to join a science-related debate, please get your science correct. Fluoride is a negative ion of the element fluorine – it is not “a mineral created when fluorine elements join with other elements to create a fluoride salt which is a mineral.”
Aj, you may find this simple description of the chemistry involved useful – https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/fluoridation-some-simple-chemistry/
OPED: Fluoridation is a particular interest in our home city of Calgary, Alta., because its city council voted in 2011 to cease fluoridation, ignoring the advice of Health Canada and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which reports that fluoridation reduces dental cavities by about 25 per cent.
ME: That represents less than 1/3 of a tooth per teenager after 19 years of fluoridation. That’s a shameful track track record (IF it’s true). So far not one single double blinded randomized trial has been conducted. McLaren’s Calgary-Edmonton study has so many flaws it proved nothing.
OPED: Fluoridation opponents have encouraged many North American communities to end fluoridation by disseminating misleading or false information online.
ME: It’s only misleading if it goes against YOUR preconceived 75 year old ‘opinion’. It’s not misleading if it’s backed up by science, and it is.
OPED: Like anti-vaccine groups, fluoridation critics shrewdly use social media platforms. Fluoridation foes create a veneer of science to enhance the appeal of their claims. The professional-looking website of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) with its “study tracker” database, for instance,
ME: Which is the largest database on fluoride toxicity studies in the world.
OPED: encourages people to think that FAN’s anti-fluoridation arguments are rooted in rigorous science.
ME: They are.
OPED: Yet many of the studies cited on this tracker are irrelevant to water fluoridation or are seriously flawed.
ME: Says who? Is that based on your little ‘opinion’ committee?
OPED: For example, the tracker includes items such as an irrelevant study about fluorine enrichment of vegetables near an abandoned aluminum plant. Likewise, it contains a 1983 study whose authors contend that their data “seem to support” a link between fluoride toothpaste and a skin rash, even though the authors studied only 21 people and one-third of them did not complete the study. A journalist investigating the assertions made by FAN’s leader reported that this man “often relies on studies of fluoride use in other countries, where concentrations are significantly higher.”
ME: You just don’t get it. Fluoride is a cumulative toxicant. Bone collects it. If you drink fluoridated water you ADD to the total accumulation. ALL fluoride intake studies are relevant; animal and humans. That’s how you do risk assessment. If you want to learn more about that, then follow the FAN lawsuit against the US EPA that is into its 3rd day. So far FAN is winning (IMO).
OPED: Beyond citing irrelevant or poorly conducted research, FAN has also misrepresented studies. The group has cited an animal study that purported to find “that fluoride and low iodine have ‘mutually interacting effects’ on the thyroid gland.” But the coauthors of this study wrote it is “generally believed that fluorine does not influence either thyroid function or structure” at the amount used in water fluoridation.
ME: Get with the latest research.The latest human (and Canadian) study shows prenatal fluoride exposure (from fluoridation ) DOES affect the thyroid. Our NRC Report in 2006 summarized the biochemistry and physiology. Get with the facts.
OPED: The authors noted an exception “if fluorine intake is extremely high such as in an endemic fluorosis area” but such circumstances are extraordinarily unlikely in U.S. or Canadian communities.
ME: Nope. Now it has been shown in Canadian cities that fluoride exposure during pregnancy from fluoridation lowers the IQ of the offspring when the iodine intake is low, and there are plenty of women in Canada with low iodine intake. Follow the lawsuit and you’ll learn about the latest science.
OPED: Likewise Paul Connett claimed that a 2019 study “found a staggering 284 per cent increase in the prevalence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to non-fluoridated ones.” Yet the lead author of that study has said that the FAN leader misrepresented her work.
ME: Again check out the lawsuit. ADHD is another side effect in the kids born to moms exposed to prenatal fluoridated water.
OPED: At times, fluoride critics simply deviate from the truth. For example, a writer for an organic food website claimed that fluoridation’s scientific support rests on a 1940s study conducted “in a single community in Michigan by adding fluoride to the water supply,” and added: “No investigation into the possible adverse effects was done.” Both assertions are false. First, the foundational research occurred not in a single community but in cities in Michigan, Illinois, New York State and Ontario and these studies eventually revealed that fluoridation reduced tooth decay. Second, accompanying medical studies determined that the children drinking fluoridated water were meeting normal growth and health guidelines.
ME: Don’t care about ‘organic food websites’. I care about the science which you clearly are ignoring- so are the CDC, EPA, Health Canada, CADTH and your city if it re-institutes fluoridation. They only look at the science of ‘benefit’. In fact in the Lawsuit, the CDC admitted it COULDN’T examine safety studies…..since they HAD NONE on file. Let that sink in.
OPED: Fluoridation opponents also cloak their messages in science by operating their own “journal,” Fluoride, that permits fluoridation opponents to publish without the proper independent peer-review process offered by mainstream health science journals. The results are not surprising.
ME: Are you serious? Our 2006 US NRC Committee found that not only did that journal have a wealth of independent peer-reviewed studies on fluoride toxicology, but it hd many studies that were of high quality and independently peer-reviewed- they all are. Now looking at the dental literature (yes I have years of experience as a dental researcher) there are hundreds of dental journals pushing fluoridation that do not have peer review and aren’t listed in PubMed. Want to start counting journals for each side?
OPED: A 2005 Fluoride article purported to explore the “possible connections between water fluoridation and crime in America.” Yet the author disclosed no credentials in criminology, epidemiology or related academic field and stated that he collected crime stories “based on their content and on my intuition” rather than from a methodical search, effectively admitting that he didn’t use any scientific methodology,
ME: Hmmm. Is that typical of all lawyers? Just like lawyer to find a bad apple and use a broad brush stroke to paint over ALL fluoride literature. Well two can play that game. I will state that every single fluoridation study is weak and has flaws. There isn’t a single double-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) to show fluoridation works. And don’t come back with ‘they are impossible to conduct’. Public Health doesn’t WANT to conduct them. I proposed 2 really cheap ones that any dentist in pubic health could conduct. Use your money you raise to push fluoridation to finally conduct a decent RCT!
OPED: When misinformation convinces elected officials to make misguided health decisions, people can be harmed. Indeed, research has confirmed the serious impact of Calgary’s decision. A carefully designed study comparing tooth decay rates of Grade 2 children in Calgary and Edmonton revealed that, once fluoridation ceased, the average decay rate in Calgary rose at a much higher pace than in Edmonton: 146 per cent. Fluoridation opponents then personally attacked the study’s lead author.
ME: She was criticized in the journal in which she published that less than rigorous Calgary dental decay study and our critique of that study was published following hers after peer review! She was even given the courtesy of responding to our critique. Literally 99% of the media outlets after her study was published exaggerated the ‘proof’ of her study. She later admitted her study was unable to measure how much cavities that changed after fluoridation stopped in Calgary was actually due to ending fluoridation. The criticism is of course justified.
OPED: Thankfully, Calgary’s city council members are seriously considering reinstating water fluoridation.
ME: Which would be a grave mistake given that FAN is currently suing the EPA that fluoridation lowers IQ (AND WINNING in my opinion)
OPED: Yet, even as they do, council members are still receiving misinformation that lacks scientific rigour, according to one councillor.
ME: So you have a councillor who is not only a dentist, but an epidemiologists AND toxicologist? Who is that?
The public deserves full transparency, not this self-serving pro-fluoridation dogma that people will no longer fall for.
OPED: Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, many citizens have gained a richer understanding of public health expertise. It has become even more obvious that standing up for safe and effective public health measures helps promote healthier communities. Standing up for vaccination and fluoridation also means taking a stand for science.
ME: COVID19 and vaccination have nothing to do with fluoridation but now it’s easy to see why you wrote this: you’re worried about Public Health losing the confidence of the public which it has been appointed to protect. Well I think saving kids’ brains is more important than one filling in every third kid.
And most Calgarians would agree: right Mayor Nenshi?
Dr. Hardy Limeback BSC PhD (Biochem) DDS
Professor Emeritus and Former Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto
Member of the US 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Hardy, you claim “COVID19 and vaccination have nothing to do with fluoridation” which is true, of course. But you are attempting to disconnect your continual social media lobbying against community water fluoridation and the science supporting from the very movement you belong to.
The anti-fluoridation movement is ideologically driven – itis not scientifically driven or scientifically based. One has only to look at the funding. The Fluoride Action Network is funded by the “natural”/alternative health industry – big business. One of the most public funders of FAN is Merocla – an alternative, anti-vaccination, anti-medical science big business with its own commercial interests.
FAN is allied with the anit-vaccination movement through its coalition body – the Health Liberty Coalition – which was set up by Mercola.
In New Zealand the “natural”/alternative health industry finds anti-fluoride legal actions through it NZ Health Trust – it has put a fortune into unsuccessful legal actions attempting to stop community water fluoridation in New Zealand.
Yes, I know, anti-fluiodie activists from time to time attempt to disassociate themselves from their allies – but that is purely a public face-saving exercise.
In my own city, the local anti-foodie group managed to capture our local councillors and get fluoridation suspended 7 years ago. It took a city referendum to reverse that undemocratic action by the council. But what do we see on the Facebook page of that anti-fluoride group at the moment? Actually, not too much about fluoride. But articles opposing vaccination and raising fears of mandatory c=vacciantion. Promoting the film Plandemic. Articles pushing conspiracy theories about there coronavirus and 5G networks – claiming they, together with fluoridation, are biological weapons aimed at lowering population numbers. And let us not forget chemtrails.
I guess that because the fluoridation issue is no longer a motivating cause in my city they have allowed their real ideological motivations to surface.
There is no doubt these “causes” are common to many in the anti-fluoride movement – and that is easily understood because the movement is ideologically based. In fact, the average anti-fluodie activist has a very poor understanding of the science. They may attempt to make claims about the science but easily crumble when challenged with the facts.
It is important to recognise this underly ideological driving force when considering scientific argument promoted by people like Hardy and others in the anti-fluoride movement. they are not present an objective picture but purely cherry-picking and misrepresenting the science to support their own ideological biases.
Data from the World Health Organization shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe with 3% fluoridation is as good or better than any fluoridated country including the U.S., with over 70% fluoridation. This shows how ineffective fluoride is for teeth.
Everyone wants safe, clean water and not the added drug fluoride.
The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.
SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
Jwillie6 – You claim, “Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe with 3% fluoridation is as good or better than any fluoridated country including the U.S., with over 70% fluoridation.” What you are actually presenting is an anti-science interpretation of raw data which does not compare communities with and without optimally fluoridated water and/or take into account any of the many factors that impact tooth decay rates.
That’s one of the more common strategies of anti-science activists – present only part of the facts which can be “adjusted” so they appear to support a strong, biased, inflexible belief.
If the WHO data actually supported your claims, then explain why the WHO continues to support the effectiveness and safety of community water fluoridation (CWF).
In fact, the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health, concluded:
“Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water ?uoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of arti?cial water ?uoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.”
—> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have con?rmed that water ?uoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.”
—> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to ?uorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”
https://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/fluroide-oral-health/en/
Only fluoridation opponents and other anti-science activists would draw a conclusion about effectiveness of community water fluoridation (CWF) from a data that did not specifically measure or study differences in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities or in communities where fluoridation practices had changed. The studies below demonstrate that when exposure to fluoridated water is actually considered, decay rates are lower in those exposed to optimal levels of fluoride.
A study that compares decay rates based on differences in lifetime exposure to fluoridated water:
~> Contemporary evidence on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of childhood caries: Spencer, et al., Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29869803/
Three recent studies have demonstrated an increase in dental decay in cities after CWF was halted:
~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health201818:215
https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-018-0684-2
~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unit
https://www.wechu.org/reports/oral-health-2018-report
~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short?term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12215
SIMPLE SOLUTION – TRUST THE EXPERTS
1. Leave the fluoride ions in the water at 0.7 ppm.
2. Distillation, RO and activated alumina are available for those who have been duped into fearing the process of fluoridation by deceptive practices of fluoridation opponents.
3. Leave the rest of the population out of it, providing everyone in the community, particularly the disadvantaged, the benefits of strengthened enamel.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
Are you offering to pay the electric bill for all those distilling people then? As you want them to pay for something they don’t want. What’s scientific about that? What if somebody passed a law that everyone had to eat cabbage, but some emotional people could pay to not eat cabbage, despite all the science being pro-cabbage? https://is.gd/Z0xzm0
You’re out of date – and not before time. Why are so many fluoride experts called Johnson? https://is.gd/1AhdVz
Julian Bohan – Are you offering to pay the electric bill (or filter replacement costs) of everyone who does not wish to drink residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts – as you want them to pay for something they don’t want? Are you offering to pay for seat belt costs for everyone who is required to have them but does not want them?
Public health measures are implemented to protect the health of the community members by offering protection. People are free to ignore the benefits of public health measures like disinfection, fluoridation, vaccination, seat belts, etc., but they are responsible for the costs and potential consequences of ignoring them.
Wow! Many say that Randy is paid by the word to defend the big money scheme of fluoridation. If so, he is making a fortune.
In the ongoing federal lawsuit against the EPA’s fluoridation policy, three scientists testified using the many scientific studies so destructive to children.
Professors Philippe Grandjean, Howard Hu, and Bruce Lanphear all described the high quality scientific studies, which have brought them to this conclusion. All three said that delay in regulating fluoridation risks millions of children suffering IQ loss and potentially increased risk of ADHD.
Wow! jwillie6 states, “Many say that Randy is paid by the word to defend the big money scheme of fluoridation.” It highlights a common characteristic of his statements, it is completely false and presented without a shred of evidence (of course there is none) — but that is irrelevant to anti-science activists.
Ken Perrott has done an excellent job reviewing the “evidence” used by fluoridation opponents to try and demonstrate that fluoridation has a negative effect on IQ or causes other neurological problems, and he highlights the severe limitations of those studies.
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2020/01/23/what-are-the-recent-fluoride-iq-studies-really-saying-about-community-water-fluoridation/
Grandjean has a long record of anti-F activity and is Chief Editor of the “Open Access” journal ‘Environmental Health’ which has published many of the recent studies anti-F activists allege show an association between fluoridation and neurological problems.
Howard Hu is one of the authors of the Bashash, et al. study, “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico” discussed in the reference below.
Bruce Lanphear is one of the authors of the Green, et al. study, “Association between maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy and IQ scores in offspring in Canada” discussed in the reference below.
The reviewers often selected are other anti-F “researchers”. Ken has done an excellent job of digging into the anti-F “research” and summarizing the reasons that the overwhelming majority of experts in the field have not accepted it as proof of anything – except an extremely strong desire to dig up some damaging ‘evidence’ about fluoridation.
Carefully read these articles referenced below, “Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies”:
~> Part 6: Incestuous relationship of these studies
~> Part 5: Don’t censor yourself
~> Part 4: Till et al (2020)
~> Part 3: Riddell et al (2019)
~> Part 2: Green et al (2019)
~> Part 1: Bashash et al (2018)
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/?s=fluoridation+propaganda
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/?s=Grandjean
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-green.html
Some have suggested adding a stattin drug or other popular drugs to drinking water.
No one should be forced to take a drug washout consent.
A doctor or a dentist cannot force a drug on ANYONE. They would lose the right to practice if they did.
A city bureaucrat should not be allowed to do so either. To force everyone to consume a drug, fluoride, is immoral and should be illegal.
James Reeves – What reputable science or health organization has “suggested adding a stattin drug or other popular drugs to drinking water’? The only ones I am aware of who make those “suggestions” are anti-F activists who want to provide an irrelevant distraction.
Unlike fluoridation (which is safe and beneficial because it reduces the risk of tooth decay and related healtj problems in young and old, developing and erupted teeth) is quite different from statins which are beneficial (and prescribed) mostly for older adults with specific symptoms, health history &/or risk factors.
The AMA recognizes that clinical judgement and patient-clinician discussions are indicated before prescribe statins – not an indication the AMA recommends adding ststins to drinkimg water.
“Despite rather substantial trial evidence on the use of statins for primary prevention of CVD, uncertainties remain, and all five of the guidelines uniformly advise that clinical judgment along with thoughtful patient-clinician discussions is indicated, regardless of level of patient risk,” the editorial said. “All guidelines also emphasize the importance of lifestyle interventions to reduce risk in all patients, regardless of lipid-lowering drug use.”
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/hypertension/more-statin-guidance-muddies-primary-prevention-pictur
“Bonow, a professor of medicine at Northwestern and a past president of the American Heart Association, emphasized that the new guidelines are not saying that everyone over 40 should be on statins. ‘It’s not quite time to put statins in the drinking water,” he cautioned. “But for older adults, it’s important to know your risk and to have a discussion with your doctor about your test results and other factors like family history. For the right individual, statins can be very beneficial.’”
https://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-2016/new-guidelines-on-who-should-take-statins-cs.html
“There are many who joke that statins should be added to the drinking water…”. Seems like you might be interpreting a joke as your reality, but that is not surprising.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/cholesterol-confusion-and-why-we-should-rethink-our-approach-to-statin-therapy/
Provide a specific reference to such a claim from a reputable organization,and there will be something to discuss.
Your “suggestion” sounds a lot like the earlier false and absurd statememt by jwillie6, “many say that Randy is paid by the word to defend the big money scheme of fluoridation”. The only ones making those claims are disingenuous liars.
I am simply interested in the science.
The evidence of effectiveness of fluoridation, as public health has admitted on very weak studies, is MAYBE 1/3 filling saved per person in the US over about 20 years of fluoridation.
There is NO benefit to ingest fluoride. Nada.Nothing.Zilch.
Now we are learning there are several studies showing prenatal fluoride is strongly associated with lower IQ. Only the science matters. Policy makers, if they continue to ignore the science, will cause irreparable harm. Protect kids’ brains. Is it really worth the 1/3 filling saved in each person? Calgarians need to educate themselves and let their council members know they will not be re-elected if they vote to add unsafe fluoride chemicals back into the drinking water.
Hardy, you again demonstrate your ideological motivations in your replies
You reject the consistent evidence for a reduction in tooth decay where CWF is used and demand an RCT trial as the only evidence you would accept. Yet you claim that “prenatal fluoride is strongly associated with lower IQ” even though those studies are very weak and produced contradictory results (showing either negative, positive or no effect of fluoride on child IQ see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2020/01/23/what-are-the-recent-fluoride-iq-studies-really-saying-about-community-water-fluoridation/). You are not demanding an RCT trial in this case because you accept cherry-picked results simply because they confirm your bias – you are ideologically motivated. Science is the last thing you are interested in – and that is always the case with the “natural”/alternative big business financed anti-fluoridation/anti-vaccination movement.
This CWF thing is really mislabelling though and only a political drumbanger would be blind to the deleterious effect of such weasel words upon the public’s understanding of fluoridating them, etc…could we agree on CBF for Community Biome Fluoridation? Why is no-one talking about Gavin Williamson’s nuts? https://twitter.com/turizemptuj/status/1265783023485755392
The study referenced used fluoride levels about 17 to 70 times higher than found in optimally fluoridated water. Try drinking 17-70 times more water than recommended or eating 17 times more salt, vitamins, etc. than recommended and you could make a very strong case that water, salt vitamins, etc. were deadly poisons.
Fluoridation opponents ignore the well established benefits of exposure to low levels of fluoride ions (~0.7 ppm) and use evidence of harm at high exposure levels to try and create unwarranted fear of fluoridation.
Funny you mention New Zealand, in nz less than half of our region’s (counties) flurodate the drinking water, and if you look at th HD e metadata there is very little difference in cavities of children who live in the different areas. Let’s say that fluoride isn’t “dangerous” it also isn’t necessary, so why put it in the water. If parents care, or if we care about children get them to brush their teeth. In countries that don’t fluoridated at all, they have seen a drop in cavities just as much as countries that do, due to go oh d oral health hygiene, using fluoridated toothpaste. It doesn’t need to be about any of the crazy b. s. both sides are arguing it’s do we really want to put more crap into our bodies that isn’t needed.
Aj, I have no idea what the “th HD e metadata” is that you refer to.
However, NZ research has shown a clear difference between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. Yes, anti-fluoride activists attempt to use data irrationally by not taking into account ethnic differences (a naive comparison ignores the fact that Pacific Island children have a higher incidence of tooth decay and are concentrated in fluoridated areas – hence distorting the raw data). When done properly the analysis shows a difference – and a big one for M?ori.
Yes, over time many countries have shown a decrease in caries figures – due to diet, hygiene, fluoridated toothpaste as well as CWF, fluoride rinse and fluoride varnish use. But when the proper comparisons are made within regions the differences still; show CWF to be beneficial.
No one is advocating putting “more crap into our bodies.” That characterisation simply shows your bias.
I thought you’d be busy assembling confounders – before issuing a collective fatois cancelling all the known facts about fluoride, ACE2, cytokines and inflammation – to show no difference in Covid-19 death rates between 0% fluoridated STPs, and STPs with >0%, between 12 and 25% https://is.gd/ZeaNzz – though it is probably hard to get that gig if you’re not a millionaire paid-up member of the British Conservative Party.
The authors take second place with a constipated 15 #fluorothinkometer readout. And the current league table is as follows…
@BBCWorld feat. @ClioCatherine 24
@julietguichon et al 15
@WaterOnline 9
@EWG 5
https://twitter.com/samknowsnow/status/1270915162648662017 5
@AnatGEdelsburg 4
@business Bloomberg 4
https://twitter.com/turizemptuj/status/1272157370353885185 4
@lawbc in @natlawreview -1
@green4EMA https://twitter.com/FluorideAction/status/1271522656291086336 leads the sanity with -7
This diatribe is coming from someone who coauthored a study that reaffirmed fluoridation’s safety related to bone health. He constantly calls for a randomized, controlled study of fluoridation when he KNOWS that such a study would be virtually impossible to conduct in Canada or the U.S. That argument is a classic “red herring” that is aimed at distracting people from the key facts, which demonstrate fluoridated water safely reduces the rate of tooth decay.
I have posted two different very simple RCT designs elsewhere. They are NOT impossible. Saying so clearly shows that you have no idea about cariology (study of dental decay), epidemiology, toxicology (we know fluoridation causes dental fluorosis) and our bone study DID show negative effects on human bone (read the whole paper, not the abstract!).
Public health has never, not in 75 years of fluoridation, attempted to do a single properly conducted clinical trial. That is shameful, in view of the fact that the US EPA, as I type this, is having great difficulty in proving safety of fluoridation in the lawsuit currently underway. Can you even point to a single study? The CDC was unable to produce one. I doubt you can either. No amount of lobbying (you’re a marketing consultant or something?) will change the science.
Let’s focus on you for a second Hardy, because you clearly have a soapbox you are standing on. You spend the entire early part of your career publishing such pieces like:
1) Current recommendations for appropriate use of fluoride supplements for the prevention of dental caries (University of Toronto Dental Journal) – 1995
2) Toward a caries-free society–fluoride therapies for today and the next century (University of Toronto Dental Journal) – 1995
(Conveniently, can’t read these online.)
And then in the late 90s, you do an about face. You are still a published researcher, senior authoring systematic reviews, research on breast feeding, celiac disease and dental health. But you don’t touch fluoride beyond commentaries and presentations. In your career, you easily could have done one of these simple RCT designs amongst the sea of other things you published. You did not. Hmmmmm….
If in 75 years there has been no good research (as you say), then why did young Hardy not (as the expert in cariology, epidemiology, toxicology you claim to be) ascertain that in the early part of your career? Were you just a more innocent and impressionable then? What swayed you? And why do you not then simply conduct the research as a primary investigator you seem to think is so easy to do to silence your critics? Do the study here in Toronto and prove all thee naysayers wrong. Right? Nope.
I have no opinion on fluoridation at all. But I can smell a rat. The only reason a successful scientist and clinician like you would ricochet over to the realm of expert puppet spokesperson for some shit-disturbers is because they are getting paid more than their reputation is worth. You’ve simply become a chaos agent.
Sure, you can try to convince me you are an impassioned old professor trying to spread some kind of gospel of truth. But more likely you are getting paid per comment or on retainer to negate anything pro-fluride online to stir the pot, confuse people, get em riled up OR you are a sad old man clinging to the glory days of when people actually gave two shits about your credentials (in case you are wondering, signing everything as ‘Professor Emeritus University of Toronto) doesn’t mean anything to most.
To be clear, I don’t give a rat’s ass about fluoride. Take it or leave it. I’m much more interested in your fall from grace….
Being disrespectful and nasty does not advance your view. Dr. Limeback has outstanding background and credentials. There was an early period when he promoted fluoridation, but being a true scientist, he learned the truth about the health dangers of fluoridation and published a letter explaining why he changed his belief. For those who don’t know him, here are his credentials.
Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, and former head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto and a past president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research.
Sure call it disrespectful. I respect good science and integrity.
If he’s a true scientist, then publish this ‘truth’ that he was suddenly privy to. His fluoridation scientific work is clearly documented in the literature via published work. It’s how he got all those letters behind his name. But his anti-fluoridation crusading is hardly scientific – it’s youtube videos, comments on articles and letters that have absolutely no rigor. He just criticizes everyone else’s work and says all the evidence is garbage. But it’s not like a landmark study came out that changed it all. He just flipped with no real scientific basis. But he is sure to sign all tweets and comments with 9 letters to communicate the credentials he earned while promoting fluoride.
Again, I smell a rat.
I asked before and I’ll ask again – who is paying Dr. Hardy Limeback to be their spokesperson? Some chaos agent with deep pockets.
Limeback — you have mentioned your “very simple [fluoridation] RCT designs” a number of times in comment sections. I have requested a link to a detailed outline of those “designs”, and you have ignored those requests. The only answer you have ever provided is that you have posted your designs somewhere and never provided a link so they could be reviewed and critiqued. If a RCT trial is actually “very simple”, as you suggest, why have you not initiated it – or at least made your design(s) available?
You state you “are interested in science”, yet the only science you seem to be interested in supports only your opinions and consists of severely flawed studies that were designed and interpreted to dredge up any “evidence” that could be manipulated to support your opinions. As noted, those are the same tactics used by anti-vaccination activists, flat-earth supporters and others who have extremely strong opinions that are not actually supported by actual, legitimate scientific evidence.
You claim “Now we are learning there are several studies showing prenatal fluoride is strongly associated with lower IQ. Only the science matters.”
Also, in response to the oped statement, “Yet many of the studies cited on this [FAN] tracker are irrelevant to water fluoridation or are seriously flawed” you replied, “Says who? Is that based on your little ‘opinion’ committee?”
In fact, the recent studies which have claimed to demonstrate that fluoridation lowers IQ in children (the 2019 Green, et al. study for example) are seriously flawed and the criticisms have come from relevant experts from around the world – not just a “little ‘opinion’ committee”. Perhaps you could address each of the criticisms leveled against the Green, et al. study…
https://cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationInformation-Green.html
Randy Johnson
The authors of this article are con artists and guilty of everything they accuse health freedom advocates of.
They have conveniently placed their names and photos here so when it comes time to hold them accountable for their criminal behavior, we can easily find them.
This article has been written before. Nothing new. Same dogma peddled as authoritative science.
All you need to know is that we citizen scientists are suing the US EPA in federal court at this very moment to stop fluoridation. Why is this fact not mentioned?
The judge only recognizes testimony under oath. The authors of this article are propagandists and would be found guilty of perjury If they tried their tricks in court this week.
The trial is being streamed live on Zoom reconvening Monday the 15th at 8:30 am Pacific Time. Click here to watch live: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZckc–tqTstE9EPuSSy6u7MmWIsI15iIHXz
The link above is for the debrief session. Here’s the federal court link to watch live: https://zoom.us/j/1607275798
CORRECTION! HERE IS THE LINK TO WATCH THE TRIAL.
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1607275798?pwd=UTZiNE1lbDE1MXdiYThNNEFtaklFQT09
The two other links above are for clean water advocates only. Sorry for the confusion.
The phrase “health freedom advocates” as used by fluoridation opponents and other anti-science activists, simply means they can hijack freedom of speech privileges to promote unsubstantiated, strongly held opinions based on poor-quality studies &/or misrepresented study conclusions &/or fabricated “evidence”.
Promoters of fluoridation, like promoters of vaccination, understand that the science strongly supports those public health measures as safe and effective, and they have the best interests of their fellow citizens in mind as they study, develop and promote health measures. If there were actually legitimate, relevant scientific evidence that proved (or even strongly suggested) fluoridation was harmful to health the scientific consensus would change.
If you are actually one of the “citizen scientists [who] are suing the US EPA” then provide your best scientific evidence to support your claims – then there will be something besides your unfounded opinions to discuss. If it is the Green, et al. study, or those related to it, they are rife with problems of methodology and interpretation and are critically flawed as pointed out by experts world-wide.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-green.html
https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts
https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/
https://healthcentral.nz/opinion-ken-perrott-so-what-is-the-story-about-fluoridation/
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/
Fluoride is widely available (toothpaste, etc.) . Use it — as much as you wish — but it should be illegal to add it to drinking water and force EVERYONE to consume it without consent.
Most of the world understands that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health. While the US is about 70% fluoridated, the world is only 5% and Europe is only 3%. China and Japan rejected it many years ago.
Community water fluoridation, along with other water treatment methods (disinfection, pH adjustment, corrosion control, coagulation/flocculation), are all public health measures to help protect the health of all members of a community.
Explain your statement that fluoridation will “force EVERYONE to consume it [F-] without consent”
Who exactly is forcing everyone to drink the tap water – and exactly what methods are ‘They’ using – physical force or mind control? According to your twisted “logic”, EVERY ADULT is also being forced (without consent) to drink residual disinfectants and disinfectant byproducts which don’t benefit health. Anti-chlorination activists use the same tactics to try and halt or change disinfection practices with no regard for public health.
https://cei.org/studies-issue-analysis/rachels-folly-end-chlorine
If someone chooses not to ingest any of the residual chemicals used to treat tap water to make it safe – or the disinfection byproducts created – they are free to treat the water or find an alternative. Fluoridation opponents (and other anti-science activists like vaccination opponents) selectively fight any public health measure they disagree with and twist the facts (or fabricate an explanation) to fit their agenda.
Randy — So once again you post your silly comment that adding a drug to drinking water does not force EVERYONE to consume it. Should people quit drinking water?
A doctor or a dentist cannot force a drug on ANYONE. They would lose the right to practice if they did.
A city bureaucrat should not be allowed to do so either. To force everyone to consume a drug, fluoride, is immoral and should be illegal.
So, again by your “logic”, the public health measure of disinfecting water will “force EVERYONE to consume” not only the poison chlorine (used as a chemical weapon) but the created disinfection products (like chloroform) which — unlike fluorine — have no health benefits.
You seem to be unaware that fluoridated water is not regulated by the FDA (or any other agency) as a drug. In fact, the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a “Food For Human Consumption”, not a drug. No one is forcing a drug on anyone. This is another example of how anti-science activists distort reality and create lies to promote their agenda.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-brief/fda-brief-fda-proposes-updated-standards-fluoride-added-bottled-water-maximize-health-benefits-while
Randy: You know, as does everyone, that fluoride is added to treat the body (teeth) — therefore a drug by definition.
Chlorine is added to treat the water, fluoride is added to treat the body. It is a big difference. Try not to be confused.
As noted, fluoridation and all other water treatment methods are employed to protect the health of those who drink the water.
“Water chlorination is the process of adding chlorine or chlorine compounds such as sodium hypochlorite to water.” (Wikipedia)
As noted, chlorine gas has been used as a chemical weapon which treats the body rather poorly.
Water treatment chemicals also “treat the body”, although not in a beneficial manner.
“After swallowing sodium hypochlorite the effects are stomach ache, a burning sensation, coughing, diarrhea, a sore throat and vomiting. Sodium hypochlorite on skin or eyes causes redness and pain. After prolonged exposure, the skin can become sensitive. Sodium hypochlorite is poisonous for water organism.”
https://www.lenntech.com/processes/disinfection/chemical/disinfectants-sodium-hypochlorite.htm
You simply ignore the benefits of fluoridation and ignore the fact that excessve exposure to disinfection chemicals and disinfection byproducts actually “treat the body” iin a harmful manner.
Your labeling of fluoridation as a drug that treats the body is irrelevant, because virtually all chemicals will “treat the body”. Whether that “treatment” is beneficial or harmful depends on the chemical and the exposure level.
Fluoride levels at 0.7 ppm in drinking water are beneficial to health, and residual disinfectants and disinfectant byproducts are regulated to be within safe levels when they “treat the body” after ingestion.
Good try. You forgot to mention that fluoride is a deadly poison, more than lead and only slightly less than arsenic. As the toothpaste tube says: “if you swallow more than a small pea size, call the Poison Control Center.” That is fast poisoning. The small amount added to drinking water results in slow poisoning.
So, ignoring the loss of IQ, the claim is made that fluoride is good for children’s teeth as they form.
EXACTLY why should adults be forced to consume it in every glass of water, every day of life?
of water, evvery day of life.
Reply to JR comment below –
Poor try. You forgot to mention that, unlike low levels of fluoride which benefits health, lead and arsenic are not beneficial to health. You also forgot to mention that virtually any substance “is a deadly poison” at high enough exposure levels – even drinking water (H2O) can be deadly. Two to four gallons –– just 5-10 times the normal adult ‘dose’ of about 2 liters per day –– can lead to deadly water intoxication.
https://www.medicaldaily.com/water-intoxication-just-how-much-h2o-does-it-take-kill-person-312958
If you continue to make these absurd claims, provide some legitimate evidence that any child has died (or even been harmed) from swallowing a pea-sized amount of toothpaste – there is none. “Although it should be avoided if possible, it’s safe for your child to swallow this pea-sized amount of fluoride toothpaste.”
https://www.healthline.com/health/fluoride-toothpaste#safety-for-young-children
Your inability to understand the concept or relevance of “dose” is so noted.
No one is ignoring the claims made by anti-fluoridation activists that fluoridation lowers IQ. Te fact is, the so-called “evidence” is of extremely poor quality and conclusions range from no evidence of lowered IQ to improved IQ, to lower/higher IQ for boys/girls. Anyone who understands science and statistics can simply examine the data scatter plots in the references (and at the bottom of the Green-information-page) to see that the data used to make the claims of lowered IQ are extremely close to the pattern of a random shotgun blast – and the greater the scatter, the less the reliability there is any association between the variables studied (F- levels and IQ, for example).
https://cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationInformation-Green.html
https://cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationInformation-Consensus.html
Also, while drinking optimally fluoridated water during tooth development strengthens the enamel of both primary and permanent and makes them more resistant to decay, drinking optimally fluoridated water also helps prevent decay once the teeth have erupted — and F- ions can help remineralize teeth
According to the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health:
—> “Fluoride is effective at controlling caries because it acts in several different ways. When present in dental plaque and saliva, it delays the demineralization and promotes the remineralization of incipient enamel lesions, a healing process before cavities become established. Fluoride also interferes with glycolysis, the process by which cariogenic bacteria metabolize sugars to produce acid. In higher concentrations, it has a bactericidal action on cariogenic and other bacteria. Studies suggest that, when fluoride is ingested during the period of tooth development, it makes teeth more resistant to subsequent caries development. Fluoridated water also has a significant topical effect in addition to its systemic effect (Hardwick et al., 1982). It is well known that salivary and plaque fluoride (F) concentrations are directly related to the F concentration in drinking water. This versatility of action adds to fluoride’s value in caries prevention. Aiding remineralization is likely to be fluoride’s most important action.”
—> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water ?uoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of arti?cial water ?uoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.”
—> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have con?rmed that water ?uoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.”
https://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/fluroide-oral-health/en/
You still have not explained who is forcing adults to consume fluoride or what methods are employed or how that differs from forcing adults and children to consume residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts.
One of the main arguments against fluoridating the Public water is that many people cannot afford water filtration systems to remove it and cannot afford bottled water. So once again it is the disadvantaged that pay the price of lowered IQ and other health issues for their children due to fluoride consumption. It is especially dangerous for bottle fed babies when fluoridated water is used to make formula. The amount the baby receives far exceeds the safe level. Interestingly when babies are breastfed by mothers ingesting fluoridated water, the mother’s body filters out most of the fluoride.
One of the main arguments in favor of fluoridating the Public water is that many people cannot afford dental care, and drinking optimally fluoridated water reduces the risk of dental decay and related health problems. Unlike the disinfection byproducts, which are not a healthy drinking water addition and require filtration or distillation to remove, fluoridation is beneficial — and only those who ignore the 75 years of scientific evidence would call fluoridation dangerous.
Are you suggesting that there is a one-size-fits-all dose of fluoride for EVERYONE, regardless of age, sex, race, or underlying conditions? That’s absurd. Also, nice red herring fallacy by bringing up disinfecting byproducts when we are on the topic of fluoride specifically. Also nice spin on the fact that communities facing financial hardship are not in a position to afford water filtration or otherwise reject water fluoridation through the tap water by claiming it will prevent their tooth decay, when in reality the treatment of over exposure and dental fluorosis WILL cost them a lot down the line. Fluoride is mainly effective topically through brushing with toothpaste, NOT by ingestion. This is a huge difference.