Fluoride Debate

fluoride debate
(Healingtalks)
The following video shows a highly informative debate between two proponents of public fluoridation of our waters and Michael Connett, attorney for Fluoride Action Network. The debate was aired March 21, 2013.

Connetts arguments include the following. Added comments and links are provide to buttress this debate:

1) Benefits cited or disputed within different contexts - At least a dozen countries in Europe have seen declines similar to those in the US, without public fluoridation and there may be multiple reasons – like more attention to brushing teeth, more visits to dentists, more use of fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwashes, and the like. Thus when studies showed a decline in tooth decay, were these results obtained before or after other factors were present?  Pro-fluoride arguments often miss the larger context, including that 97% of western Europe does not use fluoridated water and yet has seen the same decline in tooth decay.  This implies that systemic internal fluoridation cannot, in isolation, be clearly linked to cavity declines. Nor can results from studies that show fluoridation decreases cavities be taken as valid, outside of the larger context in which these studies were conduction.  A study in 1940 would have shown entirely different results than one in 2014. To ignore this, can direct us to misleading conclusions.

In fact, the World Health Organization currently ranks US as 13 or 14th in world oral health, even though we subject more people to fluoridation than all of the rest of the world combined. If fluoridation were so effective, should we not be first on the list? The bottom line is that fluoridation is not making the clearly distinct difference that is claimed, and on a global level. This fact and other research led the American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, and American Dental Association to acknowledge that the primary impact of fluoride is topical, something not at all known in the 1940’s or 1950’s when, beginning in Grand Rapids, Michigan the first fluoridation experiment started. It was also not at all known, in those early days, that  there are less toxic alternatives – like xylitol. At the same time, the many profound risks were not even suspected.

In addition, at least 5 studies since 2000, studying cities that have halted fluoridation programs, found no increase in tooth decay, buttressing what the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC and he American Dental Association have acknowledged. In fact, they found that tooth decay continued to decrease.

2) Disputing cost effectiveness of fluoridation as an oral treatment, a side argument for its benefits – The presumed savings ($38 for every $1 spent) to the public from dental costs that the CDC estimates does not include the side costs. such as treating fluorosis.  Not factored in is the cost of any side-effects, such as treating bones subject to fracture or the impact on the modern hypothyroidism epidemic. These added risks were more  fully acknowledged in a 2006 study of fluoridation by the American Academy of Sciences.  The cheapness comes about by adding hydrofluoric silicic acid, a toxic and corrosive waste product cheaply gotten rid of by the phosphate fertilizer industry. At the same time it is a cheap, low grade chemical, not an expensive pharmaceutical grade chemical, and being put into our water supply thus readily, cheaply entering every cell of our body.

3) Ethics of administering a drug -  Fluoride is not an essential nutrient like alkaline calcium, it fits the description of an acidic drug, as acknowledged by the FDA. Parents are advised not to give fluoridated tooth paste to children under two years of age, as it can be poisonous. Fluoride is more toxic than lead and almost as much as arsenic, yet it is administered in our water supply at doses 75-100 times higher than concentrations allowed for lead and arsenic.  The patient, the community is being treated with a drug, a synthetic chemical, hydrofluoric silicic acid without informed consent and indiscriminately  Some can buy bottled water or a reverse osmosis filtering systems, but this is not affordable to many in the lower economic strata and to thus exercise a freedom of choice. Dr. Arvil Carlson, a Nobel-Laureate who lead the fight against fluoridation in Sweden said that modern fluoridation violates the most essential principals of modern pharmacology. You have a toxin administered with a small margin of toxicity, with a reduced level only in effect a couple of years. We ultimately do not know what the true margin of safety is. Yet fluoride is given out indiscriminately to 300 million Americans as if they would all respond the same way, with no restrictions. That is not how we deal with all other toxic substances, irrespective of whether one is a 2 year old infant, a pregnant woman or someone suffering from thyroid, immune system defects or kidney diseases. There is no precedent in modern pharmacology or modern medicine for such a population-wide and indiscriminate medication.

 

4) Disputing that there are no known or established risks to worry about

If a dilution of a highly potent substance remains strong enough to kill bacteria topically in the mouth, it will certainly remain, at the same doze, biocitic internally as well. What will that dose then kill inside of us besides teeth bacteria? In which organ system?   Since water can carry a chemical to every cell, whatever the remaining biocidic impact is, it could be here and there or subtly systemic, instead of just topically impacting teeth. It is common sense thus to think twice about systemic use. Among the major concerns are the following:

  • Depression of Thyroid Functions – Part of the history of fluoride is that in Europe and South American, in the1950’s, doctors were routinely prescribing fluoride to bring thyroid functioning down. The impact was indisputably established clinically. The doses that were found most effective to bring down the thyroid functions were in the range of 2-5 milligrams per day in a drug or pill form, what many Americans are now receiving through their multiple sources of fluoride or when consuming plenty of water, soft drinks, mouth washes, tooth past, and other sources. Fluoride may be present in milk from cows who have drunk fluoridated water. Fluoride is, furthermore, a pesticide used in fumigating agricultural products, especially fruits. In supermarkets, a trace of fluoride remains generally present, for example, when eating non-organic raisins. Other produce may have been watered and fumigated, one or the other, with fluoride exposures. The fact is, considering this cumulative impact, there is the larger context wherein hypothyroidism is now a major and serious health problem in the US, baffling doctors as to why it is so common and major, and more so among middle age women. The concern here is that there is a logical link, even in the face of it being virtually impossible to directly trace or follow the trail of some endless sources of fluoride pollution impacting us. Nevertheless, the link is both reasonable, logical and sound to make. This logic was acknowledged by the 2006 study of the American Academy of Sciences. The precautionary principle, included in public law, mandates we consider this. Citizens with these health concerns are demanding this be factored in.According to government own statistics,about 5% of the US population aged 12 and  over has hypothyroidism. It has been estimated that another 5% may have sub-clinical or undiagnosed hypothyroidism, roughly 30 million people in total. The illness is common in the elderly, with quite severe life-impacting symptoms. If this illness shows up more as the years progress, it indicates it can linked to bio-accumulations. With hypothyroidism, the basal metabolic rate decreases, life slows down and patients get swelling in their face, legs and other body parts. They start to look obese and often become psychologically depressed by their de-enlivened state. Fluoride can logically be  one of several causal contributing factors. Among the other facts is the treatment drugs commonly used  to treat hyperthyroidism, but having the unintended reverberations to more permanently depress the thyroid. We know that roughly 50%  of fluoride is cellularly retained or bio-accumulated and 50% is excreted. We cannot thus reasonably obliterate this factor in our minds as a matter of reasonable concern. Fluoride is a well-known, clinically observed enzyme poison, which, when it becomes bio-accumulated, blocks the use of iodine – how fluoride in 2-5 mg doses clearly depresses thyroid functions.Thyroid disease is currently an epidemic in the US. It is common sense to consider this health crisis being impacted by fluoridation. Additionally, for those who already have this condition, it seems wrong to indiscriminately expose such ill and susceptible individuals to this non-consensual fluoride medication, roughly 10% of the population.
  • IQ Lowering – In July 2013, a Harvard group reviewed 27 studies, mostly coming from China, in regard to this issue. In China there where slightly higher levels of fluoride present, similar to what was spotted with hypothyroidism. In other words, the higher levels were not much more than most kids get in the US from multiple sources. Those studies have definitively and indisputably shown reduced IQs. A total of 27 studies now overwhelmingly confirm the brutal and scientifically confirmed fact that IQs decrease. At the same time, there has not been a single study ever in the US, rather than China, to further explore this link. Thus it seems, again, irresponsible by anyone to outright dismiss, without caution, such findings and make any confident announcements to as to the blanket safety of fluoridation, let alone to promote fluoridation aggressively.
  • Fluorisis – According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, between 40-50% of teenagers seem to have fluorosis. With severe cases, about 3-5%, to call this impact merely “cosmetic” is in dispute. The CDC even warns not to use tap water fluoridated in preparing baby formulas, due to this risk later in life of fluorosis. This is not widely publicized.
  • Kidney Damage – The National Research Council, a subdivision of the American Academy of Science, indicated in a 2006 report that people with kidney disease are more susceptible to fluoride’s bone and teeth-damaging effects. At the same time, dialysis machines do not use fluoridated water because as it is potentially dangerous. An National Kidney Foundation official statement say that some receiving dialysis treatments with fluoridated water have died via fluoride having leeched through dialysis filters. The National Kidney Foundation thus has withdrawn its support of fluoridation. The largest association of water professionals was put on notice, by a group of attorneys representing fluoridation victims in this regard, not to destroy records.Up until 2011, the optimal level of fluoride in water was considered .7-1.2 ppm. This has been reduced to .7ppm precisely because of the recognition, with multiple sources, that the higher limit could trigger signicant health risks, especially for infants drinking infant formulas with fluoridated water added But if this toxin is no longer allowed to be in our water supply at levels 75-100x higher than allowed for lead and arsenic, but is allowed at levels 50-75x more, and bio-accumulates, how is this justifiable?  The American Academy of Science, lists three definite harms of fluoride (fluorosis, susceptibility to bone fracture, skeletal fluorosis) and a host of other possible harms.

Related Articles

 

Related Video

 

About the Author

- Sign Up For Our Newsletter. Get Free Tips and Advice on Natural Living and More. Sign Up Today @ http://www.healingtalks.com/newsletter

Free Newsletter