My reply to the National Fluoride Information Centre
Thanks for the reply and the consideration. I’ve looked at the web page again and still find it is a one sided pro-fluoride propaganda. Below is the York conclusion according to you – in bold is the actual York sentences covering the same point.
At the end is a paragraph from a Professor’s letter criticising the biovailability of fluoride study
Conclusion
1. Water fluoridation is associated with decreased prevalence and severity of dental decay in both primary and permanent teeth.
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
2. There appears to be no association between water fluoridation and the incidence of bone fractures, defects or cancers. There was insufficient evidence to make conclusions regarding miscellaneous other adverse effects.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
3. Water fluoridation reduces inequalities in dental decay between social groups
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.
4. Water fluoridation has an effect over and above that of other decay-preventing strategies, such as fluoride toothpastes.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
5. There appears to be no difference between naturally and artificially fluoridated waters.
I’ll print a paragraph from Stella Saunders Consultant in Dental Public Health (Southampton) who said the same thing
"Most significantly, in my view, at the end of June this year the University of Newcastle announced the results of its study comparing the bioavailability of fluoride in naturally and artificially fluoridated water. The conclusions of the study, that there appears to be no significant difference in the bioavailability of fluoride from drinking waters in which the fluoride is present at concentrations close to one part per million, either naturally or added artificially, or whether the waters are hard or soft, match the outcome predicted by theoretical chemistry. The results of this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation."
I approached a professor who wants to remain anonymous and considering how people are maligned when they come out against fluoridation I’m not surprised. The new president of the British Dental Association came out with the word “claptrap” to describe anything presented against the current dogma. This is what the professor said:
"The MRC review was not systematic and the only reason it included additional studies not included in the York review was because they lowered the threshold and considered studies which the York team deemed too poor methodologically. This means that any conclusions from this are likely to be weaker and have less of a basis than the York review - indeed it was not even part of the MRC's terms of reference to do a review and it seems that it was just taken as an opportunity by the dental establishment to try and change the results.
1) The Newcastle bio-availability study is being referred to. Two things about that:
a) it was about comparing uptake of artificial and naturally occurring fluoride. It was not a study about effects or safety. Therefore to say that "The results of this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation." is a complete misrepresentation of the research.
b) more importantly however, this study has come under considerable criticism. I have read it and am very concerned about the evidence of poor design and manipulation of data: the study was very small and only powered to find over a 30% difference in bioavailability (which is huge). In fact it did find (using one of the outcome measures a statistically significant increase in uptake from artificial fluoride but they then removed one of the 20 data points (saying it was an outlier!) and the result was no longer statistically significant. This is very dubious practice. Essentially the study shows nothing as it is too small but suggests there is a difference in uptake and possible an interaction with soft water. The conclusions of the report stress the caution that must be used in interpreting their results but this is not in the summary of the report. All very dodgy stuff which does not lend support to arguments for fluoridation of water in my view."
Other issues: there are people who are allergic to fluoride, do you think about them? Do you care about the tons of contaminated fluorosilic acid dumped into the environment? Do you care about the risk to thyroid patients? Do you care about those whose kidneys are failing? Do you know what my intake of fluoride is or anybody else’s? Of course you don’t, that is why children are getting fluorosis in areas that are not fluoridated Should babies drink fluoride?
At the end is a paragraph from a Professor’s letter criticising the biovailability of fluoride study
Conclusion
1. Water fluoridation is associated with decreased prevalence and severity of dental decay in both primary and permanent teeth.
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
2. There appears to be no association between water fluoridation and the incidence of bone fractures, defects or cancers. There was insufficient evidence to make conclusions regarding miscellaneous other adverse effects.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
3. Water fluoridation reduces inequalities in dental decay between social groups
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.
4. Water fluoridation has an effect over and above that of other decay-preventing strategies, such as fluoride toothpastes.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
5. There appears to be no difference between naturally and artificially fluoridated waters.
I’ll print a paragraph from Stella Saunders Consultant in Dental Public Health (Southampton) who said the same thing
"Most significantly, in my view, at the end of June this year the University of Newcastle announced the results of its study comparing the bioavailability of fluoride in naturally and artificially fluoridated water. The conclusions of the study, that there appears to be no significant difference in the bioavailability of fluoride from drinking waters in which the fluoride is present at concentrations close to one part per million, either naturally or added artificially, or whether the waters are hard or soft, match the outcome predicted by theoretical chemistry. The results of this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation."
I approached a professor who wants to remain anonymous and considering how people are maligned when they come out against fluoridation I’m not surprised. The new president of the British Dental Association came out with the word “claptrap” to describe anything presented against the current dogma. This is what the professor said:
"The MRC review was not systematic and the only reason it included additional studies not included in the York review was because they lowered the threshold and considered studies which the York team deemed too poor methodologically. This means that any conclusions from this are likely to be weaker and have less of a basis than the York review - indeed it was not even part of the MRC's terms of reference to do a review and it seems that it was just taken as an opportunity by the dental establishment to try and change the results.
1) The Newcastle bio-availability study is being referred to. Two things about that:
a) it was about comparing uptake of artificial and naturally occurring fluoride. It was not a study about effects or safety. Therefore to say that "The results of this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation." is a complete misrepresentation of the research.
b) more importantly however, this study has come under considerable criticism. I have read it and am very concerned about the evidence of poor design and manipulation of data: the study was very small and only powered to find over a 30% difference in bioavailability (which is huge). In fact it did find (using one of the outcome measures a statistically significant increase in uptake from artificial fluoride but they then removed one of the 20 data points (saying it was an outlier!) and the result was no longer statistically significant. This is very dubious practice. Essentially the study shows nothing as it is too small but suggests there is a difference in uptake and possible an interaction with soft water. The conclusions of the report stress the caution that must be used in interpreting their results but this is not in the summary of the report. All very dodgy stuff which does not lend support to arguments for fluoridation of water in my view."
Other issues: there are people who are allergic to fluoride, do you think about them? Do you care about the tons of contaminated fluorosilic acid dumped into the environment? Do you care about the risk to thyroid patients? Do you care about those whose kidneys are failing? Do you know what my intake of fluoride is or anybody else’s? Of course you don’t, that is why children are getting fluorosis in areas that are not fluoridated Should babies drink fluoride?
posted by Bill at
10:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home