UK - Show us evidence that fluoride is safe
THREE weeks ago, I wrote to ask if Kate Taylor-Weetman would tell us what safety research there has been on extra strength fluoride toothpaste.
We wanted to know who did the research, who sponsored it and whether or not it had been properly peer reviewed. Readers will note that there has been no response, nor was there one to any of my questions in previous letters.
We can therefore now assume that there is no evidence worth producing.
Until the PCT introduced this novel approach, reduced amounts of fluoride in toothpaste have been advised for children. Even so, the packet warns that children must be supervised at all times when brushing, that the child must never be allowed to swallow any and that in case of accidental exposure, medical help must be sought immediately.
Surprisingly, the British Fluoridation Society's website is equally cautious, making it clear that an appropriately lower formula should be used to avoid damage to teeth. In America all fluoride toothpaste has to carry a poison warning, yet our PCT cannot explain why it thinks that higher strength fluoride is suitable for North Staffordshire babies.
Evidence of harm from fluoride, referred to by me in other letters, including the risk of damage to a baby's brain, thyroid problems, the higher incidence of Down's Syndrome births, the risks to the elderly and those with impaired kidney function have all come from reputable peer reviewed research, which means that it is considered valid and authoritative.
Further information may be found on the websites Fluoride Action Alert and UK Against Fluoride, both of which feature Dr Howard's research on childhood brain damage from fluoride. Parents should not readily accept assurances that this extra strength toothpaste is perfectly safe. There are statistics on the harmful effects of fluoride, but if your child is one who later suffers damage, it is no longer a statistic, but a personal tragedy.
Unfortunately, the pro-fluoride lobby, for whatever reason, seems more than happy to substitute propaganda and misrepresentation for proper evidence-based research.
KATE BOULTON
Biddulph
We wanted to know who did the research, who sponsored it and whether or not it had been properly peer reviewed. Readers will note that there has been no response, nor was there one to any of my questions in previous letters.
We can therefore now assume that there is no evidence worth producing.
Until the PCT introduced this novel approach, reduced amounts of fluoride in toothpaste have been advised for children. Even so, the packet warns that children must be supervised at all times when brushing, that the child must never be allowed to swallow any and that in case of accidental exposure, medical help must be sought immediately.
Surprisingly, the British Fluoridation Society's website is equally cautious, making it clear that an appropriately lower formula should be used to avoid damage to teeth. In America all fluoride toothpaste has to carry a poison warning, yet our PCT cannot explain why it thinks that higher strength fluoride is suitable for North Staffordshire babies.
Evidence of harm from fluoride, referred to by me in other letters, including the risk of damage to a baby's brain, thyroid problems, the higher incidence of Down's Syndrome births, the risks to the elderly and those with impaired kidney function have all come from reputable peer reviewed research, which means that it is considered valid and authoritative.
Further information may be found on the websites Fluoride Action Alert and UK Against Fluoride, both of which feature Dr Howard's research on childhood brain damage from fluoride. Parents should not readily accept assurances that this extra strength toothpaste is perfectly safe. There are statistics on the harmful effects of fluoride, but if your child is one who later suffers damage, it is no longer a statistic, but a personal tragedy.
Unfortunately, the pro-fluoride lobby, for whatever reason, seems more than happy to substitute propaganda and misrepresentation for proper evidence-based research.
KATE BOULTON
Biddulph
posted by Bill at
9:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home