Denying efficacy of fluoride
Many claim that fluoridation is responsible for reduction in tooth decay. However, improvement in oral health is not limited to fluoridated areas, but is enjoyed by non-fluoridated areas as well.
A National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR) study of 39,207 children living in either fluoridated or non-fluoridated areas their whole lives shows no difference in oral health. The NIDR, a fluoridation endorser, tried to prove the benefit of fluoridation, but could not. The NIDR study cost taxpayers $3.6 million, but as it did not conclude with results proponents hoped for, they buried it. It only came to light, after much stonewalling, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act filing.
A WHO study shows that nations which do not fluoridate have enjoyed an improvement in oral health equal to, if not better than, countries which fluoridate. Cessation studies show no increase in cavities after the ending of fluoridation across the globe. How can proponents continue to ignore these facts?
The U.S. Public Health Service acknowledged the link between fluoridation and dental fluorosis in its recent memo calling for a 30 to 40 percent reduction in fluoride levels in water supplies. After decades of dumping millions of tons of fluoride into our water table and food chain, a steady rise in fluorosis to 41 percent should have been predictable.
Obviously, we’re getting overdosed. And there’s no proof that it’s doing us any good. And there’s increasing proof it’s doing us harm. So, why keep doing it? Should people be forced to ingest a chemical shown to be not only ineffective but harmful, just because we’ve been doing it for so long?
As for trusting a dentist in matters of fluoridation, dentists have been promoting this practice for so long they refuse to consider facts in evidence. They assume that because topically applied fluoride has benefit, that swallowing it must be a good idea, too. This is like saying that swallowing shampoo will make your hair clean, or ingesting sunscreen will prevent sunburn.
BARBARA GOLL
A National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR) study of 39,207 children living in either fluoridated or non-fluoridated areas their whole lives shows no difference in oral health. The NIDR, a fluoridation endorser, tried to prove the benefit of fluoridation, but could not. The NIDR study cost taxpayers $3.6 million, but as it did not conclude with results proponents hoped for, they buried it. It only came to light, after much stonewalling, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act filing.
A WHO study shows that nations which do not fluoridate have enjoyed an improvement in oral health equal to, if not better than, countries which fluoridate. Cessation studies show no increase in cavities after the ending of fluoridation across the globe. How can proponents continue to ignore these facts?
The U.S. Public Health Service acknowledged the link between fluoridation and dental fluorosis in its recent memo calling for a 30 to 40 percent reduction in fluoride levels in water supplies. After decades of dumping millions of tons of fluoride into our water table and food chain, a steady rise in fluorosis to 41 percent should have been predictable.
Obviously, we’re getting overdosed. And there’s no proof that it’s doing us any good. And there’s increasing proof it’s doing us harm. So, why keep doing it? Should people be forced to ingest a chemical shown to be not only ineffective but harmful, just because we’ve been doing it for so long?
As for trusting a dentist in matters of fluoridation, dentists have been promoting this practice for so long they refuse to consider facts in evidence. They assume that because topically applied fluoride has benefit, that swallowing it must be a good idea, too. This is like saying that swallowing shampoo will make your hair clean, or ingesting sunscreen will prevent sunburn.
BARBARA GOLL
posted by Bill at
9:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home