Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Dr. Johnson,

You hit on several important topics and sound like an echo of David. . . or is it the other way?

You have failed to address over exposure.  Just because a little might be good, does not mean more is just as good or even safe.  Many are ingesting too much fluoride. 

You are correct about the aging process and more root caries, although my geriatric patients seldom have root caries, it is a problem, especially for those with poor diets.  

Here is the serious flaw in your theory.  Fluoride has some topical benefit like toothpaste, not systemic. Fluoridated water has too short of a contact time and too dilute to have topical benefit. There are no prospective randomized controlled trials, good science, supporting your theory for dilute short contact topical or "ingested" fluoride.  If 0.7 ppm fluoride concentration had topical benefit, makes no sense to give people 1,500 parts per million topical.  And if my memory is correct, drop down to below 500 ppm fluoride in toothpaste and the benefit drops off.  A significant topical benefit from fluoridated water makes no scientific sense and is not backed by research.   

Fluoride ingestion with intent to prevent caries is not FDA approved because the science is still incomplete. . . and the studies could be done and probably have.  But they don't show benefit. 

97% of Western Europe is fluoridation free and your comment echoing David that there is not a single credible organization opposed to fluoridation is simply wrong, and you know it. . . . unless the definition of "incredible" requires that they support fluoridation.  Then you have a catch 22, circular logic.

And you go back to endorsements.  Endorsements are not science.  But lets look at some of those "credible" organizations you raise.

1.  Please provide a link to each of those organizations and the references to the primary research supporting their position.  Then we can discuss their science.

2.  The American Dental  Association testified in court that they owe no duty to protect the public.  Seriously Johnny, the ADA exists to protect its members, dentists, not the public.  For example, the ADA support mercury fillings which are illegal due to toxicity for me to throw in the trash or dump in the sewer or send in the mail.   What about the human mouth makes them safe?  Nothing.  Tradition is more important than public safety.  Even the mercury filling manufacturers have greater warnings than the ADA.   We cannot trust the ADA to protect patients, they protect dentists. 

3.   The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.  CDC does not determine the dosage, efficacy or safety of any substance used to prevent disease.

4.  WHO is clear that a determination must first be made whether there is inadequate fluoride in a community before more is recommended.  As of 2011-2012 we had 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis and 20% with moderate/severe. . . far too much fluoride.  Certainly more should not be administered when so many show a biomarker of excess exposure.

Now to the AARP.

If you had science on your side, you would welcome a scientific debate, discussion, forum, review and white paper.  Seniors get too much fluoride with medications, their kidneys are often compromised, their bones brittle.   Why add more to their diet?   If you want topical, I will not argue.  But swallowing the fluoride harms seniors and does not help their teeth.

No conspiracy, Johnny.  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.

My mentor reminded me, "50% of what we know in health care is wrong, but we do not know which 50%.  Always be a humble student of science, we are wrong and need to find out where."

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH