Wednesday 17 September 2008

FLUORIDE : THE LUNATIC DRUG Pt 8



Cary G Dean.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl Methyl Phosphoryl FLUoride).
And the stuff that's put in your water supply for you all to drink (HexaFLUrosilic Acid)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Paul Connett, PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617

10 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

(1)
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.


(2)
Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the the rest of the world.


(3)
Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt.

The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989).

According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990).

This difference is less than one tooth surface!

There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth.

This result was not shown to be statistically significant.

In a review commissioned by the Ontario government, Dr. David Locker concluded:


"The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance" (Locker 1999).

(4)
Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).


(5)
There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years.

There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.


(6)
Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde, 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized.

Many other factors influence tooth decay.

Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002 and Ekanayake 2002).


(7)
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged the findings of many leading dental researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride's benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC.

Thus, you don't have to swallow fluoride to protect teeth.

As the benefits of fluoride (if any exist) are topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense, for those who want to take the risks, to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste.

Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, there is no reason to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply.

This position was recently shared by Dr. Douglas Carnall, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal.


(8)
Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective.

Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water (Kelly 2000).


(9)
The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride.

The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its mildest form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7).

A major US survey has found 30% of children in optimally fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller 1997), while smaller studies have found up to 80% of children impacted (Williams 1990; Lalumandier 1995 and Morgan 1998).

The York Review estimates that up to 48% of children in optimally fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms and 12.5% with symptoms of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).


(10)
Dental fluorosis means that a child has been overdosed on fluoride.

While the mechanism by which the enamel is damaged is not definitively known, it appears fluorosis may be a result of either inhibited enzymes in the growing teeth (Dan Besten 1999), or through fluoride's interference with G-protein signaling mechanisms (Matsuo 1996).

In a study in Mexico, Alarcon-Herrera (2001) has shown a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in children.


"In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk".

"That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all - that requiring every man, woman and child in the world to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."


Conclusion

When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, invested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings.

In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins.

With fluoridation we have had a fifty year delay.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue.

BUT THEY MUST!!!

Not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political expediency.

They have a tool with which to do this:

It's called the Precautionary Principle.

Simply put, this says:

If in doubt leave it out.

This is what most European countries have done and their children's teeth have not suffered, while their public's trust has been strengthened.


It is like a question from a Kafka play.

Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child's mouth?


For those who would call for further studies, I say fine.

Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want.

This folly must end without further delay.



-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Connett, PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617
-------------------------------------------------------------


No comments: