The backlash against the use of fluoride began as soon as authorities in the U.S. began using it to treat public water supplies. The people in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s knew very well that up until that point, fluoride was a primary component of commercially available rat poison. They were justifiably appalled that their governing officials were moving forward with water fluoridation without public consent.
At that time, there were some scientists who questioned the reliability of the studies, which were being hailed as proof of the effectiveness of fluoride to prevent cavities. They also questioned the amount of fluoride being added to the water. Since the water fluoridation agenda had proceeded without those safety studies being done. However, people who protested water fluoridation were marginalized, as being quacks and/or as people who did not care about the well-being of children.
The grassroots movement to expose the misinformation about fluoride has continued even in spite of the attempted suppression of much of the supporting research in previous decades. A relatively small number of scientists and doctors have spoken out, even at the risk of their careers being damaged by dismissal and denial of research funding. Even today, it is not a popular position for a dentist or scientist to take (that fluoride is ineffective and dangerous), those that do, may be subjected to professional ridicule and/or censure.
We really need to take control of our personal water supplies and one of the best ways to do this is having a really good water purification system in your home that can remove these added levels of fluoride. We recommend Berkey Water Purification Systems because they are phenomenal quality, well priced and have an additional fluoride removal filter which you can read about here: www.naturalpurebodycare.com/berkey-water-systems.
No Reliable Studies To Back Up Fluoride Safety Or Effectiveness
The ‘hundreds’ of studies supporting fluoride use as effective and safe have been characterized by the York Review (British Government) in 2000 as ‘low to moderate’ quality. This means that these ‘studies’ employed low to moderate quality scientific methods to produce this ‘evidence’ of safety and effectiveness. I would wager that most if not all of these studies would not pass the ‘peer review’ process today.
Fluoride Does Not Prevent Cavities
Dr. Albert Schatz Ph.D (Microbiology) studied the effects of water fluoridation in the early 1960’s. His research showed that fluoride only postponed cavities by on average 1.2 years. Despite the efforts of Dr. Schatz to have his finding published, his submissions were rejected (apparently unopened) on three separate occasions by the Journal of the American Dental Association.
Source: Second Opinions UK – April 12, 2006
Data, which shows fewer numbers of cavities in children under approximately 12 years of age in places using water fluoridation, has been cited to prop up the claims that fluoride prevents cavities. However, the research of Dr. Schatz shows that once those children reach the age of 14 and up, the rates of tooth decay are the same as children of the same age from places not using fluoridated water. It really is a case of using research selectively to support a position.
Tooth Decay Rates Lower In Non-Fluoridated Countries
The following data comes from a World Health Organization report in 2012. The report studied tooth decay rates in 12-year-old children in 20 developed nations. In many of the countries with no water fluoridation at all, they found lower rates of tooth decay than countries that fluoridate more than 60% of their water. In the seven countries who had the lowest tooth decay rates, six had no water fluoridation programs, while the seventh (England) fluoridates only about 10% of its water.
Source: Fluoride Action Network
Tooth Decay Decline Rates Are The Same For Both Fluoridated And Non-fluoridated Areas
Scientists are at a loss to explain this data
“Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both un-fluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past thirty years. It is now time for a scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation.”
Source: Mark Diesendorf -The Mystery Of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature 322, 125 – 129 (10 July 1986); doi:10.1038/322125a0. Nature Publishing Group
This is the poison warning found on every type of fluoridated toothpaste:
“Do not swallow toothpaste. Keep out of reach of children under 6 years. If more than is used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Centre immediately.”
This warning is warranted since fluoride is a toxin and there is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to cause severe poisoning and can even be fatal to small children, particularly if there is no medical intervention.
In addition, toothpaste is ‘marketed’ to children by its appearance, flavourings and packaging.
Let’s be honest here, sometimes it’s a job to prevent a child from eating dirt! Then along comes toothpaste that is marketed to children by being sweet, tasting like candy or bubble gum and is even being packaged like candy. Most children will be tempted by it. Additionally, young children do not always have control over their own swallow reflex to prevent themselves from swallowing even if they want to.
“Levy (1993) noted that a full strip of toothpaste covering a child’s size toothbrush is 0.75 to 1.0 g which could result in a fluoride intake as high as 1 mg per brushing. Based on the literature available at the time, Levy (1993, 1994) estimated that children 2–3 years old would ingest about 0.3 g per brushing, equivalent to 59-65% of the amount used. At one time, a complete ribbon of toothpaste across the surface of the toothbrush was recommended. However, more recent guidelines stress the application of a pea-sized portion. Levy etal. (1992) found that children using flavored toothpastes marketed specifically for children used higher amounts of toothpaste than those using regular toothpaste. Levy(1993) also reported that 49% of 59 children aged 1–4 years did not rinse or expectorate when brushing and an additional 27% rinsed but ingested almost all of the rinse water. Only 5% of the children under the age of 2.5 years spit after brushing. In reviewing the available literature, Levy (1993, 1994) noted that children who did not rinse after tooth brushing ingested 75% more toothpaste than those who rinsed. Swallowing control is especially weak in younger children, and Levy et al. (2001) note that several studies have shown that younger children may ingest more than half of the toothpaste used per brushing.”
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis – December 2010
Fluoride Exposure and …
Lower IQ’s, Learning Disabilities, and ADHD
There is considerable concern that fluoride exposure has led to lower IQ’s, learning disabilities and ADHD. Here is just one example of the available evidence, which comes to us from the combined efforts of Harvard School of Public Health and China Medical University – Shenyang:
“In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.”
Source: Harvard School of Public Health News July 25, 2012, Impact of Fluoride on Neurological Development in Children
Fluoride Exposure and …
Dental Fluorosis, Skeletal Fluorosis, Osteoporosis
Fluorosis (Systemic) – Chronic fluoride poisoning Toxicology A chronic low-level intoxication that occurs where drinking water has fluoride > 2 ppm Clinical Weight loss, brittle bones, anemia, weakness, ill health, stiffness of joints, mottled enamel and chalky white discolored teeth with a normal resistance to caries; fluorosis is common, given fluoride’s availability in mouth rinses, toothpastes, misuse of fluoride treatments.
Definition Source: McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Dental Fluorosis – manifests as brown and white spots on the teeth and pitting on the enamel (indicating damaged enamel). It occurs when children are exposed to high levels of fluoride while their teeth are developing.
Most of the examples above deal with studies of fluoride in public water supplies. Regarding its use in dental care products such as toothpaste and mouthwash I would make the following point. There is a significant amount of absorption that will take place from the mouth into the blood stream, even if children do not swallow these products. It is also important to remember that fluoride accumulates in the body over time and so the harmful effects on health will build up as well.
Those who are the most vulnerable to the effects of fluoride include the elderly, people suffering from kidney disease, the very young and young black children to an even higher degree than white children, people suffering from diabetes, low-income communities, people who suffer from any disease which causes excessive thirst, and people with inadequate nutrition. Finally, perhaps the two most vulnerable groups not yet discussed are infants and fetal infants.
Infant Formula Should NOT Be Made With Fluoridated Water
“A major effort should be made to avoid use of fluoridated water for dilution of formula powders. In addition, when economically feasible, young infants fed formulas prepared from concentrated liquids should have these formulas made up with non-fluoridated water.”
Source: Ekstrand J. (1996). Fluoride Intake. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. Pages 40-52.
“When formula concentrations need to be diluted, it is recommended parents use bottled water that is fluoride-free or low in fluoride or tap water from a reverse osmosis home water filtration system, which removes most of the fluoride.”
Source: Academy of General Dentistry. “Monitor Infant’s Fluoride Intake.”
The subject of fluoride exposure on fetal infants will be discussed in a future article.
At this point, if you are like me you will be asking the question: WHY did governments proceed with adding fluoride to dental products and water? Where did they get the idea that adding a toxic industrial waste byproduct to water and tooth paste was a good and necessary measure for the public health? It is a very good and important question; however, it is beyond the scope of this particular article. I will be examining this subject in detail in a future article.