Propaganda was the word that stuck in my
mind while trying to write up an article concerning why the Templeton Board of
Health (BOH) has decided not to endorse a warning to be placed on water bills
concerning the health hazards (fluorosis) involving fluoridated water and
infant baby formula. Fluoride has been
associated with fluorosis in all four of its forms (very mild, mild, moderate
and severe). Forty one percent of
adolescents in the United States have dental fluorosis in one form or another.
The Great Fluoride Gamble is the gamble that fluoride can negatively affect
your teeth without causing harm to any other part of your body. Fluoride has recently been sited by the
Harvard School of Public Health as being associated with a lowering of IQ.
Propaganda is one of those words meant to
end discussion on a topic due to its negative connotation. Propaganda was the
word chosen by Chairman Trifilo of the BOH to explain the book The Case Against
Fluoride by Connett, Beck and Micklem.
After the meeting had ended I questioned Chairman Trifilo again as to
why he felt The Case Against Fluoride was propaganda and he explained that it
read like books he was given by a possibly deranged cousin about UFO’s. In my opinion in a nice way, Chairman Trifilo
was calling me a fluoride whacko. By
extension of me being a whacko this meant that the author of the book The Case
Against Fluoride must also be deranged.
Here is the author of the book Dr. Connett in a debate concerning
fluoride held on September 5 2012 in Phoenix against profluoride dentist Dr
Howard Farran. You be the judge if Dr.
Connett is mentally unstable.
This
debate is a must watch for anyone who wishes to be truly informed about the
problems associated with fluoride. Both
debaters do an excellent job stating their case concerning the pros and cons of
fluoridation.
Propaganda from the book The Case Against
Fluoride was not the only reason Chairman Trifilo was unable to endorse the
warning concerning mixing fluoridated water with infant formula. The next reason given by Chairman Trifilo was
fluorides prophilactive effect on diseases like Baby Bottle Tooth Decay. Baby Bottle Tooth Decay is a very serious
problem involving sugars being converted to acid by bacteria in the mouth
leading to systemic problems in the circulatory system and elsewhere. Here is a short lesson on Baby Bottle Tooth
Decay.
The
above link supports the idea that sugars are the culprit and that education and
seeing your dentist very early in your child’s life is very important to
prevent Baby Bottle Tooth Decay. Fluoride
may also help with Baby Bottle Tooth Decay as fluoride is an enzymatic poison
and would be expected to effect the bacteria in the babies mouth however most
dental professionals agree that fluorides effect is topical not systemic so
that drinking fluoridated water would be ineffective. Here is Nobel Prize winner Arvid Carllson on
the use of fluoride.
As the reader can see Baby Bottle Tooth Decay
is a very big problem as is tooth decay in general whether the water is
fluoridated or not. This link shows how
Boston Massachusetts home of Dr. Allukian (the “esteemed” speaker at last years
Annual Town Meeting concerning the fluoride debate) even though fluoridated
since 1978 has major problems with dental decay as do other fluoridated
communities and States even though fluoride has been added to the water supply.
In closing fluoride an enzymatic poison is
believed to work topically and may help with Baby Bottle Tooth Decay. Drinking this enzymatic poison seems to be
ineffective as seen by the links above. Advocating for a warning to be placed
on water bills warning young families to be careful of mixing this enzymatic
poison with infant baby formula may come across as propaganda to rid the town
of it fluoridated water supply. If this
is propaganda this author stands guilty of the charge of warning these young
families they may be doing lasting harm to the brains, bones, teeth and
endocrine systems (to name a few) of their new arrivals.
As stated in The Case Against Fluoride,
“Using the authority of government office or the prestige of one’s profession
to confidently assure the public that fluoridation is safe and effective, when
such assurance is not based on one’s own review of the literature, is the worst
betrayal of all: it is the betrayal of the public’s trust. Let us all hope that
Chairman Trifilo and the other members of the BOH will take the time to learn
the whole truth concerning the potential health problems associated with water
fluoridation.
Please take the time to learn about the
affects of fluoride. Fluoride is not
called “The Devil’s Poison” because it is good for you.
Do you all remember last Town Meeting when the fluoride issue was broght up? a group of dental hygenist stood up to talk, led by Kathy W's (light dept office manager) neighbor. One question for all of them do you allow your children to drink Templeton's water, do you cook with it?
ReplyDeleteIt would also be useful to figure who has well water. If they have well water do THEY take a fluoride tablet every day? When is BOH going to enforce the mandatory fluoridation of EVERY man woman and child in Templeton? If fluoride is that important to prevent dental decay, the BOH should force EVERYONE to ingest it.
ReplyDeleteDr. John Doull (2006 National Research Council Panel Chairman)stated "we have much less information (on health issues) than we should, considering how long this (fluoridation) has been going on." This statement made fifty eight years after the DHHS endorsed fluoridation. In my opinion what this esteemed scientist is trying to say in layman terms is that someone sold us a big load of manure (shit) concerning fluoridation and it is time to take a very close look at the bad science that surrounds the practice of water fluoridation.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteIn November, 2006, the ADA issued an alert stating that fluoridated water should not be used to reconstitute infant formula, and should not be given to children under 1 year old.
The believed benefit of fluoridation has not been borne out by the evidence. The largest study ever conducted in the US by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1986-87 showed a statistically insignificant difference of decay between fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas. Overall, the percentage of decay-free children was about 34% regardless of fluoridation. The NIDR has stated that 90% of cavities in school children occur in pits and fissures of teeth, where fluoride is least effective. WHO health statistic show that decay rates declined similarly in fluoridated and nonfluoridated industrialized countries between 1955 and 2005. The minority of these countries fluoridate their water, and a few fluoridate salt. Published studies from East Germany, Cuba, Canada, and Finland show that three or more years after discontinuing fluoridation, decay rates remained stable or declined further. Boston, Houston, Pittsburgh, Miami, NYC, and Cincinnati continue to report dental decay crises despite long histories of fluoridation.
Meanwhile, the Oral Health America study, which was reviewed by the CDC, published a Report Card in October 2000. Although Oregon got an “F” for its rates of fluoridation, we rated a “B” for children’s oral health(cavities). Washington got a “D” for fluoridation rates, and an “A” for oral .
The products used in artificial water fluoridation (sodium fluorosilicate and hydrofluorosilicic acid) are industrial grade, hazardous waste products from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum industries. These industries profit by selling their waste products to the public rather than paying to having them disposed of. They contain co-contaminants including arsenic, lead, cadmium, beryllium, and mercury. These chemicals are certified by NSF International, which is a nongovernmental, private, self-regulating body with representatives from the fertilizer and aluminum industries serving as officers of the standards committee a.k.a. the A.W.W.A.
These products have never been tested for safety and effectiveness by the sellers, or at the behest of the CDC or ADA. However, Masters and Coplan’s study (1999) of 280,000 Massachusetts children showed that the childrens’ blood lead levels were significantly higher in communities using these products than they were in towns where water was treated with sodium fluoride or not fluoridated at all.
The Oregon Chiropractic Association joins the thousands of doctors and scientists who oppose water fluoridation. These include 14 Nobel Prize winners, and the EPA employees union chapter 280 which is comprised of the toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, and lawyers of the EPA. Given the mounting science that shows little benefit to teeth with mounting evidence of the cumulative risk from cradle to grave ingestion , governmental decision makers would be wise to show due diligence before mandating such global exposure.
Conspiracy theories....sounds more like it
ReplyDeleteFlier issued in May 1955 by the Keep America Committee, alleging a conspiracy theory that water fluoridation is a communist plot.
Water fluoridation has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories. During the "Red Scare" in the United States during the late 1940s and 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the 1960s, activists on the far right of American politics routinely asserted that fluoridation was part of a far-reaching plot to impose a socialist or communist regime. They also opposed other public health programs, notably mass vaccination and mental health services.[55] Their views were influenced by opposition to a number of major social and political changes that had happened in recent years: the growth of internationalism, particularly the UN and its programs; the introduction of social welfare provisions, particularly the various programs established by the New Deal; and government efforts to reduce perceived inequalities in the social structure of the United States.[56]
Some took the view that fluoridation was only the first stage of a plan to control the American people. Fluoridation, it was claimed, was merely a stepping-stone on the way to implementing more ambitious programs. Others asserted the existence of a plot by communists and the United Nations to "deplete the brainpower and sap the strength of a generation of American children". Dr. Charles Bett, a prominent anti-fluoridationist, charged that fluoridation was "better THAN USING THE ATOM BOMB because the atom bomb has to be made, has to be transported to the place it is to be set off while POISONOUS FLUORINE has been placed right beside the water supplies by the Americans themselves ready to be dumped into the water mains whenever a Communist desires!" Similarly, a right-wing newsletter, the American Capsule News, claimed that "the Soviet General Staff is very happy about it. Anytime they get ready to strike, and their 5th column takes over, there are tons and tons of this poison "standing by" municipal and military water systems ready to be poured in within 15 minutes."[9]
This viewpoint led to major controversies over public health programs in the US, most notably in the case of the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act controversy of 1956.[57] In the case of fluoridation, the controversy had a direct impact on local programs. During the 1950s and 1960s, referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities. Although the opposition was overcome in time, it was not until as late as the 1990s that fluoridated water was drunk by the majority of the population of the United States.[55]
The communist conspiracy argument declined in influence by the mid-1960s, becoming associated in the public mind with irrational fear and paranoia. It was portrayed in Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, in which the character General Jack D. Ripper initiates a nuclear war in the hope of thwarting a communist plot to "sap and impurify" the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people with fluoridated water. Another satire appeared in the 1967 movie In Like Flint, in which a character's fear of fluoridation is used to indicate that he is insane. Some anti-fluoridationists claimed that the conspiracy theories were damaging their goals; Dr. Frederick Exner, an anti-fluoridation campaigner in the early 1960s, told a conference: "most people are not prepared to believe that fluoridation is a communist plot, and if you say it is, you are successfully ridiculed by the promoters. It is being done, effectively, every day ... some of the people on our side are the fluoridators' 'fifth column'."[9]
To find out the true history of fluoridation without the conspiracy angle the book The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson is excellent. Mr. Bryson also has a short video by the same name but much is missed by taking this shortcut.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFluoridation does little to reduce Early Childhood Caries
Looking at the children in the Head Start Program in the US, Barnes discovered that, “children attending centers showed no significant differences based on fluoride status for the total sample or other variables.” (Barnes et al, 1992).
Howard Pollick, a profluoridation spokesperson for the American Dental Association, has written articles in favour of fluoridation but in this study which he co-authored, it was reported that fluoridated water had no influence on early childhood caries. “Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water.” (Shiboski et al, 2003).
Community water fluoridation did not appear to provide a cost benefit in the UK (Kowash et al, 2006).
In Brazil, living in a fluoridated community did not make any difference in early childhood caries (Tiano 2009).
However, in a recent small study in Australia, fluoridated water used in infant formula reduced caries risk marginally but only in those infants fed longer than 6 months (Do et al, 2012). It must be remembered that infant formula made with tap water increases the risk of dental fluorosis (see blog on fluorosis) and fluorosis is associated with lowered intelligence (Choi et al, 2012).
Even if there were small positive effects on baby bottle tooth decay by living in a community with fluoridated water, the other health risks from ingesting fluoride are not worth it.
A much more effective way to reduce early childhood caries is to educate low income families on how to prevent it (Feldens et al, 2010)
New moms, once empowered with science-based knowledge, will do everything in their power to properly protect their kids from the pain and suffering that rampant caries brings. No mother wants to see her child placed under general anesthetic and then pay thousands of dollars in dental repair costs.
Rather than put millions of dollars into fluoridation programs, cities would be better off providing oral health education, dietary advice and assistance to families in need.