A new study has claimed a link between water fluoridation and neurobehavioural problems in children. Dental practitioners have an important role to play in understanding the evidence.
Modern science proves that ingested fluoride isn't a nutrient or required for healthy teeth - making fluoridation unnecessary, ineffective and a waste of money. 90% of Australians are served fluoridated water. Yet, a recent news report said tooth decay is similar to that in third world countries. After 79 years of fluoridation in the US, tooth decay is at epidemic levels and dentists have created a new epidemic - dental fluorosis (or fluoride overdose) which now afflicts 70% of US children and adolescents, according to published research in a peer reviewed journal.
How about these https://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science Fluoride is not only in water but in foods, beverages, medicines, air pollution, absorbed from dental products and more. Fluoride bioaccumulates in the body, regardless of source. Fluoridation just adds to the body burden of fluoride toxicity, unnecessarily Relating health effects to water fluoridation alone is unscientific and makes you seem like you are covering up something. Boiling fluoridated water can lead to up to (and probably more) 5 mg/L in the finished product, in soups and in stews. Athletes and outdoor workers can consume gallons of water daily. Babies drink way more water per body weight than adults. The concentration of fluoride in water doesn't equate to total fluoride intake from all sources.
Generally, natural fluoride is calcium fluoride and fluoride is more tightly bound to calcium. However, the fluoridation chemicals most used in the US are never-safety-tested hydrofluosilicic acid, a toxin-laced industrial waste product never purified before injection into the drinking water. It dissociates in water more easily than calcium fluoride. Besides teeth need calcium; they don't need fluoride
You have cited the Broadbent study as evidence that fluoridation does not cause neurological harm. The National Toxicology Program classified the Broadbent study as "low quality" because of high risk of bias. But anyone can see that the Broadbent study is useless. There were 99 children in the nonfluoridated area and 991 children in the fluoridated. There were 139 children using fluoride tablets but Broadbent doesn't bother to find out if they were on nonfluoridated or fluoridated water. If most children in the nonfluoridated area were taking fluoride tablets then they would have been getting the same dose as the children in the fluoridated area.
Anyone citing this study has either not done their homework (which is what you appear to have done) or know it is a useless study but cite it anyway so that others will cite it without looking into it.
Any comment on the small sample size of the critiqued paper, or the other methodological issues that it (and many of the other papers purporting harm) all share? There remains no credible evidence that water fluoridation causes neurological harm.
You do understand the fraudulent manner in which grants for expensive, larger scale quality studies is enforced right? And hence how modern “research” overwhelmingly seems to support vested interested, even when many such papers own data doesn’t even support the conclusions they claim?
We drink filtered water from a cistern, have never used fluoride toothpaste… my kids, 12 and 9 have the most amazing teeth.
Data can't be extrapolated to a population from individual experience though. That is the challenge.
I’m pretty sure the VI doesn’t add fluoride to their public water( I’ll have to call and ask) , over half the homes in the Vi and BVI are cistern fed.
Modern science proves that ingested fluoride isn't a nutrient or required for healthy teeth - making fluoridation unnecessary, ineffective and a waste of money. 90% of Australians are served fluoridated water. Yet, a recent news report said tooth decay is similar to that in third world countries. After 79 years of fluoridation in the US, tooth decay is at epidemic levels and dentists have created a new epidemic - dental fluorosis (or fluoride overdose) which now afflicts 70% of US children and adolescents, according to published research in a peer reviewed journal.
The evidence continues to overwhelmingly show that (a) water fluoridation reduces tooth decay and (b) is not linked to adverse health effects.
How about these https://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science Fluoride is not only in water but in foods, beverages, medicines, air pollution, absorbed from dental products and more. Fluoride bioaccumulates in the body, regardless of source. Fluoridation just adds to the body burden of fluoride toxicity, unnecessarily Relating health effects to water fluoridation alone is unscientific and makes you seem like you are covering up something. Boiling fluoridated water can lead to up to (and probably more) 5 mg/L in the finished product, in soups and in stews. Athletes and outdoor workers can consume gallons of water daily. Babies drink way more water per body weight than adults. The concentration of fluoride in water doesn't equate to total fluoride intake from all sources.
Indeed - fluoride naturally occurs in the environment including ground water.
Generally, natural fluoride is calcium fluoride and fluoride is more tightly bound to calcium. However, the fluoridation chemicals most used in the US are never-safety-tested hydrofluosilicic acid, a toxin-laced industrial waste product never purified before injection into the drinking water. It dissociates in water more easily than calcium fluoride. Besides teeth need calcium; they don't need fluoride
Matt is deeply propagandised. I’m not sure there’s any hope for some of these captured academics tbh
You have cited the Broadbent study as evidence that fluoridation does not cause neurological harm. The National Toxicology Program classified the Broadbent study as "low quality" because of high risk of bias. But anyone can see that the Broadbent study is useless. There were 99 children in the nonfluoridated area and 991 children in the fluoridated. There were 139 children using fluoride tablets but Broadbent doesn't bother to find out if they were on nonfluoridated or fluoridated water. If most children in the nonfluoridated area were taking fluoride tablets then they would have been getting the same dose as the children in the fluoridated area.
Anyone citing this study has either not done their homework (which is what you appear to have done) or know it is a useless study but cite it anyway so that others will cite it without looking into it.
Any comment on the small sample size of the critiqued paper, or the other methodological issues that it (and many of the other papers purporting harm) all share? There remains no credible evidence that water fluoridation causes neurological harm.
You do understand the fraudulent manner in which grants for expensive, larger scale quality studies is enforced right? And hence how modern “research” overwhelmingly seems to support vested interested, even when many such papers own data doesn’t even support the conclusions they claim?
Oh sorry, you are employed in “public health” at a university, haha, case closed