NZ: federal control of fluoridation would be a nightmare Posted on February 4, 2018 by stuartbramhall New Plymouth voted to remove fluoride from their water supply in 2011. Share this:FacebookTwitterLinkedInLike this:Like Loading... Related
They speak about ‘myths’. What can you say to this, Stuart?
There are some major problems with this article, Aunty. The first is the way it sets up the arguments. For example, in myth number one they set up a straw man by claiming that fluoride opponents maintain fluoride isn’t natural – this is ludicrous. What we maintain is that fluoride isn’t a vitamin and that there is no requirement for fluoride for the human body to function – which there isn’t.
Then in number 2 they refer to studies done in the 1940s – however when you have a look at these studies you find that none were randomized or double blinded which has been the standard for proof for the last 30 years at least. All attempts at doing randomized double blind studies of water fluoridation have revealed no benefit. Randomized double blind study of topical fluoride application to the teeth show a limited benefit.
Then in number 3 they refer to studies done (or screened) by the NHMRC, which is an industry controlled (the fertilizer industry – the fluoride put in the water is toxic waste created by the phosphate industry) Australian government body. All the independent peer reviewed research shows a clear link between dental fluorosis (stained teeth) with lowered IQ, dental fluorosis, hypothyroidism and weakened bone structure.
In number 4, they mislead people by talking about fluoride concentration instead of fluoride dose. The effect of any toxin always relates to the total daily dose they receive (relative to their weight) – not the concentration of the poison. In 2004 the American scientists at the EPA recommended water fluoridation be discontinued until there was definitive research into the exact daily dose of fluoride that was toxic. This research has never been done – the pro-fluoride industry refuses to do it. A low birthweight premature infant could easily receive a toxic dose of fluoride at the concentrations they describe.
Thank you very much, Stuart, for explaining all this. I actually did get this link to this Conversation article from Gerard Oosterman. He mentioned it in my comment section and I replied to it now by referring to your reply:
Pingback: Interview with Dr. John Colquhoun 1998 | auntyuta
Pingback: NZ: federal control of fluoridation would be a nightmare | Rangitikei Enviromental Health Watch