Water fluoridation is one of those terrible ideas formulated by bureaucrats going off half-cocked.
Municipal water systems all over the country jumped aboard the fluoridation band wagon in order to save teeth - or were there other reasons?
Turns out the stuff is highly poisonous, and isn't even effective for preventing tooth decay. Some studies have shown it even increases dental problems.
But it's still being pumped into water supplies.
Why? Momentum, I guess. Face-saving may also be involved.
It's hard to stop bad ideas when someone is making lots of money.
The same thing goes on every day in the world of medicine.
So what can be done about it?
All we can try to do is try to get the word out.
And, of course, get rid of the fluoride in your drinking water. Plus stop using toothpaste containing fluoride.
To get rid of accumulated fluoride you can do a cleanse on a regular basis. Buy a copy of Clean by Alejandro Junger and follow his program to the letter.
Water fluoridation was always a bad idea. Not just bad, but awful.
Fluoride is still part of many brands of toothpaste. Many dental schools are still teaching that cavities can be limited by fluoride.
There are similarities here to the history of vaccinations.
Do vaccines actually have any positive effect?
Yes. They make money for the pharmaceutical companies.
Medical associations still support vaccinations and dental associations still support water fluoridation along with fluoride toothpaste.
What a terrible tragedy.
I'm certain that no dentist would ever wish any harm on his patients. The tragedy starts with dental schools and the American Dental Association.
Meanwhile, thankfully, there are some dental and health experts helping to get the ball rolling in the other direction.
I remember when the only people who opposed vaccinations were religious kooks - or at least thats how the media painted them.
Same was true with anyone who dared speak out against water fluoridation.
So lets take a look at the facts.
The facts on water fluoridation are a bit confusing. Some have been deliberately skewed in favor of this poison.
There's now an increasing body of evidence coming to light as to the very harmful effects of fluoride.
How did the idea of putting poison in the public water supplies come about? And how did it gain such acceptance - even popularity?
In trying to find out how the practice of water fluoridation got started, I looked at several websites.
Quackwatch has an article on the subject.
Stephen Barrett, M.D. has attached his name to the article along with the orginal authors, Bob Sprague and Mary Barnhardt.
The fairly brief article is excerpted from a book published in 1993 by Sprague and Barnhardt. The title of the book is The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America.
Dr. Barrett attached his name to the article adapted from the book as he updated portions of the article.
This article uses terms like poisonmongers along with the phrase the big lie to disparage anyone who opposes fluoridation. The authors (including Barrett) even associate what they call the technique of the big lie to Hitler.
Talk about yellow journalism. This is dark yellow.
Turns out that Barrett's expert co-authors are not doctors, dentists, or scientists of any type.
They are journalists. Imagine that.
They paint a nice storybook version of the history of fluoridation in an attempt to show that fluoride is a natural mineral occurring naturally in most water supplies.
That assertion could be true - but they don't point out that many natural minerals such as arsenic and lead also occur in many water supplies - maybe most.
All water municipal supplies originate from natural sources - whether from rivers, lakes, or wells. Even man-made reservoirs collect water from natural runoff.
All kinds of minerals are dissolved into water through that natural process. Here in the Rocky Mountains we see it first hand.
There's no way to know which minerals are contained in the natural runoff.
For beneficial use inside our bodies, minerals must come from plant sources. That's because plant enzymes are necessary for the assimilation of the minerals during the digestion process.
But fluorides are far from beneficial. They are, in fact, quite poisonous.
Even Stephen Barrett admits that. Barrett and all the other water fluoridation advocates say the tiny amount of fluoride added to water supplies wouldn't hurt anyone.
The problem is, the stuff accumulates in our bodies. Additionally, fluoride toothpaste is often swallowed because it tastes good. A special effort must be made to not swallow while brushing.
On top of all that, well-meaning dentists were actually promoting the use of fluoride tablets for children and some - and many still use fluoride treatments for children during visits to the dentist office.
The controversy is much more heated than I imagined.
More and more real experts are coming around to the side of the antis, as Barrett, et al call them. The antis include entire nations such as Sweden, Denmark, and Holland.
So this is no longer a fringe group of kooks. It appears the evidence against water fluoridation has become huge. Have poisonmongers really been able to sway entire cities and nations?
An excellent article titled WHY I CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION by Dr. John Colquhoun, a dentist from Auckland, New Zealand was published in 1997 by the University of Chicago Press.
It now appears online at http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm#Top.
Dr. Colquhoun chronicles how he moved from the position of most dentists who are taught that there is no scientific case against fluoridation to the realization that the studies supporting fluoridation are seriously flawed.
This article is both shocking and highly illuminating.
Dr. Colquhoun practiced dentistry for many years in Auckland and eventually became the Principal Dental Officer for the city.
While in that position he was instrumental in persuading Auckland to fluoridate the water supply.
Some years later, in 1980, he was sent on a world tour to gather information including statistics on the benefits of water fluoridation around the globe. The plan was that he would then use the information to convince reluctant municipalities in New Zealand to fluoridate their water supplies.
He returned from the tour with his pro-fluoridation theories intact and reinforced, and was appointed chairman of a national Fluoridation Promotion Committee. As chairman, he was told to inform the public that water fluoridation resulted in better children's teeth compared to places with no fluoridation.
Before moving ahead he examined some new dental statistics from his own Health District in Auckland.
He was surprised, even shocked by those stats.
They showed that the percentage of children with perfect teeth for 12-13-year olds was greater in the non-fluoridated part of the district.
In general teeth were slightly better in the nonfluoridated areas.
Instead of moving ahead with plans to spread the pro-fluoridation mantra, Dr. Colquhoun wrote to his American colleagues he had met during the tour, asking them for the results of surveys carried out in the U.S.
They did not comply with his request.
Only by using the U.S. Freedom of Information Act was one of those colleagues finally able to pry the results loose.
They showed little or no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated places throughout the U.S.
One large-scale survey showed that the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth.
Dr. Colquhoun says there are many more studies or surveys indicating that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay.
He was then able to find evidence of serious flaws in the implementation of the studies.
The flaws included re-defining tooth decay and foreknowledge of which children in studies were receiving fluoride. In other words, the scientists running the surveys were cheating - using techniques to predetermine the results.
Why would they do that?
Here are Dr. Colquhoun's answers:
I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.
Enthusiasts for a theory can fool themselves very often, and persuade themselves and others that their activities are genuinely scientific. I am also aware that, after 50 years of widespread acceptance and endorsement of fluoridation, many scholars may find it difficult to accept the claim that the original fluoridation studies were invalid.
As he continued looking at information from surveys around the world, Dr. Colquhoun found that there was little or no correlation between reduction in tooth decay and fluoride, or that fluoride actually caused an increase in tooth decay.
His information came from Australia, Britain, Canada, Sri Lanka, Greece, Malta, Spain, Hungary, and India.
Apparently tooth decay was decreasing during the 1930s and '40s - but the decrease can be shown to have resulted from improved nutrition and the spread of the use of refrigerators for food storage.
To me it's really refreshing and amazing to find a dentist who also became a municipal leader in the effort to increase use of water fluoridation who looked carefully at survey information and had the fortitude to publish his findings.
Findings of flawed surveys and repeated refusals by public officials and the ADA to deal with the truth of the situation.
Dr. Coquhoun says it's always been known that on around half of any fluoride swallowed is excreted in the urine. The rest accumulates in our bones.
Somewhere around 1990 a large study reported an association between fluoridated water and hip fractures in the elderly.
And there have been some clinical trials which attempted to treat osteoporosis with fluoride.
The trials resulted in more hip fractures.
So, Dr. Colquhoun concludes, when fluoride accumulates in the bones, it weakens them.
Researchers in Finland during the 1980s found that people who lived 10 years or more in Kuopio - Finland's only city with fluoridated water - had extremely high levels of fluoride in their bones. This was especially true of those with osteoporosis and impaired kidney function.
After publication of that information, Finland put a stop to all fluoridation.
Another bit of damning information from Dr. Colquhoun is some evidence from China that children with dental fluorosis on average show lower intelligence scores.
Dr. Max Gerson, originator of the Gerson Therapy, condemned water fluoridation over 50 years ago.
The most recent publication of Dr. Gerson's Therapy is authored by his daughter, Charlotte Gerson, along with Dr. Morton Walker.
The title of this recent publication is The Gerson Therapy. The subtitle is The Proven Nutritional Program for Cancer and Other Diseases.
On page 186 of my copy, it tells us that fluoride was originally a highly toxic by-product of the aluminum industry and when it was disposed of in sewer systems it killed millions of fish downstream.
On the same page, we're informed that fluorine or chlorine from drinking water displaces iodine from the thyroid gland.
This results in serious damage to the immune system.
Another result of low thyroid function is increased plaque in the arteries, leading to poor blood supply to the heart, the brain, and to the extremities, along with heart attacks and stokes.
There are numerous other sources both online and offline which make it clear that water fluoridation has been a serious mistake - a boondoggle with deadly consequences.
But then, what can we expect from a medical system which still believes in the use of poisons for the treatment of disease.
Oops -- sounds like I'm another poisonmonger.Return to Water Water Everywhere from Water Fluoridation