Is anyone ready for some science and evidence on the "other side" of fluoridation? Yes, our patients in this case are right.
For 25 years I promoted water fluoridation because I could "see" the difference in those people who grew up on fluoridation and those from the hills who did not. However, the difference in decay and dental health was not fluoridation, my eyes and mind thought it was fluoride. Moving to Lake Oswego, Oregon, which has never had fluoridation, I found my cosmetic practice had too many patients who had dental fluorosis and wanted the cosmetic effects repaired. These people had grown up without fluoridation or fluoride supplements and claimed not to be toothpaste swallowers. So where were they getting too much fluoride?
Because I have a Master's Degree in Public Health Nutrition, I felt I should once again look at the science on fluoridation to again evaluate the benefits, dosage, risks and costs of fluoridation. Took me hundreds of hours because I couldn't believe the science is strongly opposed to fluoridation. Most European Dental Associations no longer recommend fluoride supplements and their governments have stopped or never started fluoridation. The USA is one of a few developed countries which promote fluoridation. European Countries have lowered decay rates similar to the USA. Comparing fluoridated vs non fluoridated developed countries, states, or counties finds no reduction in dental decay with fluoridation.
I had been living with historical science and the new science is quite clear. We in the USA are 10 years behind the evidence.
So my patients were actually ahead of me on the science. In the not too distant future, fluoridation will be stopped.
If anyone would like to look at the science with me, I would be pleased.
Fluoridation no longer reduces tooth decay, we are ingesting too much fluoride from other sources, the costs far outweigh the benefits and the risks are significant.
Fluoridation (the addition of fluoride to water) is one of Dentistry's greatest blunders and myths.
First some basics. We all want peer reviewed, right?
A. Good science goes two ways. The same level of "confidence" should be used on both sides. If you demand peer reviewed, double blinded stuides against fluoridation, then certainly you should demand the same quality of study to support fluoridation. Doesn't exist. Fluoridation is the mass medication of a Rx drug to everyone without a legal intermediary or the choice of the patient, without knowing the patient's current exposure or their reactions to the drug. The EPA claims to not have any empirical evidence on the safety of fluoridation. None of us would write an Rx for everyone in a non-fluoridated area to get the Rx fluoride supplement at the drug store. Yet we turn the "doctor's" responsiblity over to the voters, water board, or some other group of business people who mass medicate us.
B. And who is "peer" with the diagnosis of risks to the brain, kidneys, skeletal system? The EPA is clear, they have no imperical evidence or studies showing water fluoridation is safe. The California Board of Dentistry a few years ago was clear, determination of the safety of fluoridation is outside the perview of Dentistry. In other words, Dentists should not diagnose the brain, skeletal system, penial gland, thyroid, etc. So dental peer reviewed literature on the safety of fluoride to the brain should not be swallowed without question. When I provide the best evidence against fluoridation, just remember the best evidence supporting the efficacy of fluoridation is nearly two decades old. Therefore, we sometimes have to resort to the best data available from WHO, CDC, and state agencies.
C. Who is the "learned intermediary"????
In about 2001, the FDA testified in Congressional hearings that indeed fluoride for the mitigation and treatment of disease is a drug. The FDA does not deal with water systems because they claim water is not a food and is under the jurisdiction of the EPA. The EPA is prohibited by the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 from adding anything to water for the treatment of humans. They can treat water to make it safe, but not treat humans, i.e. fluoridation. Therefore, there is NO federal, state or private agency which has or is reviewing the entire fluoridation picture: benefits, exposure, safety, and costs. In fact, no country's drug regulatory agency any where in the world, has ever authorized the use of fluoride to be put in public water systems.
May I suggest we look at some evidence on "benefits" of fluoridation first. After all, if there are no longer any benefits to fluoridation, any risks become significant. We are dealing in an area of "judgment" so all the information on both sides needs to be reviewed.
Are you with me so far????? So much more to come and we need to stick with small bites of info.
Now lets look at the EPA scientsts. There are no Dentists at the EPA. The political powers crushed those speaking up against fluoridation, however, in court he got back his job. So now the EPA scientists and professionals speak up through their unions.
"In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."
- Dr. J. William Hirzy, Senior Vice-President, Headquarters Union,
- US Environmental Protection Agency, March 26, 2001I have not read stronger statements by highly qualified scientists. Your patients have seen these statments and when we blindly follow the ADA, they lose trust in us as their Dentist.
