Anti-Fluoride Patients

[New2Philly]

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite...easons_to_oppose_fluoridation_0109111037.html

I found the above link, and being a D1 I wonder how I would handle a patient that shows up at my office wanting to talk about (or argue) about fluoride.

I could see how articles like this could be very confusing, in that they are quoting PhD's, and making some very specious arguments.

I was wondering how Dentists, or dental students, or hygienists handle these types of patients (esp what it comes to the oral health of their children)?

Also, are there any dental professionals here that are anti-fluoride?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ItsGavinC]

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite...easons_to_oppose_fluoridation_0109111037.html

I found the above link, and being a D1 I wonder how I would handle a patient that shows up at my office wanting to talk about (or argue) about fluoride.

I could see how articles like this could be very confusing, in that they are quoting PhD's, and making some very specious arguments.

I was wondering how Dentists, or dental students, or hygienists handle these types of patients (esp what it comes to the oral health of their children)?

Also, are there any dental professionals here that are anti-fluoride?

Every now and then we get parents that don't want any Fl for their kids, so I don't give them Fl. I'm not going to argue with them (waste of time) and that isn't going to convince them anyway.

It's not the end of the world if the kid doesn't get Fl--but it sure would help them in terms of prevention. But the reality is that diet and proper oral health are also keys to prevention, and kids can have no Fl and still have no cavities if they are cared for at home.

 

[Daurang]

If the parents don't want it, then there's no point arguing with them. Just put it in the chart.

 

[browncrack]

The whole fluoride debate seems like a dead issue. Regardless of whether it is used- as pointed out earlier diet and overall oral hygiene are key players in caries as well. Having an actively concerned and involved parent is probably just as valuable, if not more valuable, than fluoride is in caries control.

 

[jirotrom]

Every now and then we get parents that don't want any Fl for their kids, so I don't give them Fl. I'm not going to argue with them (waste of time) and that isn't going to convince them anyway.

It's not the end of the world if the kid doesn't get Fl--but it sure would help them in terms of prevention. But the reality is that diet and proper oral health are also keys to prevention, and kids can have no Fl and still have no cavities if they are cared for at home.

I want to shadow you seriously though, I am so super interested in pediatrics and you are loaded with info

 

[Mackchops]

Just thank the patient for your future increase in business.

 

[Msmouth]

Just thank the patient for your future increase in business.

I love this!

I'm a hygienist.
If they refuse fluoride I just don't argue or get into it.

If they ask about potential dangers because of this info,
I go into my spiel about the the difference between topically applied and ingestion of fluoride.
I tell them that I put it on my own kids teeth and they take a fluoride vitamin daily, and how I wish I had that prevention when I was a kid.

There are some homeopathic dentists out there that don't believe in fluoride. They also prefer pulling teeth over root canal.

 

[ItsGavinC]

I want to shadow you seriously though, I am so super interested in pediatrics and you are loaded with info

You are more than welcome to!

 

[ItsGavinC]

Just thank the patient for your future increase in business.

Water supply Fl (systemic) is far more valuable to developing children than topical Fl is. Many places still don't have Fl in water. Suffolk County NY (Long Island) is one of those places, so I would always thank the county for increasing my business. 😀

 

[fug]

I recommend everyone here read The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson before jumping to any conclusions about the potential health risks of fluoride. I doubt that many of you dentists or dentists-to-be even know the history of public water fluoridation or where that fluoride even comes from. The fact is, the fluoride that is dumped into public water supplies is an industrial waste byproduct. Research has shown that fluoride tends to accumulate in the pineal gland in the brain, yet the effects of this are still not fully understood. Don't dismiss anti-fluoride activists as crazy people or conspiracy theorists based solely on what you have been told about fluoride. Do some real research of your own and then decide for yourself.

 

[browncrack]

I've read the book. Anti-Fluoride activists are probably not fully mainstream as a rule and I personally find the book to needlessly make me feel like the world is going to collapse. However, they don't need to use it if they don't want to-it's still a free society. At least for now. See your dentist regularly, have good oral hygiene, maintain a good diet.

 

[persenmi]

I recommend everyone here read The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson before jumping to any conclusions about the potential health risks of fluoride. I doubt that many of you dentists or dentists-to-be even know the history of public water fluoridation or where that fluoride even comes from. The fact is, the fluoride that is dumped into public water supplies is an industrial waste byproduct. Research has shown that fluoride tends to accumulate in the pineal gland in the brain, yet the effects of this are still not fully understood. Don't dismiss anti-fluoride activists as crazy people or conspiracy theorists based solely on what you have been told about fluoride. Do some real research of your own and then decide for yourself.

👍👍👍 TRUTH! These are the facts! Do with them what you may. I find it even more interesting that the pineal gland is known as the "seat of the soul" or the vestiges of an ancient organ that allowed human beings to perceive the spirit world. Could this be of significance? My gut tells me that the people responsible for polluting the water supply with flouride have a different agenda because the real science clearly shows they are not helping teeth in any significant way. I can understand how a topical application directly to the teeth may help, but there is no reason to expose the entire body to flouride. Do you drink sunscreen before you go in the sun? Of course not! You would lose the desired effect and do more harm than good.

Another good book on this topic is "The Case Against Flouride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There".

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

👍👍👍 TRUTH! These are the facts! Do with them what you may. I find it even more interesting that the pineal gland is known as the "seat of the soul" or the vestiges of an ancient organ that allowed human beings to perceive the spirit world. Could this be of significance? My gut tells me that the people responsible for polluting the water supply with flouride have a different agenda because the real science clearly shows they are not helping teeth in any significant way. I can understand how a topical application directly to the teeth may help, but there is no reason to expose the entire body to flouride. Do you drink sunscreen before you go in the sun? Of course not! You would lose the desired effect and do more harm than good.

Another good book on this topic is "The Case Against Flouride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There".

Are you high? The pineal gland is responsible for maintaining circadian rhythms using melatonin. I have no idea where you get this "seat of the soul" nonsense, but that's all it is... nonsense.

 

[DrJeff]

Are you high? The pineal gland is responsible for maintaining circadian rhythms using melatonin. I have no idea where you get this "seat of the soul" nonsense, but that's all it is... nonsense.

VA Hopeful, this is what it's often like when you have a parent armed with whatever source of info they might have, that wants to question your plan of treatment, be it about fluoride, radiographs, filling material choices, etc, etc, etc. At first you'll tend to take it personally, but after a while you tend to just let it slide and not let is raise your blood pressure a single point!

 

[fug]

...they don't need to use it if they don't want to-it's still a free society.

True - as long as you don't live in a district where the water supply is fluoridated and you aren't too poor to purchase filtered drinking water for yourself.

The usual argument made by advocates of water fluoridation is that society has an obligation to protect the oral health of its poor because they can't afford toothbrushes and toothpaste or they otherwise choose not to brush their teeth due to a lack of education about such matters. This would be an entirely valid argument if the purported health effects of fluoride ingestion were unanimously supported by the research, but they are not; they are dubious at best, and detrimental at worst.

Wouldn't the more sensible course of action be to make toothbrushes and toothpaste free (or at least more affordable) for the poor and to increase funding to programs that teach children in disadvantaged areas the importance of having good oral hygiene?

 

[DrJeff]

True - as long as you don't live in a district where the water supply is fluoridated and you aren't too poor to purchase filtered drinking water for yourself.

The usual argument made by advocates of water fluoridation is that society has an obligation to protect the oral health of its poor because they can't afford toothbrushes and toothpaste or they otherwise choose not to brush their teeth due to a lack of education about such matters. This would be an entirely valid argument if the purported health effects of fluoride ingestion were unanimously supported by the research, but they are not; they are dubious at best, and detrimental at worst.

Wouldn't the more sensible course of action be to make toothbrushes and toothpaste free (or at least more affordable) for the poor and to increase funding to programs that teach children in disadvantaged areas the importance of having good oral hygiene?

Here's the REAL problem with the above statement and cost issues. To get tooth decay, you need frequent exposures to fermentable carbohydrates (sugar) for an extended period of time (months + ). If you don't have that, you don't get decay, it's really that simple. Now there are plenty of "underserved" people on federal/state assistance that are getting $$ from the gov't (both interms of food stamps and welfare checks) that CHOOSE to use that assistance to buy carbohydrate ladened beverages(usually the main source of tooth decay), and end up over the months it takes for decay to occurr spend far more of their limited resources on bottles of Coke/Pepsi than they would on a toothbrush/toothpaste. I see this almost every day I'm working in my office, and even with education, you will not connect with every patient. This is the reality that one needs to accept in this profession (and also that some politicians need to accept) - there are some people, that not matter if you completely eliminate any financial obligation to them and/or educate them in 20 different ways about why the shouldn't do one thing and should do another, they won't. Lastly, in this underserved population, living in fluoridated communities, you're making a big assumption that the individual is actually drinking multiple glasses per day of their very own tap water, which isn't the case more often than not.

The difference between big picture public health concpets/solutions theorized and what actually happens in real life are often quite different, and short of one being put in a military style "control" over one's daily food intake/actions, you're not got to get the theorized result in many of the folks one is trying to serve

 

[fug]

Water supply Fl (systemic) is far more valuable to developing children than topical Fl is. 😀

I would appreciate it if you could post a link to any research article(s) supporting this claim. Most of the literature I have found indicates that fluoride is best used topically. I am not implying that fluoride ingestion offers absolutely no benefit to developing teeth, but is it really worth the risk?

The difference between big picture public health concpets/solutions theorized and what actually happens in real life are often quite different, and short of one being put in a military style "control" over one's daily food intake/actions, you're not got to get the theorized result in many of the folks one is trying to serve

That is exactly my point. If fluoridating public water supplies isn't a form of "'control' over one's daily food intake/actions," then what is it?

I understand your point that even with government subsidies and proper education, a great many people would still neglect to care for their teeth. After all, people don't always do what is best for them--just look at smokers. Despite the widespread understanding that cigarettes kill people, and despite the myriad products on the market that are designed to help smokers quit, people still smoke. Does that mean we should introduce a chemical designed to repair lung function into the air of cities with high rates of cigarette addiction, even when the efficacy of that chemical is widely disputed?

 

[ItsGavinC]

I would appreciate it if you could post a link to any research article(s) supporting this claim. Most of the literature I have found indicates that fluoride is best used topically. I am not implying that fluoride ingestion offers absolutely no benefit to developing teeth, but is it really worth the risk?

You have your primary molars for 8-9 years, and your adult molars for 70+ years. Parents brush your primary teeth but stop brushing for you around the time your adult teeth erupt. Which do you think will benefit more from Fl?

What risk are you referring to? Fluorosis? Fl in appropriate doses has benefit that far outweighs any risk, AND saves our health care system loads of cash. Prevention is the key.

 

[persenmi]

Are you high? The pineal gland is responsible for maintaining circadian rhythms using melatonin. I have no idea where you get this "seat of the soul" nonsense, but that's all it is... nonsense.

Wow. I shouldn't even waste my time responding to this but I can't help myself 😡. I don't even know where to begin. Pointing out the physiological function of the pineal gland does not serve as a counterargument in this case. In fact, it strengthens the case against water flouridation by highlighting the fact that the pineal gland controls vital physiological functions and should therefore be left alone until we better understand the effect flouride has on it!

You are right, the pineal gland is responsible for maintaining circadian rhythms using melatonin. You know a fact. Thank you for supporting my argument 😀.

The "seat of the soul" business comes from the fact that melatonin influences dreaming. I wouldn't call it nonsense.

 

[ItsGavinC]

The fact is, the fluoride that is dumped into public water supplies is an industrial waste byproduct.

This statement is completely 100% false. Fluorosilicic acid is a by-product of fertilizer manufacturing and is sometimes used as the Fl additive to water, but it is difficult to handle. 63% of utility companies use this. Sodium fluoride is much easier to handle and is what most small utility companies still use.

Like I said, my patients can choose not to drink water with Fluoride in it. I don't argue with them. It's their choice. Since most of the US population that I serve is extremely lazy and refuses to monitor their diet or brush their children's teeth, then lack of Fl exposure is one of several factors that will let me buy nicer car, build bigger houses, and give my children a better life.

 

[fug]

This statement is completely 100% false. Fluorosilicic acid is a by-product of fertilizer manufacturing and is sometimes used as the Fl additive to water, but it is difficult to handle. 63% of utility companies use this. Sodium fluoride is much easier to handle and is what most small utility companies still use.

First of all, you admit that fluorosilicic acid is an industrial waste byproduct, and you claim that it is used by 63% of utility companies (which, by the way, is not just "sometimes"), so how is my statement 100% false? If anything, it is only 37% false. Second of all, the information you provided is not even accurate. Sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate are also byproducts of the fertilizer industry-- but I guess you wouldn't know that if your search for information ended at wikipedia. Not only have you contradicted yourself, but you have not offered any convincing arguments in favor of water fluoridation.

Like I said, my patients can choose not to drink water with Fluoride in it. I don't argue with them. It's their choice.

Again, it's only their choice if they have the means to purchase filtered drinking water instead. And I have to say, your cavalier attitude towards profiting from other people's illnesses is somewhat sickening.

You have your primary molars for 8-9 years, and your adult molars for 70+ years. Parents brush your primary teeth but stop brushing for you around the time your adult teeth erupt. Which do you think will benefit more from Fl?

This is not a research article.

 

[persenmi]

That is exactly my point. If fluoridating public water supplies isn't a form of "'control' over one's daily food intake/actions," then what is it?

👍. Right on brother.

 

[browncrack]

First of all, you admit that fluorosilicic acid is an industrial waste byproduct, and you claim that it is used by 63% of utility companies (which, by the way, is not just "sometimes"), so how is my statement 100% false? If anything, it is only 37% false. Second of all, the information you provided is not even accurate. Sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate are also byproducts of the fertilizer industry-- but I guess you wouldn't know that if your search for information ended at wikipedia. Not only have you contradicted yourself, but you have not offered any convincing arguments in favor of water fluoridation.

Again, it's only their choice if they have the means to purchase filtered drinking water instead. And I have to say, your cavalier attitude towards profiting from other people's illnesses is somewhat sickening.

This is not a research article.

Dentists fix teeth that are cavitated and carious. Diet, brushing, and Fluoride can reduce caries. It's not sick to make a living as a dentist, it's hard work every day and it is very difficult to motivate patients to take care of themeselves and their children. The antifluoride crowd needs to spend some time in a dental operatory seeing patients. Tell all of your patients to not use fluoride toothpaste and to not drink fluoridated water. Your business will boom. Fluoride in the water is the least of their problems.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Wow. I shouldn't even waste my time responding to this but I can't help myself 😡. I don't even know where to begin. Pointing out the physiological function of the pineal gland does not serve as a counterargument in this case. In fact, it strengthens the case against water flouridation by highlighting the fact that the pineal gland controls vital physiological functions and should therefore be left alone until we better understand the effect flouride has on it!

You are right, the pineal gland is responsible for maintaining circadian rhythms using melatonin. You know a fact. Thank you for supporting my argument 😀.

The "seat of the soul" business comes from the fact that melatonin influences dreaming. I wouldn't call it nonsense.

First off, melatonin does not influence dreaming. Circadian rhythm =/= dreaming. Show me studies that it makes a difference.

Second, does fluoride (the U comes first, by the way) concentrate in the pineal gland? If so, does this change anything? We've been using fluoride for some time now, if it laid waste to the pineal I think we'd have noticed something. Once again, show me studies.

Third, and I hate to do this, but what exactly are your credentials here? I don't mean this in a bad way, but if you're some 18 year old college freshman (your title does say pre-dental) versus being a 30 year old PhD... well, that makes a difference.

 

[flapaTron]

I recommend everyone here read The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson before jumping to any conclusions about the potential health risks of fluoride. I doubt that many of you dentists or dentists-to-be even know the history of public water fluoridation or where that fluoride even comes from. The fact is, the fluoride that is dumped into public water supplies is an industrial waste byproduct. Research has shown that fluoride tends to accumulate in the pineal gland in the brain, yet the effects of this are still not fully understood. Don't dismiss anti-fluoride activists as crazy people or conspiracy theorists based solely on what you have been told about fluoride. Do some real research of your own and then decide for yourself.

please define your definition of research. be careful, you are throwing statements out their as if they are facts.

in the dental community, research = peer-reviewed articles + meta-analysis (among other things)
not google and Christopher Byrson

 

[flapaTron]

👍👍👍 TRUTH! These are the facts! Do with them what you may. I find it even more interesting that the pineal gland is known as the "seat of the soul" or the vestiges of an ancient organ that allowed human beings to perceive the spirit world. Could this be of significance? My gut tells me that the people responsible for polluting the water supply with flouride have a different agenda because the real science clearly shows they are not helping teeth in any significant way. I can understand how a topical application directly to the teeth may help, but there is no reason to expose the entire body to flouride. Do you drink sunscreen before you go in the sun? Of course not! You would lose the desired effect and do more harm than good.

Another good book on this topic is "The Case Against Flouride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There".

wait wait wait, you actually were recently accepted into dental school (a reputable one at that) and you believe the words that are coming out of your mouth? once you take a semester of cariology you will (hopefully) learn actual/real science and realize that what you are saying is misguided, unfounded, and frankly quite silly.

 

[persenmi]

First off, melatonin does not influence dreaming. Circadian rhythm =/= dreaming. Show me studies that it makes a difference.

Second, does fluoride (the U comes first, by the way) concentrate in the pineal gland? If so, does this change anything? We've been using fluoride for some time now, if it laid waste to the pineal I think we'd have noticed something. Once again, show me studies.

Third, and I hate to do this, but what exactly are your credentials here? I don't mean this in a bad way, but if you're some 18 year old college freshman (your title does say pre-dental) versus being a 30 year old PhD... well, that makes a difference.

With respect to melatonin and dreaming a quick search yielded these two results (this is not an exhaustive list by any means):

Here is an example of a scientific paper linking melatonin to dreaming: http://www.sleepandhypnosis.org/article.asp?id=54

Here is a firsthand account of someone who experimented with melatonin (for what it's worth):
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=69353

With respect to fluoride concentrating in the pineal gland, read the book I suggested in my first post in this thread (in particular the chapter about fluoride and the brain). This book was authored by 3 PhD's who know what they are talking about and reference many peer reviewed papers. I am sure you will find ample evidence there.

Moreover, I never claimed that fluoride "laid waste" to the pineal gland or damaged it at all. What I said was the pineal gland is like a magnet for fluoride and we do not yet fully understand the implications of this. Well, I actually never said this either, fug did (previous post), but I should have because it's true.

As for my credentials, I have a BS in chemistry from a good university. I am not quite 30 years old but I am getting up there 🙂.

 

[fug]

please define your definition of research. be careful, you are throwing statements out their as if they are facts.

I guess my second use of the word in the paragraph you quoted was meant colloquially, as in, "You'd better research that refrigerator before you buy it." I meant the first one literally. The deposition of fluoride in the pineal gland was examined in a thesis study by Jennifer Luke of the University of Surrey entitled "Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland"; it was published in Caries Research in 2001.

In addition, more recent studies have shown that ingestion of silicofluorides leads to increased lead absorption. I can post the titles and authors of those studies too, if you can't find them on your own.

The last thing I will say about Bryson's book, in response to the implication that it is not a reliable source of information, is that it was extensively cited and compellingly argued. If you don't believe me, read it.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

With respect to melatonin and dreaming a quick search yielded these two results (this is not an exhaustive list by any means):

Here is an example of a scientific paper linking melatonin to dreaming: http://www.sleepandhypnosis.org/article.asp?id=54

20 college students and the conclusion doesn't even support the hypothesis that well? Sorry, that's what we in medicine (and I include dentistry in this) call low-powered, meaning essentially useless.

Also, I've looked at other articles in that journal - it seems to mostly deal with dream content. I didn't see anything attempting to relate dream content to anything such as sleep quality or tiredness the next day. Its looking at something that they haven't even shown to matter.

Here is a firsthand account of someone who experimented with melatonin (for what it's worth):
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=69353

Anecdote, worse than useless. That'd be like me saying that I drink 12 cups of fluorinated water, brush 5x/day with fluoride tooth paste, and rinse 4x/day with fluoride containing mouth wash and I'm completely healthy with no cavities.

With respect to fluoride concentrating in the pineal gland, read the book I suggested in my first post in this thread (in particular the chapter about fluoride and the brain). This book was authored by 3 PhD's who know what they are talking about and reference many peer reviewed papers. I am sure you will find ample evidence there.

Moreover, I never claimed that fluoride "laid waste" to the pineal gland or damaged it at all. What I said was the pineal gland is like a magnet for fluoride and we do not yet fully understand the implications of this. Well, I actually never said this either, fug did (previous post), but I should have because it's true.

A pubmed search for "fluoride pineal gland" yielded 17 results, only one of which actually looked at fluoride content of pineal glands. Even then, it only compares the Ca/F ratio to that of bone. That tells me nothing (heck, it was a dental journal and doesn't even compare to the amount in teeth). You'll forgive me if one hit on pubmed doesn't do much for me.

As for my credentials, I have a BS in chemistry from a good university. I am not quite 30 years old but I am getting up there 🙂.

I had those same qualifications prior to med school, so, unless your school is vastly different than mine, that's not enough to understand everything going on in the body while being able to critically evaluate published research.

 

[Ething]

👍👍👍 TRUTH! These are the facts! Do with them what you may. I find it even more interesting that the pineal gland is known as the "seat of the soul" or the vestiges of an ancient organ that allowed human beings to perceive the spirit world. Could this be of significance? My gut tells me that the people responsible for polluting the water supply with flouride have a different agenda because the real science clearly shows they are not helping teeth in any significant way. I can understand how a topical application directly to the teeth may help, but there is no reason to expose the entire body to flouride. Do you drink sunscreen before you go in the sun? Of course not! You would lose the desired effect and do more harm than good.

Another good book on this topic is "The Case Against Flouride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There".

Oh boy....perhaps I am taking this a little personally because you will soon be entering the school that I am finishing up at and I am a little embarrassed about your comments and your "research". It may not be research on my part, but when you get to your 3rd and 4th year here you will see the difference between people who take fairly decent care of their teeth and grew up drinking well-water in smaller communities outside of Philly and those that grew up drinking fluoridated water. Seat of the soul? Human beings perceiving the spirit world? I'm sure you are a smart guy with a BS in chemistry but these comments hold no water in a scientific community. Before you go all out on your anti-fluoride rampage, look at all the sides and all the data. Conspiracy theories make life a lot more interesting but don't believe everything you hear. I really really feel bad for you and your class....you are going to sit through countless hours of lecturers talking about the benefits of fluoride etc. You will also have to write papers on it and its benefits etc (gasp!) The conversations you will have with your peers and instructors should be entertaining though. Just save yourself the embarrassment and don't bring up the spirit world argument 🙂 Sorry for being harsh and congrats on getting in!

 

[notin]

crap

crap

your posts are bad and you should feel bad.


i imagine that when i first start practicing i'll want to argue, but after a little while i'll just have a line or two that i say to person who hates (insert mercury/fluoride/other quackery here) and then i'll just note it and move on. i don't really see the point in making it my personal crusade to stamp out wrongness the world over. if i did, just reading the internet would probably give me a mental breakdown.

 

[Mackchops]

Dr. Fug DDS, future graduate of the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Dentistry

Science has its flaws. There are things we don't know. Ever heard of those xray boxes they had back in the day for checking to see if your shoes fit? Talk about excessive unnecessary exposure... and nowdays we have researched x-rays to the degree that we recognize that EXCESSIVE exposure CAN be detrimental. ALARA. Eliminating it all together doesn't make any sense because it has intrinsic medical benefit but respecting it and limiting it to when it is needed helps prevent potential problems.

The same thing is true with fluoride. These books and videos and anti-fluroide propaganda all show cases of moderate to severe cases of fluorosis with patients obviously disabled. Most of those cases result from natural exposure to fluoride in areas where its found in high amounts in drinking water -- mountain west, India, parts of South America. And yes, I will agree, that fluoride in EXCESS can be problematic (like too much of anything)! But the amount in our water supplies is so small that, just like proper use of x-rays, it poses a negligible amount of risk.

Question. What's the most toxic substance in the human body? Elemental oxygen. Try not breathing and see how that works out for you... Stop being so absolutist. You'll drive yourself nuts as a dentist if you don't allow for shades of gray.

 

[fug]

Dr. Fug DDS, future graduate of the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Dentistry

lol

Science has its flaws. There are things we don't know. Ever heard of those xray boxes they had back in the day for checking to see if your shoes fit? Talk about excessive unnecessary exposure... and nowdays we have researched x-rays to the degree that we recognize that EXCESSIVE exposure CAN be detrimental. ALARA. Eliminating it all together doesn't make any sense because it has intrinsic medical benefit but respecting it and limiting it to when it is needed helps prevent potential problems.

I would seriously like to keep this discussion going, rather than see it turn into a competition of who can post the snidest reply. It's actually disturbing for me to see so many future dentists, my future colleagues, who don't even have the will or curiosity to question what they have been told about the benefits of water fluoridation.

Let me ask you this: in all of those classes you've taken so far where the professor has praised the wonders of fluoride, have you once learned anything regarding toxicology? No. Although you will be a professional tooth-doctor some day, you are going to graduate dental school knowing diddly squat about the biochemical reactivity of fluoride inside the human body.

Why? Partially because fluoride has been accepted without question as being safe for so many years, but also because the research doesn't exist. I challenge you to find me a recent journal article, or even one published within the past 20 years, that examines the systemic health effects of fluoride ingestion (i.e., one that doesn't focus on fluoride's effect on teeth). If you are searching for articles about fluorosilicic acid in particular, I guarantee you won't find one, because no research has ever been conducted that examines the health risks of this compound that is used to fluoridate 63% of public water supplies.

The flaw in your analogy about x-rays, Mackchops, is that research into the adverse health effects of radiation never stopped being conducted, and being able to take and use x-rays is clearly and unquestionably a huge benefit to scientists and medical professionals, which is why it has always been clearly and unquestionably worth the risk of using that technology. Is this example comparable to the history of water fluoridation? No. The last serious study that was conducted on the health effects of fluoride was performed over 50 years ago, and since then, the safety of fluoride has gone more or less unchallenged by the ADA. Each year, dental students like yourself and like myself are implicitly or explicitly taught to ostracize those who question fluoride's safety as "conspiracy theorists" or "quacks" while we ourselves know absolutely nothing about the long-term interactions fluoride has within the body.

And, unlike x-rays, the benefits of fluoride are nowhere near as conclusive. Doesn't it strike you as odd that hardly any of the European countries fluoridate their water supplies? That of the ~355 million people worlwide with artificially fluoridated drinking water, ~171 million of them live in the U.S.? Is the rest of the world just stupid, or backward? No. Their governments have realized that contaminating public water supplies with an untested industrial waste byproduct is not only ethically unsound, but also potentially hazardous to people's health. They have also realized, "Hey, we don't need fluoride, because epidemiological studies have been showing year after year for some 30 years now that communities and countries without fluoridated water have seen a reduction in the prevalence of caries at a rate comparable to that in communities and countries with fluoridated water" (here are a few of these studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780?dopt=Abstract , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562?dopt=Abstract , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014515?dopt=Abstract ).

Those are facts. No one here has even attempted to refute anything I've said with a RESEARCH ARTICLE of the kind I'm asking for. Why is that so difficult? If you're going to reply to this, please try to be serious about it and actually contribute something to the conversation. (HINT: anecdotes about patients you've seen from areas without fluoridated water, or calling me a whackjob, or just SAYING that fluoride is God's gift to the world and without it people would suffer because you just KNOW that, don't really count as serious contributions 😉 )

 

[lotexigeus]

 

[persenmi]

Oh boy....perhaps I am taking this a little personally because you will soon be entering the school that I am finishing up at and I am a little embarrassed about your comments and your "research". It may not be research on my part, but when you get to your 3rd and 4th year here you will see the difference between people who take fairly decent care of their teeth and grew up drinking well-water in smaller communities outside of Philly and those that grew up drinking fluoridated water. Seat of the soul? Human beings perceiving the spirit world? I'm sure you are a smart guy with a BS in chemistry but these comments hold no water in a scientific community. Before you go all out on your anti-fluoride rampage, look at all the sides and all the data. Conspiracy theories make life a lot more interesting but don't believe everything you hear. I really really feel bad for you and your class....you are going to sit through countless hours of lecturers talking about the benefits of fluoride etc. You will also have to write papers on it and its benefits etc (gasp!) The conversations you will have with your peers and instructors should be entertaining though. Just save yourself the embarrassment and don't bring up the spirit world argument 🙂 Sorry for being harsh and congrats on getting in!

Alright, I need to clear a few things up and then I will be done with this thread. First things first, thank you for the congratulations, Ething. I have never been more excited for anything in my life. If all the students at Penn Dental share your same class and candor there is no doubt I will be happy there 🙂.

Ok, I am aware that my research to show that melatonin influences dreams is thin at best. That's because I only did a google scholar search. I know this does not count as research and that is why I said, "...a quick search yielded these two results (this is not an exhaustive list by any means)..." and "(for what it's worth)". So it's worthless. So be it. I was at work when I posted this. I am a busy guy. I do not have time to write a thesis here. This is why this will be my last post.

I am obviously not an expert on this topic but I can lead you to people who are. Check out these interviews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie6gJHqkSgc

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjn04-HqVDY


And finally, let me remind you of the story of Galileo Galilei. Here is a perfect example of a brilliant scientist who did not tow-the-line. He dared to challenge the scientific dogma of his time and turned the scientific world upside down. We thank him for his courage to follow the truth, where ever it leads, despite harsh opposition and criticism from his colleagues. It is good to question authority my friends 😉.

 

[notin]

I would seriously like to keep this discussion going, rather than see it turn into a competition of who can post the snidest reply. It's actually disturbing for me to see so many future dentists, my future colleagues, who don't even have the will or curiosity to question what they have been told about the benefits of water fluoridation.

sorry for making a snide comment about your points, you're being reasonable and i shouldn't have lumped you together with persenmi.

i also concede that i have not done significant research into fluoride. my understanding is that it is established that fluoride in the drinking water reduces caries rate. at the very least some studies do show this and it theoretically makes sense. there are also no studies that show any harmful effects from a low controlled amount of fluoride being in drinking water, even if there are also none that demonstrate its safety either.

what exactly is your position on fluoride?

 

[fug]

sorry for making a snide comment about your points, you're being reasonable and i shouldn't have lumped you together with persenmi.

No harm done. At least you didn't use a scene from Half-Baked to ridicule me.

And no offense to you, persenmi, but I feel the need to distance my arguments from yours just a little bit. For one, I don't believe that public water fluoridation is part of a secret illuminati conspiracy to poison American children or implement some kind of mass mind control. I don't mean to suggest that that's what you think either, but those links to interviews with Alex Jones you posted don't really help to advance the discussion any further, since the man is notorious for being the kingpin of conspiracy theories.

there are also no studies that show any harmful effects from a low controlled amount of fluoride being in drinking water, even if there are also none that demonstrate its safety either.

Well, how would you define a "controlled amount"? As Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Prize winner in medicine and an outspoken critic of water fluoridation, has pointed out, it is dangerous to assume that everyone in a society can be safely medicated with an identical dose of a particular chemical without considering each individual's body weight, preexisting conditions, age, water consumption, etc. Would you give the same amount of extra-strength Tylenol to a toddler as you would take yourself to cure a headache? Of course not.

And there are numerous studies that have been published that at least suggest long-term fluoride ingestion may damage parts of the body other than teeth. One of the most recent of such studies can be found by searching "sawan fluoride" on pubmed; it's by Sawan et. al., and it was published in the journal Toxicology last year. In a nutshell, the results of the experiment show that when rats consumed water+fluoride+lead, the amount of lead in their blood and bones was significantly higher than in rats that consumed only water+lead. In other words, fluoride increases lead absorption.

And all of this talk about dental fluorosis being a mild problem ignores the possibility that there may be underlying systemic problems going on that we don't know about. It is naive to think that when the amount of fluoride in a person's system has reached a level high enough to cause dental fluorosis that there may not be other problems present. Researchers voiced these concerns as far back as the 1950's, and yet no follow-up research was ever conducted.

what exactly is your position on fluoride?

Well, I certainly don't think it's part of a communist plot to take over America or any of that Dr. Strangelove bull. But I think the research that allowed fluoride's introduction into public water supplies in the first place was shoddy. Despite the growing number of studies that show either a) communities with fluoridated water do not have significantly improved caries rates than communities without fluoridated water, or b) there are other health risks besides dental fluorosis that have not been sufficiently examined yet, we are still drinking the stuff. I think that's utterly insane.

And I'm not saying that fluoride isn't useful--just that its primary action is topical. The CDC acknowledges this fact, yet millions of people in the U.S. are still needlessly ingesting it on a regular basis.

So what is my position on fluoride? We should do like the Europeans did and take it out of the water supply.

 

[persenmi]

And no offense to you, persenmi, but I feel the need to distance my arguments from yours just a little bit. For one, I don't believe that public water fluoridation is part of a secret illuminati conspiracy to poison American children or implement some kind of mass mind control. I don't mean to suggest that that's what you think either, but those links to interviews with Alex Jones you posted don't really help to advance the discussion any further, since the man is notorious for being the kingpin of conspiracy theories.

You didn't watch the interviews did you 🙁. Alex Jone's reputation has nothing to do with it. He doesn't even conduct the first interview (but yes he was the producer). It is the interviewees, Dr. Russell Blaylock MD and Paul Connett PhD, who provide expert testimony, not Alex Jones. I beg of you, please watch the first interview at least.

Ok, this time its my last post 😀.

 

[Mackchops]

I have to hand it to you guys, you're both being civil and bringing up strong articulate arguments. I think any issue should have two sides and I applaud you for avoiding the "governement plot" and "poisonous industrial waste" rhetoric. I think it would benefit dentistry and the American public a great deal to have some level-headed individuals conduct some serious modern studies and discussions on water fluoridation.

That said, at this time with the evidence we have available, I will continue to recommend fluoride to my patients.

 

[MTDB]

I personally read the entire contents of the WHO's 2006 report on water fluoridation a few months ago. Frankly, I find the report quite scary. The report shows animal studies with evidence of harm- including DNA damage after fluoride ingestion- and dismisses them as "probably not applicable to humans." If animal studies are not applicable to humans, then why do we bother to conduct them?!?

I can't recall a lot of specifics, but I do know that there was evidence of systemic harm in animals, but unfortunately the studies used relatively high dosages compared to drinking water. Fluoride is also good for moving aluminum across the blood brain barrier, increasing aluminum toxicity. Aluminum in the brain is also strongly associated with Alzheimer's. Another report by the WHO stated that, as of 2008-ish, fluoride had not been shown to be an essential nutrient at all, as in humans survive without it just fine. Fluoride can also be very problematic for those with kidney problems, as the kidneys excrete fluoride in the form of CaF. The 2006 report concluded, and I'm not kidding, that current water fluoridation levels were based on the amount that has been shown to not produce mild dental fluorosis in the majority of patients.

So the WHO based its health recommendations on simple aesthetics! No thorough toxicology studies had been done, and if they had evidence of harm the evidence was disregarded! The studies proving systemic health are poorly lacking when it comes to water fluoridation. The report mentioned also that approximately 12 glasses of water a day is sufficient to begin fluorosis- I can personally ingest that on a hot day working out.

I have read elsewhere too that irregardless of a mother's fluoride consumption, even when the mother ingests fluoride tablets, human breast milk always maintains a very tiny amount of fluoride, between 0.007 and 0.011 ppm. That is infinitesimal compared to the amount we drink, and suggests to me that humans aren't supposed to consume any greater amounts than this.

Fluoride is frankly under studied and the dosage poorly regulated, as everyone drinks different amounts of water. The material available also suggests to me that fluoride does more harm than good. It's also interesting to note that the original beneficial effects of fluoride were associated with natural water sources of CaF, not NaF or fluorosilicic acid, two totally different compounds but apparently good enough to dump into the water supply. When I worked with NaF in the lab the substance was so toxic my lab advisor made me put warning signs on the lab, wear a lab coat and two pairs of gloves, and wear a mask and goggles. I've never had to do that working with anything else before.

Finally I've also seen it suggested that fluoride, being a more electronegative halide than iodine, out-competes iodine for uptake into the thyroid gland, disrupting thyroid metabolism. There certainly are a lot of fat people in this country ;-)

Of course, I am a very natural health, holistic, almost-became-a-naturopathic-doctor-or-organic-farmer type of person, so I am biased against a majority of synthetic interventions. However, for me, the literature I have read so far does not commend fluoride very well. I hope I can just keep my head in dental school and keep thinking for myself.

 

[MulberryDMD]

For every $1 spent on water fluoridation, $6 are saved on national health costs.

Fluoride has the ability to inhibit bacterial enolase, thereby exhibiting bactericidal effects.

Those are two main points I remember reading in Sturdevant's section on fluoride that I thought be be interesting to note in this discussion.

 

[GTFOOMICT]

And finally, let me remind you of the story of Galileo Galilei. Here is a perfect example of a brilliant scientist who did not tow-the-line. He dared to challenge the scientific dogma of his time and turned the scientific world upside down. We thank him for his courage to follow the truth, where ever it leads, despite harsh opposition and criticism from his colleagues. It is good to question authority my friends 😉.

You are not Galileo. Galileo lived in a time where previous knowledge and ideas were obtained with little regards to the scientific methods. He defined himself by a methodical process of proofs and mathematics. You are not demonstrating that.

 

[fug]

You are not Galileo. Galileo lived in a time where previous knowledge and ideas were obtained with little regards to the scientific methods. He defined himself by a methodical process of proofs and mathematics. You are not demonstrating that.

You forget that right around the time when fluoride was first being added to public water supplies, our government was spraying children with DDT in other countries and even here in our own streets; they played in the stuff like it was snow and no one worried because, at the time, DDT was "scientifically proven" to be safe and effective. It took until 1972 before DDT was banned in the U.S., after further research revealed its carcinogenic properties.

So, GTFOOMICT, instead of attacking another user's comments on this board without really having an intelligent or productive way to do it, why don't you think of a way to relate what you are saying to the discussion at hand? Accusing persenmi of not being Galileo is, well, stupid. But congratulations, you made a valid point nonetheless.

Unlike yours, the point persenmi was trying to make was a relevant one-- that despite all of our advances in science between the 1600's to the 1940's to now, one thing has been fairly consistent: good research often takes time to replace vested--and not uncommonly flawed-- opinions about the way the world is. Who knows how we will look back on water fluoridation 100, maybe even 50 years from now?

 

[flapaTron]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFn5Clpqzhs[/YOUTUBE]

fug called into the glenn beck show. 😉

 

[fug]

Well, I tried calling the president first, but I couldn't get through. It's sad when you can't even get Glenn Beck to support your conspiracy theory...

 

[bigstix808]

http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

there could always be more research to show LONGER term studies on F- expoure and the systemic effects, but given what we have now, im failing to see where there is any substantial evidence that fluoride in water proses a great risk than its benefits.

not sure who all is reading this is aware, but remember fluorosis only occurs while teeth are developing (meaning once the [perm] teeth erupt, you could eat F- for lunch and you're not going to get fluorosis unless its already occured in vivo).

ok, im done. just wanted to throw in some more stuff for you guys to read and argue about 🙂

 

[lotexigeus]

http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

there could always be more research to show LONGER term studies on F- expoure and the systemic effects, but given what we have now, im failing to see where there is any substantial evidence that fluoride in water proses a great risk than its benefits.

not sure who all is reading this is aware, but remember fluorosis only occurs while teeth are developing (meaning once the [perm] teeth erupt, you could eat F- for lunch and you're not going to get fluorosis unless its already occured in vivo).

ok, im done. just wanted to throw in some more stuff for you guys to read and argue about 🙂

right, you won't get fluorosis, you'll just be poisoned. 👍

 

[ItsGavinC]

right, you won't get fluorosis, you'll just be poisoned. 👍

Yeah, the probable toxic dose is 8-17mg/kg. For an average male that's a minimum of nearly 600 mg of Fl. Good luck finding that somewhere.

 

[ItsGavinC]

I also wonder what all of you anti-Fl dental students are going to do when patients come to your office and request Fl (or get angry when you don't give a Fl treatment).

If you stick to your principles you'll tell them "no" and then watch them as they walk out the door and go down the street to the next dentist. Money talks, and I wonder if you won't change your tune in practice.

 

[fug]

I also wonder what all of you anti-Fl dental students are going to do when patients come to your office and request Fl (or get angry when you don't give a Fl treatment).

If you stick to your principles you'll tell them "no" and then watch them as they walk out the door and go down the street to the next dentist. Money talks, and I wonder if you won't change your tune in practice.

It's clear from your earlier post that your patients' wellbeing doesn't always come before your bottom line, ItsGavinC, but money may not talk as loudly to others as it does to you.

Studies have shown that if fluoride has any beneficial effect at all on teeth, it works best when applied topically. I will have no problem using fluoride in my practice, but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to jump on the "let's just ingest fluoride every day for the hell of it" bandwagon, especially when the CDC concedes that drinking the stuff is pointless at best. And about two weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services came out with a statement saying that there is still too much fluoride in our water supplies, and that the nationally accepted standard should be lowered even further.

I realize that you're a working dentist, ItsGavinC. I don't know how long you've been out of school, but ask yourself exactly how you've come to know everything you currently know about water fluoridation. Did any of your professors ever admit that strong arguments against fluoridating the water supply do exist, or was the pro-fluoridation view you adopted presented in an entirely one-sided manner? I don't plan to deny my patients topical fluoride treatment, but I will certainly make literature available to them presenting arguments from both sides of the table.