It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude." In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could give no fluoridation trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of research...
Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement. Uproarious laughter frequently ensues. No special statistical equipment is necessary to detect those peccancies. Of course the class and the Group soon tired of those infantilities, and sought and found greater challenge.
By the way, a study by John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burke on possible connection between cancer and waterborne fluoride was fairly tightly reasoned. The statistical procedures were standard, and much better applied than in much of the Public Health work.
As I pointed out in a letter published in the proceedings of a congressional committee investigating the above connection, the real point is that direct chemical and controlled experimental research by unbiased uncommitted agencies is urgently indicated. Clearly fluoridation should be discontinued everywhere until definitive results on safety are obtained.
The fluoridation trials that were conducted in the cities of Grand Rapids, Newburgh and Evanston, in the U.S.A., and the two independent ones in Brantford, Canada, are of more than ordinary importance, because they constitute the main experimental evidence which has led to the introduction of this process as a public health measure. The fluoridation hypothesis is "that a concentration of about 1 part per million of fluoride in the drinking water, mechanically added, inhibits the development of dental caries in the teeth of the users of the water" (Brown, McLaren and Stewart, 1954b). In 1956 Nesin pointed out:
"It must be emphasized that the fluoridation hypothesis in its entirety rests on a very narrow base of selected experimental information. It is this very base which is vulnerable to scientific criticism. And, it is upon this very narrow base that the very impressive array of endorsement rests like an inverted pyramid."
A preliminary examination revealed that reports of these studies contain errors and show omissions, and statements made in regard to results are not justified by published data; therefore further study has been made of these crucial trials. This study attempts to evaluate their controls, and the discussion is limited to examination of published reports of (i) method of selection of control cities; (ii) their suitability; (iii) the experimental and statistical processes used in gathering and analysing the data (iv) the results stating the dental caries attack rates; (v) some comments made by the authors of these trials (and by others) on these results...
Furthermore, the erratic and arbitrary way in which the sampling of children from these cities was done has raised many an eyebrow. For example, when the Grand Rapids trial began in 1945, children from all 79 schools in Grand Rapids were examined. By 1949, however, examiners observed children from only 25 of these 79 schools. Meanwhile in Muskegon, children from ALL the schools were still being examined. Such problematic changes and inconsistencies in sampling size is further illustrated by the fact that when the Grand Rapids study commenced, the number of 12 to 16 year olds being examined was 7,661, but by the final year of the study, the number of 12 to 16 year olds being studied had dropped to just 1,031 (Sutton 1996).
Along with these arbitrary changes in the study's sampling methods, the study employed multiple examiners to assess the children's teeth. But as has been shown in studies from the American Journal of Public Health (Boyd et al., 1951) as well as the Journal of the American Dental Association (Radusch, 1934), there is a considerable variability between each dentists' assessment of a person's teeth. The study in the Journal of the American Dental Association found, for instance, that when 33 patients were examined by three of eight different dentists, "a deviation of 89% in the number of cavities was recorded (Waldbott 1978)." This being the case, it is significant to note that the examiner variability was NEVER assessed in the Grand Rapids study (Sutton 1996).
Despite these enormous weaknesses, these early studies are cited again and again to support the success of fluoridation.
Originally posted by adrenochrome
reply to post by Simplynoone
well fluoride is found naturally in water, but i hear the difference is that the natural one is calcium fluoride - they're putting sodium fluoride in our water supply!
i guess one is natural, and the other's a waste by-product of aluminum manufacturing... which is also why aluminum is apprently unhealthy for us as well, like in anti-perspirants.
but aluminum's a whole other story in itself...
To the parents out there that just cant seem to understand why kids are so, well, stupid, think about it, long and hard. Then start thinking why dentist use x rays to find cavities. Thats right, because they don't usually start on the outside of the tooth, they come from the inside out. What good is it to harden the outside of the tooth?
It's been said that flouride dulls the mind. Did you know that Prozac is 98% flouride?
If you want more info, I'd be happy to dig up my book and add direct quotes.
"There is no need to fluoridate the water supplies," says Dr. Michael Fleming. He's a Durham dentist who thinks we're getting far too much fluoride.
"Fluoride in the water is essentially a drug, it's an uncontrolled use of a drug," says Dr. Fleming.
"The primary benefit of fluoride is topically, used as a topical addition, not internally," says Dr. Fleming.
Everyone knows fluoride is in your toothpaste and in some mouthwash. But fluoride is also in places you may have never guessed. It's in soft drinks and beer. Thinking of having orange juice and oatmeal for breakfast? If they're made with water in a fluoridated community then your breakfast comes with a side of fluoride.
"I think it's bad, having it in the water, we don't know what the results are going to be in the future," says Ed Daigle. He lives in the western North Carolina city of Brevard. Earlier this year, he led a one man crusade and convinced the city council to stop putting fluoride in the water supply.
"Why take a pristine water supply like we have and add a poison to it? Because it is definitely a poison," says Daigle.
But Triangle dentist Mike Fleming isn't convinced. He wants to see fluoride taken out of the water supply.
"Some people suggest, adding fluoride to the water is like adding sunscreen to the water to help fight skin cancer," said Steve Daniels.
"I think let's just keep it topical," said Dr. Fleming. He continued, "The studies clearly indicate that, that is where the benefit is primarily found. Therefore taking it internally doesn't make any sense to me."
Only one of the 12 NHS bosses who gave the green light for fluoride to be added to tap water in Totton lives in the area that will be affected, it has emerged.
Objections to the plans by the city's primary care trust fear fluoride can cause mottling of teeth and even cancer, and resent being "force medicated" - so the news that only one of the decision makers will be affected the scheme provoked anger.
"The SHA (South Central Stragegic Health Authority) had a duty to consult, despite it being a rigged consultation in favour of adding fluoride. Over 70% of local people were against. This is the most shocking, anti-democratic way of proceeding that I have ever encountered."
However, the SHA pointed out in a statement that the region it oversees not only covers Hampshire but also Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire and the Isle of Wight.
Hampshire Primary Care Trust and Southampton City Council were in favour of fluoride but the councils of Hampshire, New Forest and Totton and Eling were all against. Out of 10,000 formal responses from the public, 7,000 were not in favour.