How weak science and vested interests sold mass medication
Dr. For more than 70 years, community water fluoridation has been advocated as established science, despite weak evidence of benefit, unresolved health risks, ethical violations, and the quiet influence of powerful corporate interests, writes Mark Diesendorf.
Criticism of community water fluoridation (CWF) has become associated with anti-vaccination positions, although there is no scientific connection between the two. For your information, I support and consider vaccination. RFK Jr. It’s a dangerous nutcase. But even crazy cases can occasionally stumble on the correct position.
Fluoride is added to water supplies to reduce tooth decay in children. This practice is common in a small minority of countries (such as Australia, the USA, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland and Singapore). However, in almost all of continental Europe CWF has never been implemented or discontinued due to health hazards or ethical grounds.
One of the leading European competitors is Dr. Arvid CarlssonSwedish pharmacologist who won the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. CWF has been opposed due to lack of individual dosage control, potential neurotoxicity, and uncertainty regarding long-term systemic fluoride exposure.
When CWF was introduced in Australia, many medical doctors opposed it in letters published in the journal. Australian Medical Journal. Their concerns were medical ethics and potential risks. These were ignored and the CWF was imposed from the top down. How?
vested interests
CWF was initiated and supported by powerful interest groups that manipulated science and concealed the results of opposing research.
Early studies showing less tooth decay in naturally fluoridated areas of the United States were funded by the aluminum industry, whose smelters emit significant amounts of fluoride (gaseous and particulate). environmental health effects on plants, wildlife and livestock.
This study covered 26 states, but the report published by the dentist H Trendley Dean it yielded results for cities in only four states. Despite this selection bias, the investigation and subsequent application of CWF changed its image as a major environmental pollutant to be beneficial to health. The aluminum industry’s investment paid off.
One of the main ongoing funders of pro-fluoridation research and propaganda is the sugary food industry, which allegedly capitalizes on the idea that CWF-protected children can eat junk food. Internal documents from sugar industry and dental organizations uncover their collective manipulation of scientific research. His methods were later adopted by the tobacco industry.
Claimed benefits
Over 70 years of enthusiastic promotion of CWF has never been supported by a double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of its claimed benefits.
Cochrane Reviews It is the gold standard for evaluating drugs and medical procedures.
Due to the scarcity of good epidemiological studies latest Cochrane Review He expressed uncertainty about the alleged benefits of CWF, finding that:
‘Studies conducted after 1975 showed that adding fluoride to water could lead to slightly less tooth decay in children’s baby teeth. ‘We couldn’t be sure whether adding fluoride to water reduced cavities in children’s permanent teeth or reduced cavities on the surface of permanent teeth.’
This is not strong evidence.
Proponents of CWF either ignore the Cochrane Reviews or claim that CWF had tremendous benefits a few decades ago but plays less of a role today due to the benefits of fluoride toothpaste.
In fact, the earlier (2015) Cochrane Review reported greater benefits but added:
‘In the majority of studies (97%) we had concerns about the methods used or the reporting of results.’
North American CWF “experiments” conducted in the 1940s and 50s and often cited as classic evidence of “tremendous” benefits have been studied extensively. discredited by a dental researcher for their poor design. Philip SuttonDoctor of Dental Science is the highest dental research degree in Australia.
CWF advocates also celebrate the large reductions in tooth decay observed in many fluoridated regions around the world in the 1960s, before the widespread use of fluoride toothpastes. But they neglect to mention that similar big discounts in many non-fluoridated areas during the same period. The exact reason for these simultaneous declines and the decline in tuberculosis prevalence in the first half of the 20th century is unknown.
RCTs find that fluoride toothpaste reduces tooth decay, but since it has 1000 times the concentration of fluoride than fluoridated water, this tells us nothing about the benefits of the latter. The action of fluoride toothpaste is “topical”, which in dental jargon means “on tooth surfaces”; It is not intended to be swallowed.
There is no strong scientific evidence that fluoride intake benefits dentistry. The fact that its dental effect is only topical and not systemic is supported by a well-designed application. experiment on micewho bypassed the mouth to distribute fluoride systemically and found no benefit.
Fluoride is neither necessary nor sufficient for healthy teeth. Before colonization, many Indigenous peoples around the world had excellent teeth despite the presence of negligible amounts of fluoride in their drinking water or food; Nowadays, some people have rotten teeth despite drinking fluoridated water. Additionally, fluoride is not a nutrient.
Ethic
CWF is mass drug therapy with uncontrolled doses and violates medical ethics. It is a medicine because it is used to treat the person, not to make water safer to drink, like chlorination. Although the fluoride concentration is controlled at approximately 0.7 mg/litre, the daily dose depends on the amount of drinking water taken. Outdoor workers, athletes and people with certain health problems consume much more food than average.
Two negative health effects
No RCTs have investigated adverse effects. But RCTs are not needed to justify banning a drug. There is less evidence, including prospective studies, to suggest harm from chronic fluoride intake. Here we summarize two of several adverse health effects.
Skeletal fluorosis, a disease of bones and joints, has been extensively researched Significant levels of natural fluoride are found in drinking water in many countries (especially China and India, but not Australia or the USA). Proponents of CWF claim that this disease only occurs when fluoride concentrations in drinking water are “high,” but there is actually a linear dose-response relationship with no threshold above concentrations of 1.2 to 4 mg/litre.
Over most of this range, daily doses for patients in these countries overlap with doses received by people with high water intake in Australia. Second parties have no margin of safety.
Proponents also misrepresent the evidence for neurotoxicity. Dozens of studies find an association between decreased children’s IQ and chronic fluoride intake. Meta-analysis reviews by Harvard University researchers (Choi et al. 2012; Grandjean and Landrigan 2014) And US National Toxicology Program (2024) largely supports the results of these studies.
The second report found that 19 of 72 studies reviewed ‘regarded as high quality; Of these, 18 reported an inverse relationship between estimated fluoride exposure and IQ in children.. In other words, fluoride lowers IQ.
Solution
Medical and public health authorities uncritically accepted shoddy dental research on the risks and benefits of community water fluoridation. This seems to have led to political support through lobbying by vested interests.
CWF has no systemic benefit; may have minor topical benefit at best. It is a neurotoxin and causes skeletal fluorosis in some people who drink a lot of water. It is against medical ethics. It is supported by shoddy, manipulated research and promotions funded by vested interests.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is Honorary Associate Professor of Environment and Society at UNSW Sydney and co-author with Rod Taylor. The Path to a Sustainable Civilization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024).
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.
