May 10, 2007
Dentists Are Big Fat Liars
By Sally Stride
Dentists have been very derelict in their duty to educate Americans about the real reason why they are getting more cavities. Poor nutrition and too much fluoride.
Sufficient intakes of protein, calcium, phosphorus, vitamins A, C, and D are required to form healthy teeth, according to the American Dental Association.
Most cavities happen in poor children. Poor children are deficient in almost all of the above nutrients, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Low Income Americans are also less likely to be able to afford nutrient dense fruits and vegetables to satisfy the 7-9 servings required daily to keep healthy.
There are zero, nada, zip, NO studies showing any American child is fluoride deficient. In fact, the opposite is true. Loads of studies show American Children get way over recommended levels of fluoride from many sources - not just drinking water. And there is NO dispute between those for and against fluoridation that too much fluoride is harmful and can actually damage teeth (dental fluorosis).
In fact, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control, recognizing this problem, both advise that infant formulas should not be mixed with fluoridated water to avoid dental fluorosis which now occurs in about 50% of
Fluoride is inhaled via ocean mist, cold mist humidifiers, showers, and air pollution. It's a component of cigarette smoke, coal burning, brick, fertilizer, aluminum and other industrial air emissions. Fluoride is naturally high in tea and ocean fish and, because of fluoride containing pesticide residues, in some grape juices. Fluoride is in chicken baby food in concentrations high enough to cause dental fluorosis in the child if consumed daily. Any product made with mechanically deboned chicken such as chicken nuggets,
Since the EPA now allows sulfuryl fluoride to be used as a fumigant on many foods, even more foods will contain fluoride.
Unfortunately, most dentists compelling us to drink more fluoride don't know this and won't be able to discern when and how you've reach fluoride saturation.
Dentists are holding our poor children hostage and won't actually treat their dental disease unless the government gives them more money. In my opinion, they should be fined or sued for allowing this dental health crisis to occur on their watch.
Fluoridation is just a diversion to distract you from the real tragedy facing the poor - lack of dentists who really care.
If a dentist says your child requires more fluoride, he or she is either lying or fluoride-ignorant.
Authors Website: http://www.fluoridedangers.blogspot.com
Posts
8 comments:
If you'd like me to send you the x-rays of all my "anti-fluoride" patients and show you the MASSIVE difference in their caries rates versus those patients who've subscribed to our "conspiratory" efforts to stop dental decay via TOPICAL (NOT systemic) fluoride, I'd be happy to.
Are you aware that the levels of fluoride in municpical water supplies are carefully studied so as NOT to overdo it? 1 part per million - and its even varied due to climate, which better controls correct absorption into the body. Fluoride is a naturally occuring element. Its chemical benefit for strengthening enamel is incomparable to those "vitamins" you listed, which are also toxic to children in high doses. Fluoride is by no means intended to be used in uncontrolled situations - hence all the warnings on products and advice to expectorate after use. Dentists don't just wantonly prescribe the use of fluoride, especially to children.
Don't forget that ANY and ALL elements are toxic at too high a level - including oxygen, carbon, and even water. You're arguments are unfounded and seem very paranoid.
The strange thing is that the biggest longest study on Fluoride ( 30 years 1963-93 400,000 plus) showed cavities caused by a lack of calcium and surplus of fluoride. If low on calcium then a much smaller amount of fluoride caused cavities. The levels of fluorosis increased with increased fluoride and again calcium provided some protection. They thought keeping fluoride below 0.5ppm reduced harm. Fluoride has never been approved for ingestion by the FDA and was removed from the register as a nutrient because of no data to show it of value (three lawsuits in 1978 caused that action in 79)..Dose not concentration is the real issue and water is just one source with little kids trusted to not swallow or eat tasty toothpaste. The CDC study in 2003-2004 showed 48.42% 12-15 yr olds with dental fluorosis and about 60% in fluoridated cities. This is a toxic overdose bio marker -not just ugly teeth- Dentists believe in fluoride like 5yr olds believe in the tooth fairy .The ADA avoids science and spins.
dentists are holding poor children hostage by failing to treat them until the government gives them more money? comments like that make me wonder why any of your opinions should be given any serious consideration. dental offices are private enterprises and as such require a profit to stay in business. If federally funded programs like medicaid reimburse a dentist far less than his costs to provide the service ,how can you fault him for limiting the care he provides in those circumstances. medicaid in nj would have to trple the reimbursement rate for thaverage dental office to BREAK EVEN. do you think car repair shops clothing stores and grocery stores should be compelled to also donate products and services to whoever can't afford them? when they go out of business do you plan to support us all? If you have an opinion with a rational basis about Fluoride or any other scientific subject stick to that and leave out the conspiracy theories.
Please be advised as to the book entitled "The Floride Deception" by: Christopher Bryson. I read this book for a final in college, and learned both sides of the debate. The government considers floride a danger to the ground water, and is considered pollution if omitted into the ground. After you consider both sides to the story, and not just your bank account soaring from decaying teeth in children. Then come back and talk about the good it does for the American people!
I totally disagree. Dentists plays very important role in saving our teeth. we are the only experts who are trained to handle dental problems, we are not speaking only for ourselves but generally. Dentists are very important in our society especially today.
Your friendly Naperville cosmetic Dentist
Professionals Urge End to Water Fluoridation
New York - December 4, 2007 -- In a statement released August 9, 2007, over 600 (now 1,200) professionals urge Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. (http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html)
Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.
Signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”
An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on FAN's web site, www.fluorideaction.org.
“The NRC report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride's health risks," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added.
An Assistant NY State Attorney General calls the report “the most up-to-date expert authority on the health effects of fluoride exposure.”
The Professionals’ Statement also references:
-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.
-- The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic.
-- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.
-- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
-- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer.
-- The silicofluoride chemicals used for fluoridation are contaminated industrial waste and have never been FDA- approved for human ingestion.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.”
Further, researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation, touted as a safe cavity preventive, never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (1)
Partially, as a result of the professionals' statement, at least one city, Cobleskill NY, stopped 54 years of water fluoridation. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2998.html
Many communities rejected or stopped fluoridation over the years. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm
On October 2, Juneau Alaska voters rejected fluoridation despite the American Dental Association's $150,000 political campaign to return fluoride into the water supply after the legislative body voted it out.
SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net
References:
(1) “Adding fluoride to water supplies,” British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007
In the 1980's I worked at a manufacturing facility in Ontario Canada for a U.S. company. I was a Compounder, which means I (along with about 6 others) actually weighed,measured and blended together cosmetic and other consumer products. We produced products for a number of name brand companies that many would recognize.
Although this company did not emphasize worker safety as much as they should have, they did go to extensive safety procedures when making one particular product.
This product was a dental care product to be sold from retailers. It required the use of Stannous Flouride which gives us the flouride protection. The individual who blended this product was required to work in a sealed room with an air exchange system. He had to wear a complete paper type body suit that was to be disposed of after each batch. He was also required to wear a total face oxygen mask that was connected to oxygen tanks kept outside the room. After each batch was completed the entire room was to be hosed down and cleansed.
I worked on many types of products while I worked there. Some of these products contained other dangerous chemicals such as formaldehyde etc.. In no other case was there such extreme "containment" procedures used as with the Stannous Flouride product.
In discussions with lab personnel at that time I spoke with an East Indian fellow who worked in R&D. He told me that Stannous Flouride in its natural state is found in some soils, such as where he came from in a certain area in Indian. He told me that this chemical present in the soil renders it useless in the right concentration due to its toxicity.
He also told me that it was harmless for human use if it is diluted enough.
I had difficulty believing that a toxic substance is suddenly safe if we only use small amounts of that poison at a time.
This reminds me of quotes I have heard that mercury related substances are safe if they are in our vaccines because we are only exposed to a small amount. I guess if we ingest rat poison in very small amounts its good for us too.
These things happened twenty years ago now. The individual who was the only person allowed to work on that product I have not seen in many years. I have spoken to others who also worked there at that time, and who have spoken to him recently,and they have told me that this guy now has numerous bone and other health problems that he claims to this day has to do with working with the flouride product. From what I have heard he is no longer able to work.Whether he has taken legal action on this, I don't know.
So I guess its a matter of whether you believe that small amounts of toxic substances are harmless, or even good for you if used as others direct you.
For myself, I have a lot of trouble believing that after witnessing the use of some of this substance in its "undiluted" form.
This company still exists, although it has been sold several times and was owned by a Chinese firm at one point. As far as I know they no longer produce this product for a "well known" dental care company.
To the poster (dentist with the X-rays):
1. There are many reasons why your "anti-fluoride" (I'd like to know how you know that) patients might have more caries. It could be bad health, bad oral hygiene, a diet too high in sugar, vitamin deficiency etc. Did you conduct a scientific, controlled, peer-reviewed study or is that just your 'I'm-a-professional-so-I-must-know-all' complacent opinion? Even the anti-fluoride patients cannot avoid ingesting fluoride since it's in food, air, bathwater, shower water, fruit juice, mineral water and so on.
(These sources fluoride is not protecting them, is it? So what's the real cause of their cavities?
2. How can you control the amount of fluoride people drink in the water? Saying the level in the municipal water is 'carefully studied' means nothing if you cannot control the 'dose' people are drinking.
2. Fluoride may be a naturally occurring substance, but that does not mean it's safe, arsenic is naturally occurring.
In any case, it's not fluoride in the municipal water, it's hydrofluorosilicic acid; a nasty by-product of the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum industry. Didn't you know that? You should have known that if you're pushing it on your unsuspecting patients.
3. You say "Fluoride is by no means intended to be used in uncontrolled situations" - please see my point 2.
4. You say our arguments are paranoid. In fact they are science based. Science you have clearly not been exposed to in your professional career.
I sympathise with the clients who swallow your advice without question. Advice which is about as toxic as the fluoride you ask them to rinse their mouths with.
Post a Comment