The Second Fable: Fluoride Reduces Tooth Decay
In 1938, Dr. H. Trendley Dean, the first director of the National Institute of Dental Research, claimed to have found that fluoride in the drinking water was responsible for a reduction in tooth decay in children. He said that only 30% of 9 year olds living in areas with what he called a low natural fluoride content of 0.6 to 1.5 parts per million in the drinking water (Pueblo, CO; Junction City, KS; and East Moline, IL) had decay free permanent teeth. In contrast,
he pointed out that 60% of the children living in areas with a higher natural fluoride content of 1.7 to 2.5 parts per million in the water (Monmouth, IL; Galesburg, IL; and Colorado Springs, CO) had decay free permanent teeth. However, an examination of his data shows that claims attributing lower tooth decay rates to fluoride do not hold up. From the following data, it is difficult to discern any beneficial effect from higher levels of fluoride in the water:
If Dr. Dean were to try to point out that 1.7 to 2.5 parts per million fluoride were necessary for cavity prevention, he would also have had to admit that these same levels of fluoride produced mottling in 40 to 70 % of the children. In a subsequent study in 1942, Dean grouped Moline, IL with high fluoride areas because in this study, instead of having the highest tooth decay rate, it had the lowest.
In a 1970 follow up study of the findings of Dr. Dean, Drs. Fred L. Losee and Basil G. Bibby re-examined some of Dean's figures and showed that, in cases where the tooth decay rates of 12 to 14 year old children went down as fluoride levels in the drinking water went up. The reduction in tooth decay could as easily have been attributed to strontium and/or boron as to fluoride. To back up this statement they presented data from the following communities in Illinois:
Correlations of Tooth Decay Rates with Fluoride and other Minerals
Dean's studies have been widely cited by fluoridation promoters because they supposedly proved the benefits of fluoride. As a matter of fact, what they really showed was that fluoride has little if any effect on tooth decay. The results of other researchers also show no apparent effect.
Dr. Eugene Zimmerman and co-workers from the National Institute of Dental Research reported on a 10 year study of Bartlett, TX (8 parts per million fluoride) and Cameron, TX (0.4 parts per million fluoride). Their report, published in a 1955 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, noted that the incidence of tooth decaywas "examined statistically and no significant difference was found between the Bartlett and Cameron residents."
A slightly earlier study in Arizona likewise found no significant difference in tooth decay rates between high and low fluoride areas. Dentist Donald J. Galagan conducted the study on 12 to 14 year olds. He published the results in the Journal of the American Dental Associationin 1953. His data (reproduced in the following table) indicates, that while dental fluorosis (mottling) increased and became more severe as the fluoride concentration in the water increased, no reduction in the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth per child could be observed:
In, probably, the largest study of tooth decay in areas with various natural levels of fluoride in the drinking water, Dr. Yoshitsugu Imai of the Tokyo Medical and Dental University examined more than 20,000 students, grades 1 through 6. In 1972, he reported the results of this study. He found a higher percentage of students with tooth decay in areas with fluoride levels of 0.4 parts per million or more in the drinking water than in areas with 0.2 to 0.39 parts per million in the drinking water.
Proper Scientific Experiment VS. Scientific Cretinism
Numerous attempts have been made to show that the amount of fluoride used to fluoridate public water systems reduces tooth decay under laboratory conditions. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and the British Ministry of Health admit that no laboratory study has ever shown that the amount of fluoride added to drinking water is effective in reducing tooth decay. Furthermore, they admit that there are no epidemiological studies on humans showing that fluoridation reduces tooth decay that meet the minimum requirements of scientific objectivity. These requirements are referred to by scientists as blind or double-blind design in which neither examiner nor patient know who is in the test group and who is in the control group. This type of study is necessary to eliminate examiner-patient bias. It also helps to prevent misleading results. For instance, tooth decay rates among U.S. children living in some fluoridated areas are more than twice as high as those living in other areas that are nonfluoridated. Comparisons showing the opposite can also be found. Blind and double-blind design helps assure an unbiased selection of areas so that reliable results can be obtained.
The Fluoridation "Experiment" Begins
The studies of Dr. Cox, Dr. Armstrong, and Dr. Dean hardly proved the benefits of fluoride, yet it was on the basis of these studies that fluoridation of public water supplies began.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, the
first city reported to be fluoridated, began to add fluoride to the drinking
water on January 25, 1945; Muskegon, MI was selected as a control (nonfluoridated)
city. the study was originally designed to last for at least 10 years,
but five years after fluoridation began, it was observed that the tooth
decay rates of both artificially fluoridated Grand Rapids and
Nonfluoridated Muskegon had decreased
as recorded in the following table derived
from studies originally published by USPHS Scientists:
Decayed, Missing, and Filled Permanent Teeth (DMFT) Per Child
Thereafter, Muskegon was dropped as a control
city and the only result publicized was that the tooth decay
rate in Grand Rapids decreased after fluoridation (since the overall
results between the two cities was negligible). This scientific cretinism
took place at the precise time that the fluoridation "bandwagon" began
TOOTH DECAY (THE NUMBER OF DECAYED, MISSING & FILLED PERMANENT TEETH PER CHILD)
Another British Study , carried out in Kilmarnok, Scotland, examined the tooth decay rates of permanent teeth (DMFT) of 9 to 14 year olds. From the results, tabulated below, it is hard to discern any significant beneficial effect from fluoride:
Virtually every recent large-scale study done has shown that fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay in permanent teeth.
John Colquhoun , former Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health
in Auckland, New Zealand, examined the tooth decay rates of all 12 to 13
year old students undergoing their final dental examination by the New
Zealand Dental Service in 1984 and 1986 in the six major cities of New
Zealand. This study included 59,331 students, the largest study
ever done in the world. As can be seen in the following table,
no differencein tooth decay rate of permanent teeth was observed
as a result of fluoridation:
TOOTH DECAY RATES (THE NUMBER OF DECAYED, MISSING & FILLED PERMANENT PER CHILD) AMONG 12 TO 13 YEAR OLDS IN NEW ZEALAND
In the largest study of fluoridation and tooth decay ever done in the history of the United States, Dr. Yiamouyiannis examined data from the dental examinations (performed under contract from the United States Public Health Service in 1986-87) of 39,207 schoolchildren, aged 5 to 17, in 84 areas throughout the United States. Of these areas, 27 had been fluoridated for 17 years or more (F), 30 had never been fluoridated (NF), and 27 had been only partially fluoridated or fluoridated for less than 17 years (PF). The average number of decayed, filled, and missing teeth per child (DMFT) were 1.96 in the (F) areas, 2.18 in the (PF) areas, and 1.99 in the (NF) areas. For life long residents these values were 1.97 in the (F) areas, 2.25 in the (PF) areas, and 2.06 in the (NF) areas. In neither case was there any difference in tooth decay rate that could be attributed to fluoridation.
And there was no difference in the decay rate of permanent teeth in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas at any age, as can be seen in the following graph:
TOOTH DECAY IN FLUORIDATED ( F), PARTIALLY FLUORIDATED (PF), AND NONFLUORIDATED (NF ) AREAS: PERMANENT TEETH
DECAYED, MISSING, AND FILLED
And the following table shows that when
the 84 areas examined are put in the order of increasing decay rates of
permanent teeth and compared, no dental benefit can be found as a result
of living in a fluoridated area:
TOOTH DECAY RATES FOR 5 TO 17 YEAR OLDS IN THE U.S. IN THE ORDER OF INCREASING AGE-ADJUSTED DMFT RATE (DECAYED, MISSING, AND FILLED PERMANENT TEETH PER CHILD)
The Results in this study are comparable to those obtained in other large studies conducted in North America.
In 1989, a researcher from Missouri examined the tooth decay records of rural 6th grade schoolchildren and again found no significant difference in tooth decay rates between those living in fluoridated areas (who averaged 2.2 decayed, missing, and filled teeth per child) and those living in nonfluoridated areas (who averaged 2.0 decayed, missing and filled teeth per child).
The October, 1987 issue
of theJournal of the Canadian Dental
Association published an article admitting that fluoridation isn't
doing the job that dentists have been claiming it could do. According
to the article: "Survey results in British Columbia with only 11% of
the population using fluoridated water show lower DMFT rates than provinces
with 40-70 % of the population drinking fluoridated water" and "school
districts recently reporting the highest caries-free rates in the province
were totally unfluoridated."
Many studies show that in the United States and worldwide, reductions in tooth decay rates over the last 25 years in nonfluoridated and fluoridated areas have been comparable. People who extol the benefits of fluoride seem to ignore this fact.
Between 1958 and 1978, Dr. Robert Glass , a researcher at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, derived what he called 'amazing' statistics from a study of tooth decay in two nonfluoridated Boston suburbs, Norwood and Dedham. For the study, he examined the teeth of 1,776 children in the school systems of these two communities and discovered, over the course of 20 years, a 50 % drop in the number of decayed, filled, and missing teeth.
Fluoridation Reduces Tooth Decay in Baby Teeth
In 1990, Dr. Yiamouyiannis carefully focused
in on the number of decayed and filled baby teeth (dft) in children 5 to
8 years old who were permanent residents of fluoridated and nonfluoridated
areas. Among 5 year olds, he found that the decay rates of baby teeth
in fluoridated areas were 42 % lower than in the nonfluoridated areas,
and that the difference was statistically significant. However, this
reduction soon disappeared as children grew older, as can be seen from
the following table:
Decay-Free Children in Fluoridated and Nonfluoridated Areas
The percentage of children with no tooth
decay in nonfluoridated areas is as high as or higher than it is in fluoridated
areas, as can be seen from the following table:
Good Diet, Not Fluoride, Necessary for Healthy Teeth
In primitive societies whose drinking waters
contain negligible amounts of fluoride, such as the Otomi
Indians in Mexico , the Bedouins
in Israel, and the Ibos in Nigeria,
80 to 90 % of the people go through life without tooth decay - not because
the fluoride level in the drinking water is low, but because they eat very
little sugar and other refined carbohydrates. More recent studies
show that people living in low-fluoride areas who eat low-sugar diets experience
very little tooth decay, whether they are 12 year old schoolchildren in
Tanzania or 20 to 50 year old soldiers
Fluoride in Toothpastes, Mouthrinses, Tablets, Drops, etc.
The only form in which fluoride may be effective in reducing tooth decay is the fluoride found in toothpaste. Children living on a high-sugar cariogenic diet who conscientiously brush their teeth may experience a 10% reduction in tooth decay as a result of the fluoride found in their toothpaste, But even here there is controversy, with some researchers claiming that fluoride toothpastes don't reduce tooth decay at all - and others claiming that higher levels of fluoride are needed to make toothpaste more effective - and still others claiming that lower levels are either as effective or more effective. Considering the hazards and potential gum-damaging effects of fluoride toothpastes (see above excerpt), it would be best to keep fluoridated toothpastes out of the house.
Other forms of fluoride
create a serious threat to health with no real benefit. Like water
fluoridation, the apparent 'beneficial' effect of fluoride tablets is to
retard the decay rates of baby teeth in 5 and 6 year olds. Balance
that against chronically poisoning your child, and very possibly leaving
the tell-tale evidence of that poisoning in the form of dental fluorosis
of the permanent teeth.
Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, excerpt from chapter 14, "The Second Fable: Fluoride Reduces Tooth Decay", Fluoride the Aging Factor, pp 119-132, (1993), Health Action Press.
Check your local library for the book by Dr. Yiamouyiannis. It is most likely that if your city is planning to fluoridate-or has fluoridated that "Fluoride the Aging Factor" has been stricken, physically and electronically from any library records. The Data within the book completely negates any argument by the fluoridationists, so it may certainly be on the government blacklists - and is most definitely on the black lists of the Fortune 500 Companies in the steel, coal burning, phosphate/phosphate fertilizer, aluminum, ceramics, hydrofluoric acid, petrochemical, glass, frit, cement, nonferrous metals, uranium, and other industries that create fluoride as a by-product, waste product .
For the Reader's information, of the key Fortune 500 Companies, the Biggest culprit, Alcoa, has purchased market research reports in automobile chemicals and parts, lighting, and then, a report that sticks out like a sore thumb because the company has done nothing else in the medical/health industry, " Community Water Treatment."
The book by Dr. Yiamouyiannis does not hesitate to point out the culprits or the mechanism of genetic damage caused by an over indulgence of fluoride.
Please Remember. Noone has ever suffered from fluoride deficiency. !
[Bioenergetic Spectrum] [Ear Hot on Long Cell Phone Calls? This Will Help... ] [GB4000 Function Generator and Royal Rife Info Page] [Healing MindN Body Spirit Connection] [Holy Life, Healing Mind] [Poison Consumer Reports] [Sexual Health] [Bioenergetic Spectrum] [Privacy] [MUSICAL SEISMOGRAPH]  [Bioenergetic Spectrum Science Blog] [Green8USA.com Cell Phone Protection Page] [Bioenergetic Nutrition Spectrum] [Unlock Your Inner Miracle Mind Power: Free 12 lesson course][Spiritual advice, assistance and information – live 24/7!] [Bioenergetic Spectrum] [Keys To Power system: Free 12 lesson course] [Content Rating] [Restore your mind and body - break the crystal meth addiction now with this safe, natural solution.] [Using EFT for Addiction and Substance Abuse] [Cell Phone Safety Info Blog] [Live your life - break the crystal meth addiction NOW] [Improve Your Sleep, Enhance Your Mental and Physical Performance, and Feel Younger in 90 Days...] [Learn the Psychoenergetics within the Bioenergetics] [Sleep Package][Life Pixel IR] [Holy Life, Healing the MindN, Cleansing the Soul] [Protect Yourself From Mobile Phone Stress! Green 8 USAis the only protection specifically designed to protect you from the latest high bandwidth wireless technologies - Limited Time Discount!] [Ear Hot on Long Cell Phone Calls? This Will Help... ]
©Copyright 2007 HealingMindN. All rights reserved.