Why are we dosing babies with fluoride

  • Thread starter davidkennedydds
  • Start date

Des O

New Member
Here is an excerpt from the Peel Region (Region of Ontario just west of Toronto where Dr. Hardy Limeback and I used to live) website comparing 2 communities. One with fluoridation and others without.

[h=2]Is tooth decay a problem for children in Caledon?[/h]
  • Yes. A 2001-02 survey of school-aged children in Peel showed that children in Brampton and Mississauga had fewer cavities than children in Caledon.
  • In Caledon 50% of the children surveyed had cavities, as compared to 38% of the children in Mississauga and 37 % of the children in Brampton.



[h=2]Why do we think that the higher amount of tooth decay in Caledon's children is the result of a lack of fluoride in the drinking water?[/h]
  • Peel Health thought that children in Caledon would have fewer cavities because of better access to dental care.
  • Unfortunately, this was not the case. They were much more likely to have had sealants applied to their teeth to prevent tooth decay and had many more existing cavities filled. Yet, the children in Caledon had more tooth decay than their peers in Brampton and Mississauga .
  • The major difference between the two areas was fluoride in the drinking water. Brampton and Mississauga have it; Caledon does not.
http://www.peelregion.ca/health/topics/commdisease/dental/fluoridation.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

scombrid

Senior Member.
Here is an excerpt from the Peel Region (Region of Ontario just west of Toronto where Dr. Hardy Limeback and I used to live) website comparing 2 communities. One with fluoridation and others without.



http://www.peelregion.ca/health/topics/commdisease/dental/fluoridation.htm
You could similarly compare Isle of Wight County, Virginia with neighboring Newport News in the 1970s-1990s. Kids in Isle of Wight, including the Town of Smithfield grew up on well water that naturally contained somewhat high fluoride (high enough that modern municipalities that wish to tap that groundwater for city supply must de-fluorinate down to EPA specs.). Kids in Newport News grew up on water from surface water reservoirs. Smithfield/Isle of Wight kids had much lower decay rates even though kids in Newport News were generally more urban and affluent and had better dental care by comparison. My pediatric dentist, who presumably provided the same care to all patients, definitely remarked about the better average condition of Smithfield/Isle of Wight teeth (fluoridosis was a probably for us though).
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
The major problem with the above so called studies is that you have basically two wild rats and no control whatsoever of the known variables for tooth decay which are parental income and community economic basis.

On the other hand if you were to take the entire country of New Zealand for example there is definite association between income and education but zero association with the amount fo fluoride in public drinking water.

the same holds true of the 1987 NIDR broad based randomized study of 39,000 children in the US.

I know of no broad based blinded studies of animals or humans that has ever found a significant reduction in permanent tooth decay from the addition of 1 ppm fluoride to the public drinking water. Hence the ongoing controversy where the science conflicts wit the dogma.
 
So, Dr. Kennedy, are you proud to be associated with these people and the hoax of chemtrails?

Way to hit'em Jay with that logical fallacy comeback.

As one who often finds it difficult to put into writing (without being excessively verbose) the points necessary to provide a solid rebuttal to the debunkers, I for one am very much enjoying this back and forth between the debunkers and a professional who is well versed in the science and therefore not easily dismissed. Even Mick who tends to be very level and far from argumentative (at least from what I’ve read) seems to be getting somewhat flustered.


When a certain familiar avatar starts using the "tea-bagger" term in every other sentence, that's when you can tell you have the debunkers hopping mad.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He asked if I ever ingested toothpaste and I had to admit that as a smaller child I would occasionally eat it because it tasted like bubblegum. Yes I know this is gross, but can be a very common problem with children and probably is the most likely reason for dental flourosis.
I used to do that. I grew up poor and it was like free candy. It's amazing I'm still alive, with the mercury fillings and all.

I wonder if anyone ever considered that as a factor when studying childhood fluorosis?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Come again?

Who is dosing babies with fluoride?

Is this in the UK? Or is this just the US?
It's a bit of a rhetorical device from David Kennedy. Since there's no real dental benefit to babies ingesting fluoride, he's questioning why we put it in the water when there's a possibility it might be toxic to babies.
 

Spongebob

Active Member
It's a bit of a rhetorical device from David Kennedy. Since there's no real dental benefit to babies ingesting fluoride, he's questioning why we put it in the water when there's a possibility it might be toxic to babies.

Is the "we" the US or Europe or the UK specifically?

As far as I know we in the UK do not give babies tap water...?
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
I don't know about chem_trails but I do know about hydrofluosilicic acid and the fact that the dose of fluoride a baby receives on fluoridated tap-water-formula.

I am however quite happy with the film the Chris Maple and Pal Wirtenberger created titled "The Great Culling" that I saw last Saturday in La Jolla at the AMC theatre. It was factual, accurate and told the story of worker injury and childhood overdose very clearly.

So why don't we quit the name calling and start to address the only question I've asked this blog, "What dose of fluoride do you recommend to an infant."

I know some don't like to address infants because they are emotive but from a toxicological point of view that is where the discussion must start. They are the most vulnerable and drink copious amounts of water.

FYI a formula fed infant drinks its weight in water every 3 to 4 days.

For a simple exercise I suggest that at 8 pounds per gallon everyone take a moment and figure out how much water you'd have to drink to keep up with a baby if you drank your weight in water every 4 days.
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
Is the "we" the US or Europe or the UK specifically?

As far as I know we in the UK do not give babies tap water...?
Actually most babies who are given powder formula do drink quantities of tap water. Powdered formula is used where the poor mothers must return to work like in the US that does not have maternity leave. Breast milk has almost no fluoride.

Continental Europe has no major fluoride areas but one town in Italy has natural fluoride and they are known for black teeth.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As one who often finds it difficult to put into writing (without being excessively verbose) the points necessary to provide a solid rebuttal to the debunkers, I for one am very much enjoying this back and forth between the debunkers and a professional who is well versed in the science and therefore not easily dismissed. Even Mick who tends to be very level and far from argumentative (at least from what I’ve read) seems to be getting somewhat flustered.
Flustered? Have I been using too many italics again? :)

The thing is, this should be a fairly straightforward bit of science. Why is Dr Kennedy reduced to arguing with a random bunch of debunkers for several days? He quotes a lot of studies, and yet it seems like cherry picking - I could quote lots of studies that say it's safe. Ultimately what he seems to be suggesting is some kind of conspiracy theory. I'm not being dismissive with that term, but he seems to be suggesting there's some kind of cover-up of the evidence by vested interests. It seems rather odd that they would be going to all this trouble (poisoning millions of people) just to get rid of chemical waste.

He's also cooperating on a film called "The Great Culling" - the premise of which is that the elite are trying to cull the world's population by, in part, adding fluoride to the water supply. Despite what you say about Jay's logical fallacy, you must admit this seems a tad suspicious.

David appears at 3:25 in this extended trailer.

 

davidkennedydds

New Member
Yes swallowed toothpaste and early toothpaste use is firmly linked to childhood fluorosis as is prescription fluoride vitamins and fluoridated tap water. (Op cit Levy 1995 JADA)
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
Yes it is an easy answer. You guys seem to have a great deal of difficulty in answering. I wonder why. is it because you know that your favorite subject will be debunked?
 

Spongebob

Active Member
I don't know about chem_trails but I do know about hydrofluosilicic acid and the fact that the dose of fluoride a baby receives on fluoridated tap-water-formula.


I am however quite happy with the film the Chris Maple and Pal Wirtenberger created titled "The Great Culling" that I saw last Saturday in La Jolla at the AMC theatre. It was factual, accurate and told the story of worker injury and childhood overdose very clearly.


So why don't we quit the name calling and start to address the only question I've asked this blog, "What dose of fluoride do you recommend to an infant."


I know some don't like to address infants because they are emotive but from a toxicological point of view that is where the discussion must start. They are the most vulnerable and drink copious amounts of water.


FYI a formula fed infant drinks its weight in water every 3 to 4 days.


For a simple exercise I suggest that at 8 pounds per gallon everyone take a moment and figure out how much water you'd have to drink to keep up with a baby if you drank your weight in water every 4 days.



Were you fluorinated ? Is that it?


I am still here and Mick is still here we are, were, UK born and bred (same age also) so...?




By the way: Does anyone know the fluoride content of Frosty Jacks cider? I have imbibed a good quantity and my teeth look all shiny and white... Burp!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes it is an easy answer. You guys seem to have a great deal of difficulty in answering. I wonder why. is it because you know that your favorite subject will be debunked?
My favorite subject is chemtrails.

I think you should really have us at a significant disadvantage here, as you've been diligently studying this topic for, what, 20 years? I only started seriously Googling it last week.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Yes it is an easy answer. You guys seem to have a great deal of difficulty in answering. I wonder why. is it because you know that your favorite subject will be debunked?
I don't really have a dog in this race because it's not a topic I know much about, but that question is really plainly a rhetorical device, as Mick says. It's a sort of wife-beating question. I don't think your reliance on it is helping your case.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
On the other hand if you were to take the entire country of New Zealand for example there is definite association between income and education but zero association with the amount fo fluoride in public drinking water.
Being that I am a New Zealander I have an interest in this - do you have a source?
(and should this discussion about fluoride be in the chemtrail forum at all??)
 

Des O

New Member
The major problem with the above so called studies is that you have basically two wild rats and no control whatsoever of the known variables for tooth decay which are parental income and community economic basis.

On the other hand if you were to take the entire country of New Zealand for example there is definite association between income and education but zero association with the amount fo fluoride in public drinking water.

the same holds true of the 1987 NIDR broad based randomized study of 39,000 children in the US.

I know of no broad based blinded studies of animals or humans that has ever found a significant reduction in permanent tooth decay from the addition of 1 ppm fluoride to the public drinking water. Hence the ongoing controversy where the science conflicts wit the dogma.
Actually the Peel Region study involves 3 neighbouring communities that are all very similar and oddly enough, Caledon (the one with a higher rate of tooth decay) actually has a higher average household income, and equal or better education than the other 2 communities.

[h=2] Income Facts (2006 Census)[/h] [h=3]Median Private Household Income[/h]
Median Household Income
Region of Peel$72,655
City of Brampton$72,402
Town of Caledon$89,275
City of Mississauga$71,393

[h=3]Incidence of Low Income in Private Households[/h]
Incidence of Low Income in Private Households
Region of Peel14.5%
City of Brampton13.9%
Town of Caledon4.4%
City of Mississauga15.7%

More...
^ top
[h=2] Education Facts (2006 Census)[/h] [h=3]Population Aged 25+ with less than a Grade 9 Education[/h]
Number of PeoplePercentage of Population
Region of Peel79,5006.89%
City of Brampton37,6858.73%
Town of Caledon3,4306.03%
City of Mississauga38,3855.78%
http://www.peelregion.ca/planning/pdc/data/quickfacts.htm

The main difference between Caledon to the other two is the water source. Caledon gets their water from wells that do not add fluoride.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Des O

New Member
Looking at the data, another difference is that Caledon has a much lower percentage of immigrants.

One thing I have noticed is that medical survey studies are never perfect. It is literally impossible to account for every variable. The only way to really prove fluoride in water works is to take a number of identical twins and give one fluoridated water and the other none. You would have to ensure both twins have identical diets, health care and oral hygiene practices.

I pretty hard task to accomplish I think. This is why you will never see a "conclusive study" proving fluoride in drinking water is beneficial.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
While looking into the issue there were a few trends that seemed to come to the surface. Generally speaking, there seems to be a relationship between tooth decay and income, where more affluent and educated parents tend to have children with less decay. Another trend being that fluoridated communities tend to have less tooth decay in general.

One of the arguments for fluoridating water in the US is it brings cheap preventative measures to areas where people can't afford oral health care. This seems to be especially significant in a country were 22 million people have unmet dental need, 17 million of which claim it's because they can't afford it. The US could forgo fluoridation and follow Denmark’s example; provide free social dental care to children under 18. :)
 
W

Wilde

Guest
You can always find SOME professionals who share in a fringe opinion. Just look at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

So why is it that those professionals, the small minority, are right, but the majority are wrong?
I don't make any claims the small minority is right in this instance, but neither do I believe they should be discounted for an opposing view. Didn't the majority once believe that asbestos, PCBs, formaldehyde, benzene, leaded gas, DDT, 24D, CFC's, Thalidomide, HRT, Vioxx and a host of other medications and chemicals were considered safe and non-toxic? http://bit.ly/33JUVi

Following the money trail, what would the motive be for someone like Limeback to reverse his position on fluoride? Why jeprodize a lucrative career and face being ostracized and ridiculed by your peers and much of the public? The point is that experts like Limeback should be given more credibility because too much is at stake. There's no shortage of evidence from the past to demonstrate that government doesn't always operate in the best interests of public health. http://bit.ly/9jFJsN

Regarding the issue of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the results of many polls, including one from 2007, indicate that 51% of Americans want the investigation re-opened. There's your majority. Many families of victims of the attack want the same. If there's nothing to hide and the official story is true, there should be no reason not to re-investigate.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I imagine that Limeback simply became convinced by the anti-fluoride case. It happens.

One should not discount the minority view, however one should also not give it undue weight. A few people against the mainstream does not make for a 50/50 debate.

Here's an interesting article about 9/11 polls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Unfortunately much as I like democracy, opinion polls are not always incredibly useful. the 51% were answering a (rather leading) question like:

And simply indicates the usual distrust of government, and a question designed to elicit a particular answer. If there WAS another investigation, there would still be the same lingering suspicion, and you could do another poll to get the answer you wanted.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I agree that the manner in which a poll question is worded can greatly effect the outcome. This particular poll was conducted via telephone with 1,000 interviews of randomly-selected adults across the US, and consisted of 71 questions with a 3.1% margin of error. So in this instance, it would seem to have conveyed a fairly accurate opinion from the average Joe.

What I find interesting and a bit paradoxical is that even though the poll indicated 67% thought the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the WTC 7 collapse, and over 30% sought immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment; less than 5% percent agreed that members of the US government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."

With so much doubt and suspicion cast upon the US administration in the outcome of this survey, I would have thought the government involvement quotient would have been higher. Perhaps, as Hoover eluded to in the following quote, the notion that their leaders were complicit in a crime of such magnitude, is far too sinister and disturbing for the average person to wrap their minds around.

"The objectives of Communism are being steadily advanced...The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists." (J. Edgar Hoover, Elks Magazine, August 1956)

"Sarah, if the American people knew the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." (George H. W. Bush to reporter Sarah McClendon, December 1992)
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
As far as I've found...there is no proof that was ever said. And of course the reporter was quite the conspiracy buff herself in her later years...so that makes it quite suspect.

The first one seems to have been discussed very often...and the fact that Hoover was a vehement anti-Communist makes it very believable.
 

hemi

Senior Member.
I don't make any claims the small minority is right in this instance, but neither do I believe they should be discounted for an opposing view. Didn't the majority once believe that asbestos, PCBs, formaldehyde, benzene, leaded gas, DDT, 24D, CFC's, Thalidomide, HRT, Vioxx and a host of other medications and chemicals were considered safe and non-toxic? http://bit.ly/33JUVi.
Exactly. At some point concerns were raised, scientists investigated the claims, and discovered that, yes, those substances were harmful.

This isn't the case with water fluoridation, which has been used across the world for decades, and for which there are many studies that show it has no discernible negative health impacts.
 
W

Wilde

Guest
As far as I've found...there is no proof that was ever said. And of course the reporter was quite the conspiracy buff herself in her later years...so that makes it quite suspect.

The first one seems to have been discussed very often...and the fact that Hoover was a vehement anti-Communist makes it very believable.
The link I thought was formerly attributed to the quote in Sarah McClendon's newsletter only connects with the one below. http://www.pdxnorml.org/mcclendn

It contains an interview with McClendon on a number of topics. At the bottom, there is an interview with retired Lt. Cdr Al Martin by Tom Valentine and was aired on Valentine's Radio Free America July 10, 1995. Martin quotes from McClendon's June 1992 newsletter. http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/MCCLENDN

_____________________________________________

Since I can't verify the statement in McClendon's newsletter, I'll retract it. The gist of my comment still stands.
 
W

Wilde

Guest
Exactly. At some point concerns were raised, scientists investigated the claims, and discovered that, yes, those substances were harmful.

This isn't the case with water fluoridation, which has been used across the world for decades, and for which there are many studies that show it has no discernible negative health impacts.
I'm not so certain that's the case. Asbestos has been in use for 2000 years and was only banned in the last couple of decades, despite voluminous data it caused cancer and lung disease.

Despite numerous fatalities linked to lead exposure and warnings from the US Public Health Service about the potential hazards associated with the heavy metal, it wasn't until 1980 that the National Academy of Sciences reported that leaded gasoline was the greatest source of environmental lead contamination. Better late than never?

Even with that, it took a decade before leaded gas was totally phased out. Now we only have to worry about lead in things like our drinking water, cosmetics, kid's toys, candy, etc; etc. The gas additive MTBE that replaced lead didn't work out too well either.

And how long have cigarettes been in use across the world? I won't dump all the blame on science and research though because industrial cartels and their quislings in government have as much to answer for.
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
I'll respect the rest of your original statement...it was just the Bush comment that couldn't be verified. I doubt any President is really that stupid to say such a thing. Thank you for your response.

I also stand by my post that McClendon was quite old and a conspiracy supporter at the time. IMO that makes much of her info from her later years suspect....as I said.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wilde, you might like to log in, so your posts show up immediately, and you can get email notifications of responses.
 
Courts do not make science. Peer reviewed metastudies make science.
Courts rule on evidence and testimony of scientists, so are their decisions not credible? especially 3-0?




I think I've explained why this question is rhetorical. Continuing to ask it is just silly. What dose of carbon monoxide should we add to babies air?
We are not specifically adding carbon monoxide to babies air (or anyone's air) for any given purpose. We do not buy carbon monoxide from companies and release it into the atmosphere. The carbon monoxide is a by-product of doing something else. Adding fluoride to water is not a by-product of doing anything, it is an additive.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Courts do rule on evidence and testimony - of both science and others. And they are subject topoor presentation, good presentation, etc just like anyone else.

Science is not a democracy - it does not matter how many courts rule "against" fluoridation - or for it for that matter - the rulings do not make it a good thing or a bad thing.
 
Courts do rule on evidence and testimony - of both science and others. And they are subject topoor presentation, good presentation, etc just like anyone else.

Science is not a democracy - it does not matter how many courts rule "against" fluoridation - or for it for that matter - the rulings do not make it a good thing or a bad thing.
So what is the point of taking a peer reviewed meta study, going to court, or having a debate at all if the sources are always questionable? Where do you draw the line? Does a 3-0 record from 3 separate courts not hold any credibility whatsoever?

P.S. I don't want anything added to my water, whether it is good for me or not.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The 3-0 is not relevant to "credibility" at all - and the point of taking peer reviewed studies, or any other evidence to court, is to support a case to get a verdict yuo want - or did you mean to ask some other question???

How about adding chemicals to clean water and make it fit for drinking??

I have no problem with the argument that fluoride in water is mass medication without consent and therefore unethical - IMO that is a reasonable argument but it is an ethical one not a scientific one. Ihavea problem with people misrepresenting science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 3-0 is not relevant to "credibility" at all - and the point of taking peer reviewed studies, or any other evidence to court, is to support a case to get a verdict yuo want - or did you mean to ask some other question???

How about adding chemicals to clean water and make it fit for drinking??

I have no problem with the argument that fluoride in water is mass medication without consent and therefore unethical - IMO that is a reasonable argument but it is an ethical one not a scientific one. Ihavea problem with people misrepresenting science.
Ok,

1) Contaminants in the fluoride product are being added along with the fluoride because the sources of fluoride are dirty and the market lacks proper regulation.
2) If they are going to force us to drink the stuff, how about using calcium fluoride instead of sodium fluoride?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
If they are going to force us to drink the stuff, how about using calcium fluoride instead of sodium fluoride?
Solubility of calcium fluoride (fluorite) in water is extremely low (15 mg/L at 18 °C) that corresponds to fluoride concentration of about 7mg/L. It is only about ten times more than the recommended range of concentrations in drinking water (0.5-1.0 mg/L). It would be technically difficult to reach the recommended values by adding fluorite to water on industrial scale. And there probably would be additional costs to the industry and environment.
 
Top