Posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2003, at 19:08:03
In reply to Re: Fluoride ....matt and jan » Larry Hoover, posted by mattdds on September 28, 2003, at 14:44:27
> Hey Lar,
>
> >>You've been MIA for a while. Howzit goin'?
>
> Been practicing for the clinical part of the Northeast Regional Boards (NERB) for licensure. Blah! I took them last Saturday (crossing fingers).Rather superstitious, but I'll cross my eyes for you, anyway.
> More fluoro-babble, ;).
>
> >>Case studies and anecdote, but lots of the latter. If you went into the "thyroid community", you would see many such reports.
>
> You conceded that there was no epidemiology to support increased endocrine problems with fluoridation.Not epidemiology, no. There hasn't been any such study, despite the increase in hypothyroid in America. Levothyroxine (T4) is the fourth most common prescription drug, the incidence is rising, and exposure to fluoride is, as well. I can't say there's a link, without evidence. But no one has looked.
> And Larry, you're a scientist! As such, you should be aware that anecdotal evidence and self-reports from the "thyroid community" are not enough!
I'm sure that you'll find the evidence in the links I provide, later. I did a better job, this time.
> I'm not saying we should ignore anecdotes, and it *should* be investigated. You say the decision not to study it on an epidemiologic scale may have been political.
I would say it is political, but then again, I'm biased against any suppression of evidence. See the EPA link, below, and the suppression of the evidence for carcinogenesis of fluoride.
> This may well be the case, but, nevertheless, the evidence is still not there.
It's commonly accepted that fluoride reduces thyroid function, and people with reduced thyroid function do better when they avoid fluoride. Evidence below.
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense, true. But there is no absence of evidence of evidence for the anticariogenic effect of fluoride.
Even that is being reconsidered, according to recent reports.
> For all we know, there may be many harmful substances that we regularly ingest, but are unaware of.
I have no doubt about that.
> But until we get evidence that they are doing real harm, we make decisions to use them based on the benefits.
See references, below.
> I really feel that after nearly 60 years of fluoridation, if there were any significant toxic reactions, we would probably know about them by now.
....unless the evidence was suppressed.
> >>First of all, you are right about one thing. the evidence is not *always* pro-fluoride
>
> Another thing about this. Early studies with fluoridation were unequivocal. Mind you, these were in the 30's and 40's, long before dentists were teaching you to brush and floss. These were the days of "G.V. Black dentistry". Drill, fill and bill. Dental hygienists were "dental nurses". So the declines in caries back then were certainly not from changes in oral hygiene, as you seemed to imply that they are now. In these early studies there was a large, obvious anticariogenic effect in big populations, such as Grand Rapids Michigan. BTW, you mentioned methodological problems with this body of evidence. What are they?I haven't reviewed the methodology myself, but I've see it suggested that the comparison of the two communities in Michigan was manipulated. I'll see if I can find the specifics, again.
> More recent studies have had more variability. Is this because fluoride no longer works? Or never did? Possible, but not likely.There could be unmeasured variables. It's all epidemiology, not case-control.
> Anti-fluoridationist types have used this observation to argue that communities without fluoridated water have had similar declines fluoridated communities.
They seem to have shown a similar decline.
> There is a logical explanation for this. Nowadays, even in non-fluoridated communities, people are getting a heck of a lot more fluoride than they think! Beverages (colas, juices, beer, etc.) and foods are usually bottled and processed in fluoridated areas and shipped out. This has been called the "dilution effect".
I can't help being pedantic, once in a while. That's the diffusion effect, also known as the halo effect.
> So even the "non-fluoridated" communities that are experiencing declines in caries are in reality very much "fluoridated" in a sense.
Emphasis on the "very much", apparently.
> As for the Null article. I read it, but it would take days to point out the flaws in his arguments.OK, I was being lazy. My bad.
Consider:
http://www.fluorideaction.org/hirzy-interview.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/nrc-paper.pdf
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm
http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.htmlFrom the second link:
The following is a listing of adverse health effects that have been documented at water concentrations at, or below, the current EPA MCL of 4 ppm. (The list has been taken from Paul Connett's presentation to the NRC Committee.)0.3-0.7 ppm: 21.6% dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller, 1997)
0.7-1.2 ppm: 29.9% dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller, 1997)
0.9 ppm: further reduction of IQ for iodide deficient children. (LinFa-Fu 1991)
(~1.0 ppm): bone fractures in children associated with the severity of dental fluorosis (Alarcon-Herrera, 2001)
<1.0 ppm: accumulation in pineal gland (Luke, 2001)
1.0 ppm: earlier menstruation in girls (Schlesinger, 1956)
1.0 ppm: increased cortical bone defects (Schlesinger, 1956)
1.0 ppm: osteosarcoma in young males (SEER, 1991; Cohn, 1992 - mixed)
1.0 ppm: bone levels associated with arthritic symptoms (comparison of bone level data with bone levels that cause pre-clinical fluorosis)
1.0 ppm: reduced cortical bone density (Phipps, 2000)
1.0 ppm: increased hip fracture (mixed epidemiological findings)
1.0 ppm: increased uptake of aluminum into rat brain and beta amyloid deposits (Varner, 1998)
2.3-4.5 mg (equiv. to 1.0 ppm): reduced hyperthyroidism (Galletti & Joyet, 1958)
1.0 ppm: 48% dental fluorosis (McDonagh, 2000)
1.0 ppm: increased uptake of lead into children’s blood with silicofluorides in water fluoridation (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000)
1.2 ppm: longer reaction times, poorer visuospatial recognition in children (Calderon, 2000)
1.5 ppm: mineralization defects in human bone. (Alhava 1985)
1.6 ppm: increased rate of sister chromatid exchange in humans (Sheth, 1994;Joseph, 1995)
1.7 ppm: clinical skeletal fluorosis in people in US with kidney impairments (Juncos and Donadio, 1972)
1.8 ppm: lowering of IQ (regression line est) (Xiang, 2003)
2.3 ppm: impaired thyroid function (Bachinski, 1985)
3.0 ppm: reduced fertility (Freni, 1994)
3.0 ppm: human-equivalent water levels that produce skeletal fluorosis in rats with kidney impairment. (Turner 1996)
4.0 ppm: produces daily doses (11.6 mg/day from water alone) that exceed the doses estimated to cause clinical skeletal fluorosis (10-20 mg/day for 10-20 years) (EPA data online; NRC 1993).
4.0 ppm: produces bone concentrations (avg. 6,400 ppm) which exceed the bone concentrations (6,000+) that cause clinical skeletal fluorosis. (Gordon & Corbin 1992; Turner 1993)
4.0 ppm: produces bone concentrations (avg. 6,400 ppm) which exceed the bone concentrations (4,500 ppm) found to weaken animal bone (Turner 1993).
4.0 ppm: reduced bone density of cortical bone in humans (Phipps 1990; Sowers 1991).
4.0-4.3 ppm: increased bone fractures in humans (Li 2001; Sowers 1991)
BTW, even the 1 ppm water concentration concept is the result of a frank error. The original recommendation for fluoride supplementation was 1 mg fluoride added to one litre of water, i.e. a single dose of 1 mg per day.
> BTW, have you visited his website? I hope you are not under the impression that this guy is without some serious biases. I mean, this guy's site is sponsored by none other than The Vitamin Shoppe! The supplement industry, and those with whom they are in "cahoots" (e.g. Null) rely on vague psueudoscientific "syndromes", usually which include every symptom imaginable, to make mega-bucks off their products that purport to cure such diseases! I would not be in the least surprised if there exist supplements that claim to help alleviate "fluoride-induced thyroid toxicity syndrome".Nice try, but no. The recommended therapy is reverse-osmosis water filtration, or distillation.
> I got really tired of him repeating that NaF was used as rat poison. While this is true, he totally ignored the dose. Lithium is extremely toxic at high enough doses, but few would argue that it should not be used because it is toxic at high doses. And I realize fluoride is not at all "necessary" for survival. But neither is Klonopin. But I can't imagine living without that beloved drug.I don't know that there has ever been an identified process, essential for health, that requires fluoride.
> Also, I don't really care that fluoride was discovered by serendipity and perhaps with some influence from Alcoa and the aluminum industry. Who cares? The fact is that it works to prevent tooth decay. His biased history merely serves to detract from this very simple fact. Classic "red herring" arguments abound in his paper.Fine. Let's bury Null. Check the other URLs I gave.
> I hate to use ad hominem arguments, but this is a guy with a long history of making extremely wild claims. His "Ph.D" is from a "nontraditional", unaccredited school without a campus. He also marketed a number of supplements through MLM, all of which were ordinary vitamins and minerals with spectacular sounding names. I remember him promoting bee pollen, when that was the supplement du jour.
>
> Not that those have anything to do with his arguments. But his arguments are poor to begin with, IMVHO.OK. My bad.
> >>Scientific arrogance? Mere ignorance?
>
> Why are North American researchers so much more ignorant and arrogant than Russian and Chinese ones? I'm confused here.North American scientists routinely dismiss the work of Eastern European and Eastern scientists, particularly if it was done during the Cold War era. At least, they remain ignorant of the findings. At worst, they dismiss the data without due consideration. So, ignorant, or arrogant, depending on the rationale.
> Sure, science in North America isn't perfect, but what makes you think that Russia and China are so much more knowledgable and humble?
I didn't intend a comparison on humility or ego grounds, but simply that there is a whole body of evidence that is not taken into account. In my more recent foray into the 'net, I also found that there is a huge body of evidence of fluoride adversely affecting thyroid function, but it is in German. So, even German sources are ignored.
> >>but the existence of a benefit does not affect any assessment of detriment
>
> But why start out with the assumption of a detriment? Again, we agreed that there have been no epidemiologic studies to show any increase of any disease at 1 ppm.That apparent oversight has been corrected, above. Osteosarcoma and bone density/defects, at 1 ppm.
> >>I did a major paper for the WWF on TEGDMA and bis-GMA resins, and the like. It has a dental section. If I can find it, I'd be happy to email it to you. In situ polymerization is not benign, but it can be optimized.
>
> I'd be very interested. mkphi@msn.com.Can that take huge emails? It's a big document (if I can find an computer-friendly copy).
> >How about fluoride only for the carious?
>
> Caries prevalence is extremely high! Also, define carious? What is an acceptable DMFS or DMFT at which we decide to intervene. Plus, by the time we find out who is "carious", whatever that means, it's already too late!I was coining a word. What descriptor do you use to identify "somebody with caries"?
> >>I'm not looking to demonize dentistry. I'm pro informed consent.
>
> Huh? Though fluoridation is beneficial to the dental health of people of all ages, children are the main target. Children of the age when systemic fluoride is most useful are not capable of making those decisions for themselves. And, as adults, when we have strong evidence that we can intervene preventatively, it becomes an issue of neglect if we do not.All dependent on the risk-benefit analysis, which has up until now, scrupulously avoided assessing the true risk, IMHO.
> >>There are other measures with substantial benefit. I'm not sure that fluoride should be a cornerstone intervention.
>
> Of course there are, but this assumes strict adherence, which in the real world can be a problem. Toothbrushing, even without fluoride is beneficial, although not quite to the extent that it is with fluoridated toothpaste. Flossing prevents interproximal smooth-surface decay quite well, but how many people floss regularly? Pit and fissure sealants are remarkably effective, but it appears you have your beef with TEGDMA and bis-GMA as well.They are profound endocrine disrupters. Once polymerized, they may be safe, but there is evidence of slow depolymerization, as well.
I know, rock and a hard place. I'm not trying to suggest alternatives, as I am less knowledgeable than you, without doubt.
> >Consider the trivialization of sexual dysfunction as a side-effect of SSRI meds. Surely, the success of Viagra points out the non-trivial nature of sexual potency.
>
> This is a poor analogy, in my VHO.It shows that risk-benefit analysis varies in form from the perspective of the overseer and the subject. (Actually, I'm thinking perpetrator/victim.)
> Fluoride has no noticible side effects, assuming you are not at ridiculously high "rat poison" doses, which are not advocated in the first place. You won't see anybody getting anorgasmia, akathisia, or tardive dyskinesia from drinking tap water.
Unless it contains all those pharmaceutical drugs that have recently been found to resist degradation in sewage treatment facilities.....
> I really am not even convinced of the thyroid toxicity, especially at at or around 1 ppm. But perhaps that's just my North American ignorance or arrogance ;).North American DDS arrogance, perhaps?
> Of course there will always be those who will believe that it *was* the tap water that is the source of their problems. And of course, there is no way to directly disprove that.
Only epedemiology. That's all we'll ever have, pro or con.
> Please answer these questions. In your opinion.I'll come back to these. My dinner is ready. My computer is quirky, so if I don't post this now, it may be gone when I come back.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:263511
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030928/msgs/264093.html