Fluoridation may reduce cavities in children (2 primary teeth or 1 permanent tooth). But Cochrane cautions these studies have “high risk of bias” and were mostly done before preventive measures were widespread, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste and sealants.Diverting attention away from Cochrane, the Centers for Disease Control, which indirectly funded the Cochrane Review, and the American Dental Association defended fluoridation recommending instead the 2013 U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force’s Fluoridation Recommendation.But the Task Force also admitted it couldn’t evaluate how race, ethnicity and total fluoride intake influenced fluoridation effectiveness because of limited data. “Few studies provided data on socioeconomic status, and most studies had measurement issues; many didn’t blind examiners and there was a lack of consistency among indices used to measure caries."Unlike the ADA and CDC Foundation, the Cochrane Group is “unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.” Cochrane answered its critics here.Tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities and states. See http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com
Many researchers looked, but couldn't find, any valid fluoridation supporting science.In the 1940s and 1950s, dentists in their eagerness to have a magic bullet that would enhance their professional prestige, promoted fluoridation heavily and dismissed legitimate debate over the merits of fluoridation within the scientific, medical and dental communities, according to an American Journal of Public Health article by Catherine Carstairs, PhD (June 2015).Carstairs writes, “Moreover, some of the early fluoridation studies had methodological problems, which may have exaggerated their benefits.”Carstairs concludes “After 70 years of investigation, there are still questions about how effective water fluoridation is at preventing dental decay and whether the possible risks are worth the benefits,” she writes.Also surprised by the lack of valid fluoridation science, John Doull, PhD, Chairman, US National Research Council fluoride panel that produced the groundbreaking 2006 fluoride toxicology report was quoted by Scientific American as saying:“What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”Maybe Doull was surprised because voices of opposition have been suppressed since the early days of fluoridation, according to Chemical and Engineering News (1988). Journals rarely published articles critical of fluoride or fluoridation.Most of the pro-fluoridationists who will speak and write to you will invariably use talking points provided by PR people and who also may have attended fluoridation spokesperson training. They will use appeal to authority, political might, a list of organizations lobbied to endorse fluoridation and avoidance of risk discussion. Those opposed to fluoridation will always provide scientific and government’s evidence showing that fluoridation is ineffective, harmful and a huge waste of money.The bottom line is that fluoride is nether a nutrinet nor essential for healthy teeth. No human is or every was fluoride deficient. Like all drugs, fluoride has adverse effects. Legislators should never be bullied to prescribe drugs to their entire constituency and dosed based on thirst and not age, health, weight and needThe crisis most Americans face is not lack of fluoride but lack of dentists. Most dentists refuse to treat Medicaid patients and Medicare doesn't include dental care. Dentistry has priced low-income Floridians out of the care they need. So they seek care in hospital ER's costing taxpayers ten times the amount of a simple filling.