10 votes

Dental Students Against Public Water Fluoridation

Hi DPer's,

Two of us dental students at OSU are trying to get the message out about public water fluoridation to fellow dental students, staff, and the public. Here is the essay we just wrote in response to intense pro-water fluoridation propaganda we have experienced since starting dental school.

Enjoy!

The Ethical and Scientific Case Against Public Water Fluoridation

Mark Lundgren
Daniel Smith

Public health policies, which affect entire populations, should be taken seriously. Poor decisions made by public health officials may have detrimental consequences that are widespread and long lasting. As such, public health campaigns should be the most heavily evaluated and criticized of all medical practices. History has shown that some of the most well intentioned public health agendas have backfired and harmed the very people they were designed to help.

In the 1940’s, the United States Department of Agriculture commenced a program to eradicate malaria by reducing vector insect populations through the extensive use of DDT. Research touted by authorities at the time showed that DDT was nontoxic to humans and safe for widespread public use. DDT was extremely effective at killing insects and public health officials sprayed DDT everywhere. They sprayed every surface on which an insect could land, including forests, buildings, playgrounds, and even people themselves. The efforts were considered to be very successful as insect populations were greatly reduced and the threat of malaria drastically declined. The campaign was heralded by the Public Health Department and declared by authorities to be a great achievement in public health.

Years after the DDT frenzy however, it was realized by scientists (and later the public) that DDT is both harmful to humans and devastating to the ecosystem at large. Evidence of the potential harmful effects of DDT emerged early in the history of the chemical, yet authorities disturbingly continued their public campaign regardless of the potential risks. Public outcry eventually led to the end of the practice, but instead of simply ceasing their reckless use of DDT, the Federal Government banned public and private use of DDT altogether. Public health regulators seemed to have followed the totalitarian principle that “if it is not mandatory, then it is forbidden.”

In the late 1940’s, in parallel with the DDT/malaria affair, public health authorities launched a massive campaign of water fluoridation to fight widespread dental caries. Prior to the campaign, it had been known for decades that concentrated fluoride was toxic to both humans and the environment. It had only been recently discovered to potentially have short term health benefits when diluted. The long term risks of chronic exposure to diluted fluoride were unknown. Just like with DDT spraying, authorities felt that the potential risks justified the potential to help the “greater good.” Following the typical pattern, authorities instituted a propaganda crusade to convince the public of the benefits of water fluoridation and the supposed safety of chronic exposure in relatively low doses.

The DDT campaign was exposed as fallacious, unnecessary, and detrimental to public health and the campaign ended in 1970’s. Despite similar continuous, resounding opposition to the ethics and the science behind water fluoridation, the campaign has persisted for over fifty years. The goal of this article is to educate others on some of the ethical, scientific, and pragmatic reasons why public water fluoridation should be ended. The authors are not against responsible fluoride therapy and they do not want fluoride to go the way of DDT and be banned by the government.

The Ethical Case Against Public Water Fluoridation:

The strongest argument against community water fluoridation (CWF) stems directly from the Nuremberg Code. Most people are aware of the atrocious human experimentation and war crimes that were committed by Nazi medical researchers during WWII; yet there is alarming ignorance by the American public to the human rights violations that have occurred in the name of medical experimentation in the United States. There are some obvious and savage examples of human rights violating experiments such as the Statesville Penitentiary malaria study and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, but there are also more subtle rights-violating experiments that are often marketed as beneficial for public health such as DDT spraying and water fluoridation.

Fortunately the Federal Government and many individual state governments have adopted the Nuremberg Code of research ethics as law. Unfortunately the Federal Government and individual states often refuse to abide by that ethic. The authors of this article consider human rights to be of paramount importance in medical ethics and therefore strongly support the principles of the Nuremberg Code.

Amazingly, despite the universal acceptance of individual liberty and human rights, the prevailing attitude about fluoridation among medical authorities in America for the last fifty years has been that of direct opposition to the Nuremberg Code, universal medical ethics, and logic. Portions of the Nuremberg Code are evaluated in the paragraphs below.

http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html

1. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.”

Putting fluoride in the public water supply with the intention of medicating every single individual in a population is the exact opposite of informed consent. Even in the impossible situation in which uniform treatment works perfectly for everyone, this massive over-reach of medical authority is still a direct violation of human rights. In reality, of course, the consequences of water fluoridation are far from ideal. There is always a certain percentage of the population who react unfavorably to standard treatment. Every medication has side effects. Fluoride is certainly no exception. Over the last ten years, medical experts who are pro-water fluoridation have acknowledged that the fluoride standards recommended by the CDC and FDA were causing widespread fluorosis. Instead of sensibly discontinuing non-consensual administration of fluoride through the water supply, authorities have merely lowered the concentration. To the CDC and FDA, human rights seem to be not a concern.

In blatant disregard for the Nuremberg code, public health investigators have been treating entire populations as test subjects for over fifty years. Many people are not aware that they are subjects of ongoing government epidemiological experiments or that they are being medicated through the public water supply. Not only have they not given their consent, many people are unaware of the potential hazards to their health. Medical authorities are to blame for this lack of public awareness. There is, and has been for some time, a very effective and active propaganda campaign being conducted in order to keep the public indifferent and even ignorant to the public health decisions being made on their behalf. Instead of encouraging the public to take control of their own health and to make educated decisions about personal behaviors, medical authorities have taken it upon themselves to control the health of every individual.

2. "The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment."

Today, our understanding of the long term systemic consequences of chronic fluoride exposure in humans is questionable at best. Over fifty years ago, when governments first forced water fluoridation on the people, knowledge of the long term health effects was practically nonexistent. Minimal experiments on animals were conducted prior to implementing water fluoridation on the public. To keep things in perspective, the FDA imposes strict requirements on pharmaceutical companies to abide by animal and clinical trials before the drug is introduced to the market. Often times it takes decades for reasonably safe and effective drugs to make it to the market. Yet the government began to recklessly entire populations in the United States as test subjects of fluoride treatment only a few years after fluoride was discovered to play a role in caries retardation.

3. "The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature."

If we give water fluoridation advocates the benefit of the doubt and assume that the water supply is the best way of administering fluoride (despite overwhelming evidence that shows varnishes, toothpastes and rinses to be very effective modals), there is no reason to carry out uncontrolled experiments on the public when controlled experiments could easily be conducted on willing participants. The prevention and treatment of dental caries is a noble pursuit, but public water fluoridation is an unacceptable means to an end.

The Scientific Case Against Public Water Fluoridation:

A glaring medical problem that is routinely ignored by CWF-promoting scientific literature is that there is no fluorine found naturally in the human body. Many elements play a role in normal functioning biochemistry, even trace elements such as manganese, nickel, and molybdenum. Fluorine is just as abundant, if not more, than these trace elements, yet the human body evolved so that this element plays no role whatsoever biochemically. Even more strangely, all of the elements (except for the noble gases) surrounding fluorine in the periodic table, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, sulfur, chlorine, sodium, magnesium, and selenium are part of normal composition of the human body. Fluorine is not. Except for its role in hardening dental enamel, fluorine has no other known positive biological functions. Despite its absolutely unnecessary role in health, many CWF advocates are unrelenting in their quest to make sure every single person is chronically exposed to fluoride. This is, to say the least, a reckless practice of medicine.

Humans do not have an efficient mechanism for expelling fluorides from the body. Most fluorides are eventually excreted via the urinary system, but the rate is very slow, allowing for bioaccumulation. Fluoride is extremely reactive with other molecules in the body, most notably with concentrated hydrochloric acid in the stomach and calcium cations in bone. Fluoride interferes with various enzymes and multiple biological functions. The ion can react with just about any other molecule, making it potentially hazardous to the processes necessary for life. This is a likely reason why it doesn’t play a natural role in human biochemistry.

The most documented systemic disease caused by chronic fluoride exposure is skeletal fluorosis, a disease that affects tens of millions of people worldwide. There is also evidence suggesting that chronic fluoride toxicity affects renal function, liver function, DNA repair, and the pineal gland. Research on these topics, however, is shockingly scant. It seems logical that as long as over fifty percent of Americans are receiving fluoridated tap water, making fluoride one of the country’s most ingested medications, there should be intense research efforts devoted to learning everything possible about the long term systemic effects of chronic fluoride exposure.

Pro-water fluoridation propaganda teaches the public that fluoride is only dangerous at levels above the recommended dosage levels, but the recommended dosage seems to change rather frequently. Few significant studies have concentrated on the negative side effects of chronic fluoride exposure, as most studies have focused on the benefit of fluoride in caries retardation and the effects on human teeth. If low doses of fluoridated water are well documented to alter the function of tooth enamel, it is possible that low doses of fluoride can also affect the function of other tissues. Researchers cannot find what they are not looking for.

Research bias is a major problem in the scientific community regarding studies on the long term effects of chronic fluoride ingestion. All of the major medical governing bodies are heavily biased towards research that seeks to justify community water fluoridation. A simple JADA search of “water fluoridation” reveals that vast majority of literature openly promotes the practice. Opponents of CWF are rarely (if ever) given government grants for research and their dissent is often ridiculed or silenced by the governing medical authorities. It is far easier and politically safer to conduct a study that confirms already accepted medical beliefs and one’s own bias, than to conduct a genuine, non-biased, fair assessment of health risks. This is especially true when large amounts of grant money are at stake. Conformity is frustratingly common in the scientific community.

The Pragmatic Case Against Public Water Fluoridation:

If the ethical and scientific cases against fluoride aren’t convincing enough, there is also a strong pragmatic argument against community water fluoridation as well. If fluoride is indeed an important medication that should be available to as many people as possible, it does not make any sense to put it in the water supply. The United States Geological Survey estimates that the average American uses one hundred gallons of water every day. If a person drinks the recommended average of ten cups of water per day out of the 100 gallons of water he uses, only 0.5% of this water is orally consumed. This means that 99.5% of the fluoride put into the water supply is wasted into the environment. If fluoride is so important to human health, it is beyond foolish to flush 99.5% of it down the toilet.

Given that there are alternative means of fluoride administration that preserve both ethics and scientific integrity, fluoride administration through the public water supply should be phased out.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

EPA - Save the Whales?

I wonder what it would take to get the EPA to ban it in order to protect wildlife from our run-off?

Quick, somebody study the effect on wildlife downstream!

I don't believe in initiating force, but this would be in defense.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

It probably wouldn't take much, but please don't joke about it.

It is extremely plausible that if water fluoridation ends in the US, it will end in the outright prohibition of the chemical.

If there is one thing that stereotypical progressive statists care about more than interfering in the lives of humans, it is making arbitrary prohibition laws in the name of "protecting wildlife."

This outcome would NOT desirable as the prohibition may cause as many (if not more) problems than the current system of mass medication. (There are strong arguments to be made that the prohibition of DDT indirectly led to the unnecessary deaths of millions to malaria).

Hamilton County, Ohio fluoridates our public water.

Your essay is amazing and well researched. I hope that you are submitting this to all the public health departments and water works programs in Ohio and elsewhere. Your arguments make so much sense on every level. Only a fool would ignore them!

Ron Paul's own words on fluoridation

Spread the news, Ron Paul's actual position on fluoridation: http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Congressman-Ron-Paul-on-F...

Awesome.

Dr. Paul would have a great response to mass water fluoridation.

I love it that I don't need to know his exact stance on an issue to know that he approaches the problem correctly.

Thank you...I mean REALLY, THANK YOU!!

Mark Lundgren & Dr. Osmunson,

As professionals in the dental field, I can't thank you enough for exposing the fluoridation scam.

You both make many extraordinary and valid points. You'd think any one of your strong arguments would be enough to stop fluoridation. I have one more reason, but this time from a mom's perspective.

I have an adult son with autism who is severely reactive to fluoride in any amount from any source. When he is exposed to fluoridated water---even from just a shower---he gets a horrific headache, sometimes becoming a migraine. This pain comes on within a few minutes of exposure. This pain from fluoride causes his symptoms of autism to explode and suddenly I have a 220 pound screaming, running, sweating Tarzan on the loose. But when the pain turns into a migraine, he can't move. Under either condition, he cannot function. Fluoride in water (or in food) increases his disability 20-fold. When he is not on this poison, he is able to work at an office at our local community college.

So, really, I can't thank all of you enough for speaking out against fluoridation. There are many more like my son and most likely a good many of them don't even know that the source of their problem is literally "in the water".

Mark, I'm wondering if I might use your position paper (giving you credit of course) to help argue against fluoridation in my state? It is so beautifully stated and could be very helpful.

Audrey

You absolutely have permission to use the essay freely.

I am curious, though, how did you link fluoride to your son's reactions? Have any doctors verified this?

And how do you avoid exposure to fluoride in the water and foods?

Dr. Rapp & Fluoride Allergies & Intolerances

You might be interested in Dr. Doris Rapp, a pediatric allergist, who diagnoses fluoride toxicity and reverse many conditions caused by fluoride (and many other triggers) Just as some are allergic to or intolerant of milk, peanuts, wheat, gluten so can fluoride affect different people in different ways. But, as you are finding out, dental students (and medical students) are never taught this information.

Dr. Rapp Video about fluoride and depression:

http://depressioninfos.com/blog/616/can-fluoride-cause-sever...

More from Dr. Rapp on Fluoride
http://www.drrapp.com/2011/11/01/the-damage-of-fluoride/

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
http://www.Fluoridation.webs.com
http://tinyurl.com/NewsReleases2

Thank you and good luck

changing minds is harder than cracking a nut with your molars. lol

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Fluoridation of Public Water

Bravo.

Freedom of choice is central to the Fluoridation controversy.

For 25 years as a dentist I promoted fluoridation. Looking at both sides of the science was like a knee in the gut.

Fluoride is highly toxic and defined as a poison by all states and Federal Government; however, it is exempt from poison lows when regulated as a drug.

The Washington State Board of Pharmacy confirmed fluoride for ingestion is a prescription drug. The FDA CDER has never approved the ingestion of fluoride and rejected applications based on lack of scientific evidence of effectiveness. The FDA CDER says fluoride is an unapproved drug and unapproved drugs are illegal. Fluoridation is an illegal drug.

The FDA CDER and EPA scientists are correct, fluoridation has little if any effect on the reduction of dental caries. Claims that fluoridation are effective in reducing expenses are based on assumptions and estimates, not measured evidence. Most developed countries do not fluoridate public and most European dental associations do not recommend fluoride supplements. Simply doesn't work.

The risks are serious, especially the 25 human studies finding reduction in IQ and increased in rates of mental retardation. Very serious.

Fluoridation is one of public health's greatest blunders.

I have two son-in-laws who are dentists. When they looked at the research finding lack of benefit and harm, they talked about getting a refund from dental school.

You are brave. You are correct.

Give people the freedom to chose.

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

Thank you...I mean REALLY, THANK YOU!!

Mark & Dr. Osmunson,

As professionals in the dental field, I can't thank you enough for exposing the fluoridation scam.

You both make many extraordinary and valid points. You'd think any one of your strong arguments would be enough to stop fluoridation. I have one more reason, but this time from a mom's perspective.

I have an adult son with autism who is severely reactive to fluoride in any amount from any source. When he is exposed to fluoridated water---even from just a shower---he gets a horrific headache, sometimes becoming a migraine. This pain comes on within a few minutes of exposure. This pain from fluoride causes his symptoms of autism to explode and suddenly I have a 220 pound screaming, running, sweating Tarzan on the loose. But when the pain turns into a migraine, he can't move. Under either condition, he cannot function. Fluoride in water (or in food) increases his disability 20-fold. When he is not on this poison, he is able to work at an office at our local community college.

So, really, I can't thank all of you enough for speaking out against fluoridation. There are many more like my son and most likely a good many of them don't even know that the source of their problem is literally "in the water".

Audrey

Free Flyers for OSU !

Mark and Daniel -- I applaud your bravery inside the system. I am very active in the Ohio/US movement and I do want you to look at my Fluoride-free flyers that you may want to distribute throughout OSU as others are everywhere. I will then put you on my Ohio list of advocates. This alone will create an uproar. Note that the flyer has been Upgraded also

See here http://bit.ly/F-ions

Thanks to NYSCOF for informing my via separate email

I'll get back to you on this.

.

Awesome

It about time we get this industrial waste out of the water supply and every beverage and food that is made with so called "filtered" tap water. This is real hope. Keep spreading the truth.

Bravo!!

Bravo, not only for what you said but for the courage to say it. You might call this "Occupy Dental Schools until Fluoridation Stops" (But only with words; tents get too funky) As we are seeing with most of the "occupy" movements, the younger generation is stepping in to try and remedy the mess the boomer generation has done to them.

Look around you. How much of your education is funded by multi-national, multi-billion-dollar corporations that benefit from tooth decay as well as from fluoride sales. They don't like fluoride getting a negative image even though they aren't selling the fluoridation chemicals. They fund your dental school, research, symposiums, dental journals, conventions, create your curriculum and even throw birthday parties for fluoridation.

So like everything else, follow the money. Your professors and organized dentistry are afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. In return Organized Dentistry is rich and powerful and can have its way with our legislators. Positive fluoride research begets more research money which helps keep Universities afloat.

Science has never supported fluoridation. It's all smoke and mirrors. The first fluoridation experiment conducted on the whole city of Newburgh, NY was the first indication that all was not OK with fluoridation. While the experiment was declared a success after about 5 years, after 10 years the State University of New York found more anemia, bone defects and early puberty in fluoridated Newburgh school children compared to never-fluoridated Kingston, NY's school children.

Pre-schoolers, adults and anyone sick at the time of examinations were excluded from the study's results

Unfortunately, convincing dental professionals is a hard sell. They are the least interested in admitting they made a mistake and may be legally liable for teaching you false information.

However, many brave professionals including 328 dentists have signed the Fluoride Action Network's statement opposing fluoridation. Dental Students are welcome to sign also. http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals-statement.aspx

Stopping fluoridation is the morally and ethically correct thing to do. If everyone did their jobs with that in mind, this country would be truly great.

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
http://www.Fluoridation.webs.com
http://tinyurl.com/NewsReleases2

What scares me is student lack of awareness.

As far as water fluoridation, dental students really have no strong opinion. They kind of just repeat what they are told, do the assignments, and never analyze the situation.

This is rather terrifying to me. How many doctors/dentists behave like this?

Medicine is full of controversy! Yet complacency is rampant. This is mind-boggling to me.

I've actually had two of my colleagues ask me: "why do you care so much?"

My reply: "Because freedom is worth fighting for."

It's up to those of us who care to fix the world. Welcom Aboard

We've heard this before. Or "there's so much other bad stuff happening, why focus on fluoride." It's because it's what we know. And unlike most other toxins in our environment, fluoride is added on purpose, is not essential for healthy teeth and we pay for it whether we want it or not and it could be making us or our families sick.

Fluoridation only provides political viability to organized dentistry and they have the arrogance to print that in a dental journal.

It does worry me also about what other politically motivated health "benefit" really is no benefit at all.

If everyone took up one injustice to remedy instead of criticizing those that do, this country would be a much better place for everyone.

Too many people get involved in an issue only after a tragedy befalls them personally e.g. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Breast Cancer Coalitions, etc.

Consider this preventative activism (on a Karmic level)

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
http://www.Fluoridation.webs.com
http://tinyurl.com/NewsReleases2

good for you--

.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Nice job.

Did you do this for a class? Just wondering what kind of exposure / reception this essay got.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

It was written for an Epidemiology class

My "arguing" in class with a public health professor (government propagandist) in front of a class of 100+ people started a lot of buzz. I had a lot of different dental students come up to me in the weeks that followed asking me about it. Opinions were mixed. Several people thanked me for speaking out. The obvious propaganda was bothering them, too. Some people in the class literally looked at me in horror because I was questioning the professor on this. One girl even scolded me later. Other people were intrigued without a firm opinion either way.

I had maybe a dozen requests to read the essay when it was finished. I posted it today for everyone in the class. I have to wait and see if anyone will read it.

I'm going to send it to a few of my professors as well.

I don't know if I will change any minds, but I certainly planted a lot of seeds. At least 110 dental students were exposed to this viewpoint.

Great Initiative!

It is very encouraging to see students challenge the old guard, especially regarding something as sinister as fluoride!

It is given to dumb-down the folks while making them less healthy. Please keep us informed as to how the professors and faculty respond.

END the FED before it ENDS US

Thanks !!!

.

We need all the help we can get !!! Here's other info you may appreciate from mainstream news:

Casey alarm at toddlers’ teeth

http://leader-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/alarm-at-tod...

Child Dental Health Surveys have identified a worrying rise in decayed, missing or filled teeth in the area’s four-year-olds since 1998.

Now Casey-Cardinia dentists are urging parents to take toddlers’ dental health more seriously, warning decay in baby teeth can lead to problems later on.

Fountain Gate Dental Care surgeon Desmond Yiu said he had recently filled cavities in children as young as three.

“I’m finding a lot more tooth decay in children than I would expect, particularly given how readily available fluoride is in water and toothpaste,” Dr Yiu said.

Dr Yiu said poor diet was the cause of the concerning trend.

“There has been a cultural change towards high sugar drinks that are very damaging to teeth,” he said.

-----------------------------------------

.
.

www.vaclib.org

Those high sugar diets are bad news.

I am a big believer in the minimal carbohydrate diet.

Not ironically, the foods that are bad for your body are also bad for your teeth.

That might have to be the topic of a future essay.