Dr Vinograd's Best ToothPaste
(619) 630-7174 for appointments
Brighton Dental San Diego on Google Plus

The Truth About Fluoride P4



Ian: Just walk me through the fluoridation process. Thru trucks arrive and what is the fluoride delivery system like? What do they do? How do they get it and how do they monitor the levels of fluoride that are going into the water supply. I can understand checking the PH  balance  of a pool in the backyard but that  water is not going anywhere  and you can walk around the pool and check it in  3 or 4 j places and get a real  idea of how much  choline for  example to add h to a backyard pool  but how did they do that with fluoride in a fluid system where you are f going to be running water down through  pipes?



Paul: Most of the communities which are fluoridated are now using a liquid, they use hex fluorolistic acid or silicone acid to the water and they drip it



Ian: they drip it into a pipe as the water is leaving the plant?



Paul: Yes but when you talk about how you control the dose top people that’s when you get into one of the absurdities of this practise.  The argument that you are getting to is how do you control the concentration in the   water but that’s not the issue. the issues  is how do  you control the dose going to people and the answer is you can’t control the  dose because you can’t control how much water people drink and some   people drink a huge amount of water , people who work outside in the  hot climate, people who have diabetes. There’s a huge range of dose that people are getting and ask any pharmacist if these any drug that you can give   to people and say take as much as you like. is there any drug that you give to everybody  whether they are very  young with a baby , with  an infant , whether a child ,  whether they are  elderly , sick or they have poor   nutrition or good nutrition . It’s absurd, it’s a very bad medical practise as you earlier indicated. You are depriving individuals of informed consent.  its pernicious to families of  low income because  they can’t afford  avoidance measures  but they’re really  crippling arguments  against fluoridation is that you can’t control the  dose , you can’t control who  gets it . It’s a lousy medical practise and there is no way around that.



Ian: I’m going to read something to you and I’m going to encourage you not to go   ballistic but i want to encourage you for a second. Knowing what i know about your work i anticipate your response.  I’m reading this from the CDC’s website on fluoridation. Here’s what it says /” two published studies conducted by CDC reaffirmed the benefits of community water fluoridation. Together the studies continue to show that wide spread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and   saves money both for the families and the health care system. in fact the economic analysis found  that for larger communities  have more than  20 000 people where it  cost about 50 cents per person to fluoridate the water  ,  every dollar  invested in this preventative measure yields approximately  $38 in savings  in dental treatment cost . ”



Paul: i know the study that they are refereeing to that was done, the lead author was Susan Griffin who is an economist, worked for h the CDC.  the trouble with that study is it completely ignored the cost of  treating dental fluorosis  which can cost up to a $1000 per  tooth and we have at least 4% of 12-15 year olds with moderate or  severe dental fluorosis  so you can imagine the  huge cost of treating that condition and ignored of course any other health  ailment which  might be related to fluoride exposure and  also they exaggerated the benefits  in there  calculation ,they assume  a greater benefit than they are  actually retrieving .Of course  it also  ignores the reality that they  are using a hazardous grade material instead of a pharmaceutical grade. if they  were forced to use  pharmaceutical grade then you would go to a more  rational delivery system which would be a an optional use of fluoridated bottle water  where you make fluoridated bottle water  available  as pharmacist say and you can  choose whether you use it or not .   If you use that approach you can use pharmaceutical grade instead of this industrial grade hazardous waste material.



Ian: I’m going to read you another paragraph here.  it says ” fluoridation reports  indicate  12 year old children living  in states where more h than  half the  community have  fluoridated water have 36% fewer  decided tooth surfaces per  year than 12  year old children living in states where less  that 1/4 of the community have fluoridated”




Paul: first of all look at the way they used percentages there. This is based upon   this study of the august <inaudible> this is the study that look at 39 000 <inaudible>, 84 communities and the average difference in tooth decay was .6 of   one tooth surface. that’s what you find out if you actually go to the table  and look at the number  but they didn’t report .6  of a tooth  surface , they  describe  it  as 18%  savings in tooth decay and they also did some  hand  waving  if you  subtract the benefit from   fluoridated  toothpaste, it may be as  high as 24 %or 25 % figure but notice  they do this all the time ,, they  convert a very small savings  . When you are comparing two small numbers into what sounds like an impressive percentage. for the average person  when they 18% less tooth decay  they imagine 5 or 6  tooth decaying and  reduce that by  18% but the difference  is .6 of  2/3 is  absolute savings is less than 1%.



Ian : it says here   a related j analysis found here in children  again  I’m reading from the CDC’s website  a related analysis   found that  children living in non-fluoridated community in states  that are  highly fluoridated   receive  partial benefits   of  fluoridation just  from eating foods and drinking   beverages processed  in fluoridate communities .  if you don’t have fluoride in your water  you are still  benefitting from the fact that the beverages  that you drink might have been r processed  with fluoridated water or  that you may get produce coming out of farms  that have  sprayed fluoridated water on the crops .



Paul: Yes. This is the so called halo effect. the y are arguing that the   treason that there is so little tooth decay  between fluoridated and  non-fluoridated communities is that the non-fluoridated  communities is getting fluoride  from other sources , beverages and  so on and that is true but they are also  getting the harm . When i said the 41% of children age 12-15   have dental fluorosis that was for all American children. even children today  from  non-fluoridate communities are getting  non fluoride  by this dedication  of fluoride  through the beverages  and the food chains and so on .  The halo effect does not apply when you are looking at Europe because you have such we countries   that are fluoridated in Europe so the less children in Sweden arte   drinking Guinness from Ireland which is one of the countries that is fluoridated. There is no halo effect there. In other words fluoride in beverages and food produced in a fluoridate community are not getting into the fluoridated community. You can’t use that as an argument as to why there is so little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated countries and non-fluoridated country in Europe. Again i think those things that you have read indicates very clearly that the CDC is acting like a propaganda operation. It’s promoting fluoridation, that’s their function, they promote fluoridation and they don’t have the toxicologist on staff to do it independent. it’s certainly not an independent assessment  of the damaging’s instead you get this propaganda material and it’s  not  what  would have expected  15 years ago before getting  involved that health agencies  should be s doing . You would think the bureaucrats, the civil servants working for health agencies would be giving objective information to the public and the decision maker and that the spinning should not begin with them. if there is any spinning  involved it should  come from pollutions later on  but it shouldn’t come from the civil servants and this is eroding the public’s  trust  in this country in their  health agencies , not only  this kind of shenanigans   when bureaucracies are protecting a practise   rather than  protecting the health but also the big money from economic interest , the  pharmaceutical industry for instance  influencing the national institute of  health and  other  health agencies. We are losing the public’s trust and one way to regain it is to admit that they are wrong on fluoridation and stop this stupid practise.



Ian: i don’t think i have ever lived in a community that hadn’t  fluoridated the water , i could be wrong  but  i  assumed it was .



Paul: if you tell me the names of the community you were living in, about 70% Americans now are drinking fluoridated water, over 180 million. Tell me the towns that you have lived in and i will tell you.




Ian: I live right now in South Paulo, Minnesota


Paul: fluoridated


Ian: Atlanta Georgia


Paul: Georgia has mandatory fluoridation


Ian: Nashville, Tennessee


Paul: fluoridated


Ian: Chicago, Illinois


Paul: fluoridated, Illinois has mandatory fluoridation


Ian :  I’ve made my point and then  i lived in a whole in new jersey on the  jersey  shore .



Paul:  New Jersey doesn’t have many communities fluoridated so when you are living in New Jersey you probably escaped fluoridation.



Ian : just to  make the point again , this is a  medicine   that they are touting at the CDC  that they are force feeding    a medicine and on that basis  alone it really makes you have to wonder  .  that’s odd that they are doing that and  there’s no  proof  other that what we ‘ve been getting into a little bit  here that the e ingestion of this medicine is the  way to go . It has a topical benefit but   we was just sharing some of that right there. Have you had any successes as the head of the fluoride action network?   have you  any  to talk communities   out of that were withier offering it  that were  no longer  putting it in their water  supply or  cities that were thinking about it that decided not  to do it.


Paul: it’s much easier to stoop today, to stop communities putting it in that to reverse the h status quo of stopping communities that are   actually doing it but we have had some significant victories. Did you know Alaska followed by Fair Banks Alaska have stopped, some communities in Texas have stopped. in Canada  major  cities lie  Calgary has  stopped, that’s  1.1   billion  , most of brattish  Columbia is non-fluoridated   ,  most of Quebec non  fluoridated ,  Quebec city  stopped . Only 3% of Quebec   is fluoridated a day communities in Ontario have stopped fluoridating very recently this year. Very recently this i year Waterloo in last October Waterloo voted it out by referendum. If we can get it to referendum we have a very good chance of stopping fluoridation.



Ian: Ok. As you are doing that , as you  are f  going across the country and you are making your case against fluoridation are there then people  that are on the other side  of it paid for n by the fluoride industry  that come along on your heels or on either same time and debate you on fluoride .



Paul: by and large they will not debate. The closest we had to a debate recently was in front of a community for Austin Texas, the counsel there a doctor and a dentist spoke in favour of fluoridation, another dentist and i spoke against it and that was not actually a debate so much. Each side presented their case and then answered question and that’s on video you can access that. I’m sure if you go to austintexasfluoride.com you will be able to see that. incidentally  talking about videos if you go to our webpage , flouridealert.org  if you scroll down you will find a video take  called   professional perspective   of water fluoridation and its 15 scientist on that , doctors, dentist , scientist like   myself explaining the arguments , 28 minutes i think people will be convinced. Aim not the only scientist opposed to fluoridation,


Ian: one argument we haven’t discussed for fluoride next on Coast to Coast. Now we’re talking about fluoride into the water and the case against it. There is one argument that we haven’t dispelled which we will next   on Coast to Coast   this is Ian Punnett. , talking with Dr Paul Connett with St Lawrence University and the case   against fluoride. You can link up to him through coasttocoastam.com.  we kind  of touched on it  but we  kind of gave it a glancing glow   and i think its  way  more interesting than that  since we talked about that fluoride is   a drug and not a nutrient but it’s also not an approved drug . that’s the part that got me confused  especially as  i was reading the CDC  website and  the way in which they made  the case for fluoride in thaw water but you argue that it’s  an unapproved drug that  according to the government .



Opal: other is no agency in the United States that takes responsibility for fluoridation. The EPA regulates fluoride as a contaminant not as an additive. The FDA   had never approved fluoride for ingestion. The FDA has a warning for fluoride on toothpaste, on the back of a tube of toothpaste it says only use a small amount, pea sized amount.  You should keep always form children under 6, if you should accidentally swallow more than the recommended amount contact a poison   centre and get medical help.



Ian: that’s if you swallow too much of your own toothpaste?


Paul: An ova sized amount Ian is a quart of a milligram of fluoride.  That the equivalent of one glass of floriated water, van you imagine the same warning on the tap?

(619) 630-7174. All Copyright © 2024 besttoothpaste.net or its affiliates.