The Survival Podcast Forum

Survivalism & Self Sufficiency Topics => Medical Needs and First Aid => Topic started by: TPPrepper on March 18, 2012, 03:27:04 AM

Title: Fluoride Study
Post by: TPPrepper on March 18, 2012, 03:27:04 AM
I searched around the forum looking for more information on why we should not be fluoridating the water. I believe it's not good for us and use a Berkey filter but was trying to find out for myself, why the "science is flawed" and why I should be against it.
Can somebody point me in the right direction?
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: DrJohn on March 19, 2012, 12:30:42 PM
Well TP, I do not think the science is flawed and that water fluoridation is actually a good idea.  The savings in both money as well as pain and suffering from dental issues far out way the infinitesimal risk of fluorosis, the only real risk IMHO. Water fluoridation has been proven safe and effective and has been in use since the early 1950's in Newburgh NY. Honestly I believe that all the anti-fluoridation rhetoric belongs in the realm of the tin foil hat brigade!

Here is a link to some information from the ADA. (

While I do not agree with some things the ADA does, in this area I think they have the populations best interests at heart.  You may say oh "he" is a dentist that is why he is for water fluoridation, but honestly, think of it this way, without water fluoridation, I would be making a lot more money, and you would be spending a lot more on dental care, don't you think that that would benefit me?
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: TPPrepper on March 21, 2012, 12:29:31 PM
Dr. John,
Thanks for the info.
There are so many opinions on this subject that I just want the facts so that I can make up my mind. I know this does not agree with Jack, but hey that's just the way it is.
I looked at the reports and looking at the information from what I consider good sources, I am not sure where the opposition gets their data to look at. I know it's a poison and those are generally not good for us, but there is a risk/reward to a lot of things.
I will keep poking around but for now, I agree with you, the studies were unbiased and had no real agenda.
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: Dainty on March 21, 2012, 10:01:41 PM
I've never dug too deeply into the subject of flouridation; my mom was allergic to it so I grew up on filtered water. I didn't miss it and it appears my teeth didn't either. *shrugs*

But out of curiosity I did some googling and found a few things that might be helpful...

John Colquhoun, a dentist who was such a strong advocate of flouridation that he was appointed chairman of a national "Fouridation Promotion Committee" after doing a world study tour on flouridation and the statistics regarding tooth decay, up and changed his position when the results came back in favor of non-flouridation. Here's the article (, which also touches on apparent flawed studies.

This page  ( seems like a good portal for finding flouride information. It has organized papers by objective research, favoring, and opposing as well as a list of major links, again listed under either favoring or opposing.

Happy reading. :)
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: TPPrepper on March 22, 2012, 08:35:34 AM
Thanks for the information, that site looks interesting.
Time to start clicking on pages and seeing what's there.
I just want to prove this to myself once and for all!  ;D
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: DrJohn on March 26, 2012, 09:21:51 AM
I have not read all the study information you posted Dainty, but I do have anecdotal information from my own practice over the last 20 years.  I live in a rural state with less than 600,000 residents.  Water fluoridation is limited to the 5 major population centers which contain 50% of the states population.  We treat many many patients both who live with and those that live without fluoridated water.  Hands down, regardless of socioeconomic level, the kids without the fluoridation have a 80 to 90 percent higher DMF score than those with fluoridation.

Looking at what happened in NZ I can say that if those areas that didn't have water fluoridation exercised superior oral hygiene practices and a less refined diet than their counter parts in the cities, that could certainly skew the results.  it is very hard to compare apples to apples in many of these situations, especially when we try to take data from a different country/society and try to apply it to all others. 

As an example I will tell you about orthodontics behind the iron curtain and compare it to how we did it in the west during the time of the Warsaw pact.  In the west we have been using fixed (cemented) bands and brackets and use a combination of the braces and the wires to move teeth.  A fairly expensive and labor intensive way to do things, but with a very predictable result.  Behind the iron curtain they didn't have the option to use materials that we use, they were just not available, and so they devised a method they called functional orthodontics.  They used difficult to wear, removable acrylic and wire appliances.  you couldn't eat with them, talking was difficult and the "tease" factor immense.  Yet they succeeded.  In the mid 80's many practioners looking to stream line and simplify tried to adopt a similar system for cases in the US.  Guess what, American kids, in general, were not willing to do what it took to make these appliances work!  Most cases, and even those in my own hands, failed miserably.  The kids who were brought up in a much more strict and rigid society were used to following directions, and didn't question authority, westernized kids were not.  So to compare what happened in NZ then to other areas, and even other times can be difficult at best, and disastrous at worst.
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: Dainty on March 26, 2012, 04:31:14 PM
The anecdotal reports you've posted are sure interesting, but I think you'd agree that study data is worth considering, yes? You might notice in my post that I clarified this dentist did a world study tour on fluoridation statistics, which included the U.S., Australia, Europe, and Asia. I am not referring to an individual study in New Zealand, as it appears you have presumed.

I agree it's difficult to compare apples to apples in such situations, which is why I'd strongly encourage you to do some reading from the other side of the argument so that you can determine for yourself which way the studies are skewed.

I'd sincerely be very interested in hearing your conclusion after doing some reading. I even wonder if you might be able to obtain access to the same information this dentist had. Here's a quote from the article pertaining to a major U.S. study:

...I wrote to my American colleagues and asked them for the results of the large-scale surveys they had carried out there. I did not receive an answer. Some years later, Dr John Yiamouyiannis obtained the results by then collected by resorting to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, which compelled the authorities to release them. The surveys showed that there is little or no differences in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated places throughout America [7]. Another publication using the same database, apparently intended to counter that finding, reported that when a more precise measurement of decay was used, a small benefit from fluoridation was shown (20 percent fewer decayed tooth surfaces, which is really less than one cavity per child) [8]. Serious errors in that report, acknowledged but not corrected, have been pointed out, including a lack of statistical analysis and a failure to report the percentages of decay-free children in the fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas [7].

Other large-scale surveys from United States, from Missouri and Arizona, have since revealed the same picture: no real benefit to teeth from fluoride in drinking water [9, 10]. For example, Professor Steelink in Tucson, AZ, obtained information on the dental status of all schoolchildren – 26,000 of them – as well as information on the fluoride content of Tucson water [10]. He found: "When we plotted the incidence of tooth decay versus fluoride content in a child's neighborhood drinking water, a positive correlation was revealed. In other words, the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth" [11].

I'm not saying this information is right or wrong, but until I hear a reasonable counterargument I'm inclined to believe it. I'd understand if you don't have the time, DrJohn, but I would be very interested in the result of you taking a look at things yourself. :)
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: DrJohn on March 26, 2012, 05:07:30 PM
I sit on the board of my states oral health coalition, and we have been struggling with the issue of anti vs pro fluoridationists.  As a board member I am acting impartially,  but I can tell you the the data from my state does not reflect what is stated in your quote.  I cannot speak for the veracity of the data of other states or countries, but from the information we have collected form dental practices here, the board is leaning very strongly in support of pro fluoridation.  The board is a non-governmental body funded by grants representing a cross section of both professionals and lay people.  We then make reccomendation to the department of health.  Reading those studies with out actually analyizing the data statistally is really just trusting the integrity of the author's finding.  The other big issue is who and how is the data collected.  In our area there are practitioners who I feel need a refresher course in their clinical diagnostic skills,  I am sure this in not just a local issue!  For rhe data to be sound it has to be collected in a repeatable and equal way. I am not sure that really is possible on a very large scale.  The best way to run this study would to have each practice collect their own data, then figure a ratio and report that.  This way at least there would be consistency.  Also studies must consider the amount of fluoride naturally present in the water as this will skew results significantly.

One last thing to consider is that it was an accidental discovery that led to the realization that fluoride prevents tooth decay. Certain areas of Colorado naturally have high levels of fluoride in the water that causes fluorosis or Colorado brown stain.  The patients with this condition universally have no dental decay!
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: cheryl1 on April 01, 2012, 11:31:52 AM
Here is my humble opinion as a lay person looking at this issue for the first time:

If the pro-fluoride people are right and I don't use fluoride, I will have tooth decay.

If the anti-fluoride people are right and I do use fluoride, I will face osteoporosis, tooth pitting and discoloration, and lowered intelligence.

Ummmmm......I can deal with fillings easier than broken hips and stupidity.

Background on where I am coming from: I was raised on fluoridated water, fluoride treatments at school, and I have a mouth full of metal. My husband was raised on well water and toothpaste, and he didn't have a cavity until he was an adult. My children have the same diet, same water, same brushing habits...and yet the middle girl has a cavity every check-up. I'm going with genetics on that one.
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: DrJohn on April 01, 2012, 04:10:30 PM
I think this is a good place to say let's just agree to disagree.  If you want fluoride and it's not in your water, supplement. If its in your water and you don't, filter it or buy bottled. 

Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: Mr. Bill on August 19, 2019, 03:27:06 PM
A new study shows a statistical correlation between fluoride ingestion during pregnancy and decreased IQ of the child.

I'd like to caution that this is a very iffy thing, and even the study's authors have included a long paragraph about its limitations.

The scientific paper itself:
JAMA Pediatrics, 8/19/19: Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada (

Two plain-English summaries:
HealthDay, 8/19/19: Could fluoride be bad for your baby during pregnancy? (
NPR, 8/19/19: Can Maternal Fluoride Consumption During Pregnancy Lower Children's Intelligence? (

It's too soon (in my opinion) to jump on the Fluoride Is Always Toxic bandwagon.  But if I were pregnant (:spit:) I'd probably avoid fluoridated water as well as tea during my pregnancy.
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: Gamer on November 14, 2019, 07:30:04 AM
A while back I went through several years of feeling cold and sluggish, and after blood tests my doctor diagnosed "a borderline underactive thyroid", but he wouldn't prescribe meds because it was only borderline and he said "See if it clears up on its own".
So I went on feeling cold and sluggish like a cold-blooded reptile for another couple of years, looking forward to summer so I could bask on warm rocks along the seafront (sorry, that's my standard joke when talking to people about it).
Then I read somewhere that the thyroid might not like fluoride, so I switched to non-fluoride toothpaste and after a while I was right as rain, maybe the switch did it, or perhaps it was coincidence, but it's worth mentioning..:)
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: DrJohn on November 14, 2019, 12:28:04 PM
Wow, this is an old post!

Here is the thing, all medications, drugs, etc have what is known as the Therapeutic dose, or what level must be used to get the desired effect.  One of the things we look at is the TD vs LD.  (LD is the lethal dose.) When the two are close together, bad things can happen, when they are far apart, the drug is generally safe.  The thing you have to remember is that these are looked at not for individuals, but for large groups.  In other words, your mileage may vary!  What might be safe for me, may not be for you, and vice versa. 

Like I said a long time ago, "...  If you want fluoride and it's not in your water, supplement. If it is in your water and you don't, filter it or buy bottled."  There are proven clinical benefits to water fluoridation, but for a minority of individuals, the downsides may not be worth the upside benefit.  From a public health standpoint, IMO water fluoridation is a good thing.
Title: Re: Fluoride Study
Post by: iam4liberty on November 14, 2019, 01:41:42 PM
It isnt necessarily an either or proposition.  We had heavily flouridated water here, four times recommended level (2.5 mg per liter).  It became a big concern.  So what was done was we drastically reduced that but several not for profit groups got together to set up free dental examination days and free distribution of toothpaste.  Everyone seems much happier now.