|
This article
is an excerpt of Dr. Richard G. Foulkes, M.D. excellent abstract on flouride
in our water supplies and it's use in the dental profession. After reading
this article you'll see that:
|
1) You've been
duped!
2) Flouride
doesn't reduce dental caries (cavities).
3) There are
money interests involved in convincing you that you need fluoride in
your water and toothpaste.
|
The year, 1995,
marks the 50th anniversary of fluoridation and the deliberate addition of
fluoride to drinking water, for the avowed purpose of preventing tooth decay
in children. Differences with orthodoxy are apparent in literature appearing
from those in the dental profession and concerns over its viability as a
social program are being expressed by its strongest supporters.
| Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth |
In 1987, Dr. Allan
Gray, then Director, Division of Dental Health Services for the province of
British Columbia, Canada, published an article in the Journal of the
Canadian Dental Association (vol 10, 763-764) pointing out that it was "time
for a new baseline." He pointed to the finding that tooth decay, as measured
by DMFT (Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth) rates were falling "drastically"
in non-fluoridated areas as well as fluoridated areas.
Special Issue of Journal of Dental Research
In the same Special Issue, Doctors H. Kalsbeek and G.H.W. Verrips of the
Netherlands Institute for Preventive Health Care reported on their studies
of dental caries prevalence and the use of fluorides in different European
countries. They stated (on page 731) that "no significant association was
found between the availability of fluoridated water and fluoride dentifrice
and the DMFT in 12 year-old children." They found, also, that "[I]n most
European countries, the 12 year-old DMFT index is now (1985-1988) relatively
low as compared with figures from 1970-1974."
Their findings agree with those found in the smaller population studied by
Dr. Gray in 1987. Does this indicate a shift away from fluoridation on the
basis of new scientific findings? Is science the nemesis of fluoridation?
Herschel S. Horowitz, of the National Institute of Dental Research, National
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland U.S.A., could appropriately be
called a "crusader" for the cause of fluoridation. He summarized (p760-764)
his concern regarding the many factors that could influence public
acceptance of the procedure. Horowitz classifies the factors as
"socio-political."
Dr. Horowitz expresses his exasperation with the democratic process. "In
some localities," he writes, "politicians are empowered to make such
decisions (i.e., to fluoridate) but, frequently, in order to protect their
perceived reelection potential, they decide that a public vote should be
held on community water fluoridation, which, in effect, transfers the
responsibility to an uninformed or misinformed public."
His opinion of those professionals who do not possess his zeal for
fluoridation is not much higher than his perception of the public. "The
public and health care practitioners," he writes, "are ill-informed or
misinformed about the value and appropriate uses of fluoride, and about the
relative benefits produced by fluoride compared with other methods
promulgated for the prevention of caries."
Dr. Horowitz's first point appears to be an admission that the fluoridaters
have had, in the past, a potent way to bribe financially strapped
communities to add fluoride to their water supplies. This "incentive" has
worked well in the past to tie fluoridation in with Federal grants for
upgrading community water systems. It is noteworthy that he is not
mentioning any curtailment of Federal funds that are used to promote
fluoridation both in the U.S. and abroad.
Dental fluorosis
is a noticeable and undesirable cosmetic change due only to the influence
of fluoride on developing teeth. Because it is associated with damage to
the teeth and deposition of fluoride in the skeleton and soft tissues, it is
an adverse effect with psychological as well as physical implications.
In countries such as China and India, that have large populations living in
endemic fluorosis areas, the various degrees of dental fluorosis are seen as
a continuum with accompanying bone deposition which leads, in many cases, to
crippling skeletal fluorosis, paralysis and soft tissue disease.
 THIS
IS DENTAL FLUOROSIS, sometimes described as mottled teeth or mottled
enamel. It is the visible proof that destroys the myth about fluoridation
and dental health. Mottled enamel is more than a cosmetic problem. It is, in
fact, a disease caused by fluoride -- a conspicuous sign of systemic
poisoning during the tooth-forming years. Mildly mottled teeth generally
appear to be whiter than healthy teeth, with lines, flecks, or an overall
opaque white surface. In moderate to severe cases, stains and pits are
visible, as shown above.
 Mild
cases of this irreversible condition now
afflict up to 80% of U.S. children in fluoridated areas. Even in
non-fluoridated areas, fluoride sources other than drinking water have
caused the degree of mottling shown here. In fact, according to the U.S.
Public Health Service, fluoride makes dental enamel more porous, makes bone
more brittle, and can lead to crippling arthritic deformities of the spine
and major joints. Most authorities agree that excess fluoride leads to more
dental decay.
Take this preliminary
to see if your condition could respond to treatment.
 Part
2 of this article
|
This is SKELETAL FLUOROSIS. This ten year-old boy named Shatap has
been living in an area with significant fluorides in his drinking
water.
