Comments on: Modern Diet Myth No. 7: Fluoride is a toxic drug

By: Dan Germouse

Dan Germouse — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:17:50 +0000

Kooly Fool, I can guarantee that I have a stronger education than Bill. Evidently you don’t understand the difference between blind faith and reason. If you were paying attention, you would know that Australian governments and public “health” organisations have a long history of failing to protect public health.

By: Dan Germouse

Dan Germouse — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:10:04 +0000

Bill, what I said is that the idea that fluoride is a nutrient has been debunked. I didn’t say that the association between fluoride and prevention of tooth decay has been debunked. Pay attention, if you can. It’s possible that there is a small reduction of tooth decay from forced-fluoridation, but there is no credible evidence for it, and it is just as likely that there is a small to moderate increase in tooth decay from forced-fluoridation. The Australian Dental Association is a lobby group, which exists to promote the interests of its members, not the public interest. Australian dentists make a lot of money from cosmetically treating dental fluorosis, which is very common in force-fluoridated areas. If you bothered to read any of those 59 studies, and were capable of understanding them, you would see that they are poor quality studies. Did you learn anything about statistics, the difference between correlation and causation, or systematic error in your mickey mouse nutrition course?

By: Dan Germouse

Dan Germouse — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:54:26 +0000

Bill, you are so stupid it’s embarrassing. I thought you had cut your losses instead of choosing to dig a deeper hole for yourself, but obviously you are not that smart. Unlike you, I don’t have to rely on corrupt organisations spouting propaganda, because I have read systematic reviews and many original research studies on the subject in full, and can think for myself. People’s teeth do not require fluoride, Bill. People have perfectly healthy teeth without it. What part of that don’t you understand? Even the ardently pro-forced-fluoridation US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped claiming that the incorporation of fluoride into enamel prevents dental caries, and now claims that the action of fluoride in saliva at the tooth surface is the mechanism. However, the idea that fluoride concentrations in bone five orders of magnitude higher than those in saliva are safe, while those in saliva are effective, is beyond ridiculous. And no, I’m not happy to accept the findings of the NHMRC, because the people involved are criminals who are employed to pretend to properly assess the evidence, while actually doing everything they can to cover it up. The whole idea of using public water supplies to deliver medication is ridiculous to everyone with some common sense anyhow. It’s an abuse of human rights, and pharmacologically nonsensical.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 07:28:48 +0000

Hi Jo,
That is an interesting perspective. I thought the tone of Bill’s article was more ‘people concerned about fluoridation are idiots’ than ‘leave it to the specialists’. But perhaps I am a bit sensitive!
And I agree that there is a considerable amount of misinformation about a great many issues (especially those relating to nutrition and public health). My personal approach is to get educated and examine all sides of issues and make informed decisions rather than ‘leave it to the experts’. Actually my approach would include ‘consult with some experts’. As a teacher (Science, Food Technology and Learning Difficulties) I would see thinking for yourself as important and equipping students to think for themselves as very important.

By: Jo

Jo — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 01:12:13 +0000

I’ve been reading the above discussion with interest. Jenny, I understand your perspective, particularly coming from a minority on the population with having been diagnosed with a thyroid condition that is affected by fluoride.
The thing is, all generalised information given in this context (the blog) is targeted for the general healthy population. The generalisation of advice is not limited to Bill. Every industry does this. For example, any financial advice given in the main stream always includes some kind of statement such as ‘This is general advice only. For more individualised information, please consult a financial advisor’.
Essentially, this situation is the same. If you have something specific, that means you cannot follow the advice generally given to the public, you need to seek specific advice from professionals qualified in the area to treat your condition.
Bill’s blog was not saying he has all the answers, nor was he saying that individual conditions should be ignored. He was saying ‘leave it to the specialists’. Which I think is the best advice anyone can give right now in this world where everyone thinks they are the expert because they read something on the internet somewhere.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 01:00:53 +0000

Bill I love living in Australia and will continue to live in Australia but am disappointed that Australia has followed the US on this issue when the majority of other countries have not. And I am disappointed that you think that it is reasonable to be so mocking and disrespectful towards those concerned about fluoridation when there are genuine health issues to be concerned about. I suggest you do some more research!

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:46:33 +0000

Hi Jenny. With public health activities like fluoridation the focus is on the population, the idea being to do the greatest good for the greatest number. Individual health is a different matter. Regards, Bill

By: Jenny

Jenny — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:15:43 +0000

Bill gives good moderate advice for average individuals. 85% of Australian women are not iodine deficient and 90% of men and so if any of those individuals have poor diets or poor oral hygiene they may benefit from some fluoride. And older people with good diets and good oral hygiene would be best to avoid fluoride because of their higher levels of thyroid issues. And as long as babies are breastfed or their bottles are filled with filtered water they should be ok. And clearly it is only the ‘smart’ countries that are fluoridating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country and China is being downright ridiculous researching the effect of fluoride levels on cognitive development: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012. I stand by my opinion IT IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO LOOK AFTER YOUR TEETH and IT IS DETRIMENTAL FOR THOSE OF US WITH DEFICIENCIES (particularly iodine) AND THYROID ISSUES.

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:24:28 +0000

Hello Tim.
Thanks for this excellent contribution. It highlights the research and thought that has gone into how fluoride, vitamin A and vitamin D are controlled for human use. Sadly, the toxicity of nutrients is used and abused to further confuse an already confused general public, and to undermine faith in our health institutions. The truth is that these institutions do a good job. Regards, Bill

By: Tim Macknay

Tim Macknay — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:55:44 +0000

Hi there – I just read the exchange above and decided to go on over and have a look at the Poisons Standard (full title “Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons”) which is where you find the list of Schedule 6 and 7 posions mentioned by Jenny. Sadly, it seems that Jenny’s information is rather misleading.

Fluoride (like a number of other substances in the Poisons Standard) appears in a number of different schedules in the Standard, depending on the formulation, concentration and intended use.

Fluorides for human use, in specified low concentrations and packaging, are listed in Schedule 2 (the ‘pharmacy medicines’ schedule), except for formulations with a concentration below 15mg/kg. This excludes most toothpastes, which in Australia generally contain around 10-11mg/kg. Also in schedule 2 are aspirin, paracetamol and ibuprofen in low concentrations, and various herbal medicines.

Fluorides intended for human topical use, in slightly higher concentrations, are listed in schedule 3 (the ‘pharmacist only medicines’ schedule), which also lists Vitamin D. This includes toothpastes with a higher concentration of fluoride.

Vitamin A appears in Schedule 4 (the ‘prescription only medicines’ schedule), along with Vitamin D again in higher concentrations, as well as formulations of paracetamol when combined with ibuprofen or aspirin. other medical formulations of fluoride also make an appearance in Schedule 4.

Fluorides do indeed appear again in Schedule 6 (the ‘poisons’ schedule), but not if in preparations for human use (where they appear in the lower schedules noted above), or in preparations of less than 15mg/kg. So if you have a 20kg sack of (say) 100% sodium fluoride in powdered form , that will be a Schedule 6 poison (as it should be). But that tells you absolutely nothing about the health consequences of fluoride in toothpaste, which is not scheduled at all, or medicinal mouthwashes, which appear in Schedule 2.

Given that both Vitamin A and D both appear in the Poisons Standard, in equivalent or higher schedules as high-concentration medicinal formulations of fluoride, and ordinary fluoride toothpaste is not schedule at all, Bill’s remark that using this information to claim that fluoride is a poison is just like saying that Vitamin A or D are poisons, appears to be spot on.

Some more information about the scheduling of fluorides in the Poisons Standard can be found here: http://www.public.health.wa.gov.au/cproot/3637/2/bulletin_September2008.pdf
Some information about toothpaste content in Australia, courtesy of the ABC, can be found here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/thecheckout/episodes/Toothpastes_Facts_Controversies_and_Concerns.pdf

Great blog, BTW.