Ingested fluoride is beneficial to dental health.


Please post your comments/rebuttal, on Ken’s post; and here, into the ASWLA comment section. Thank you, ASWLA

Open Parachute

Anti-fluoridation activists work very hard to deny that ingested fluoride has a beneficial role. They take description of the “topical” mechanism that fluoride in saliva plays in inhibiting tooth decay out of context to deny any other role of fluoride. Even then they distort the research to claim fluoride must be applied as toothpaste – it doesn’t. Anything to deny a role for fluoridated water (see Fluoridation – topical confusion  and Topical confusion persists).

But research findings do support a beneficial role of ingested fluoride during teeth development – that is on pre-erupted teeth. This was illustrated again in a recent paper reporting incidence of tooth decay in South Korean children. One group lived in an area where there had been no water fluoridation. The other group in an area where fluoridation had stopped 7 years before.

Cho et al (2014)* found children of age 11, who drank fluoridated water…

View original post 162 more words

Advertisements

6 comments on “Ingested fluoride is beneficial to dental health.

  1. So, lets say Ken is right, that studies do show that ingestion has positive effects on pre-ingested teeth. Why then is anyone over 14 being forced to ingest a treatment against their will? One that has no benefit to anyone who’s teeth have erupted and with the long term risks now coming to light, especially for people with kidney disease and lactating mothers. What possible reason is there to waste millions of tax payers dollars on a forced treatment that has no effect on people who could be harmed from it in the long term?

      • Ken did not address the fundamental principle of medicine – that of ‘informed consent to treatment’ – he is on a tangent, by sidestepping the cornerstone to medical treatment. And ‘health’ is not just teeth. So, he must answer the very relevant question:
        What part of ‘informed consent to treatment’ does mandatory fluoride fall under Ken? How does that relate to total human health??

        ASWLA has asked Ken to answer this question DIRECTLY: What part of ‘dental health’ does this Policy statement fall under with (forced) fluoridation, and a one-size-fits-all approach) ?

        Consent to Treatment: Policy Statement 5.15:
        Australian Dental Association | Sect. 4; Sect. 4.1; Sect. 6 | Source

        “Dentists must obtain the consent of a person with the legal capacity to provide the consent before dental procedures can be undertaken… In the case of young children, dentists must obtain the consent of the child’s parent or legal guardian for the dental procedure… Dentists must obtain the consent of a patient before providing treatment to that patient. Failure to obtain consent can give rise to any one or more of the following: a cause of action against the dentist in assault or battery; a negligence claim; or a complaint of professional misconduct.”

  2. Bette, are you gojng to discount the scientific paper I have just quioted from (and others providing evidence for the systemic role of fluoride? For example

    Newbrun, E. (2004). Systemic Benefits of Fluoride and Fluoridation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 64(s1), 35–39.,
    Singh, K. A., & Spencer, A. J. (2004). Relative effects of pre- and post-eruption water fluoride on caries experience by surface type of permanent first molars. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 32(6), 435–46.

    Singh, K. A., Spencer, A. J., & Brennan, D. S. (2007). Effects of water fluoride exposure at crown completion and maturation on caries of permanent first molars. Caries Research, 41(1), 34–42.

    Now tell me what “peer-reviewed” reports you have “proving” ingested fluoride has no benefit.

    I am all ears and eyes – you may be able to convince me of your claim if you can produce some good evidence.

    • What part of ‘informed consent to treatment’ does mandatory fluoride fall under Ken? See: https://www.facebook.com/notes/anti-fluoridation-association-of-mildura/final-nails-in-the-ethical-coffin-of-water-fluoridation/314696628676056

      Please show all of us, what is the benefits to forcing chemicals on every single man, woman and child, without proper diagnosis; or monitoring for side effects?

      Answer this Ken:

      Consent to Treatment: Policy Statement 5.15:
      Australian Dental Association | Sect. 4; Sect. 4.1; Sect. 6 | Source

      “Dentists must obtain the consent of a person with the legal capacity to provide the consent before dental procedures can be undertaken… In the case of young children, dentists must obtain the consent of the child’s parent or legal guardian for the dental procedure… Dentists must obtain the consent of a patient before providing treatment to that patient. Failure to obtain consent can give rise to any one or more of the following: a cause of action against the dentist in assault or battery; a negligence claim; or a complaint of professional misconduct.”

      Informed Consent to Treatment: Human Rights and Involuntary Treatment:
      Amnesty International Ireland | Ch. 8, pp. 141-142 | Source

      “Informed consent in healthcare is a key component of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and invokes several human rights that are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated such as the right to autonomy, freedom from discrimination, freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to privacy and bodily integrity. Informed consent has three essential components: firstly consent must be given without coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation (undue influence includes situations where the patient perceives there may be an unpleasant consequence associated with refusal of consent); secondly consent must be given after the disclosure of the associated benefits, risks and alternatives to the medical procedure in question (i.e. it must be informed); and thirdly to give valid consent the person must have capacity to give consent… The right to consent to treatment also includes the right to refuse treatment.”

      Adding Fluoride to Water Supplies:
      British Medical Journal | Ethical implications; Potential harms | Source

      “Under the principle of informed consent, anyone can refuse treatment with a drug or other intervention. The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 199719 states that health interventions can only be carried out after free and informed consent. The General Medical Council’s guidance on consent also stresses patients’ autonomy, and their right to decide whether or not to undergo medical intervention even if refusal may result in harm. This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit… In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation.”

  3. There are so many peer reviewed papers proving ingesting fluoridated water is not good and in some cases it is dangerous for people with certain illnesses.
    It is time the Government gave people the choice. In America and Canada many towns have voted to remove fluoration

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s