It is about time someone challenged the central theme of the case for fluoridation – the countless reports proving its efficacy
Public Health (England) report published on March 26 ( link on news page) is a good example of propaganda masquerading as research.
That 45% less children are admitted to hospital in one area is meaningless as a measure of disease unless it includes the numbers treated for the same condition by community doctors or dentists.
Similarly, taking one area of the country, mostly Birmingham and Newcastle, that happens to have less tooth decay than the U.K. average, is a long way from proving the benefits of fluoridation. For example, there is no consideration of the relative expenditure on dental health , or of the calcium content (hardness) of the ground water. The 2001 review of a huge body of published evidence on fluoridation by York University set strict criteria for judging the statistical validity of all the reports it studied. Not a single one met the standards demanded.
’Comparing rates’ of cancers or hip fractures is similarly unacceptable. To measure the effects of fluoride on suffers of, say, arthritis, the first requirement would be to take a large sample and compare the incidence of the disease with each individual’s uptake of fluoride. Such testing is not difficult, but no such large scale study has ever been carried out.
We should also be echoing Professor Sheldrake’s criticism of the interpretation of the York report and saying load and clear: – lack of evidence of harm is not proof of safety. Furthermore, a body like PHE should be looking for any clues to reduce the amount of suffering from complaints such as arthritis. A good starting premise would be that the public consumption of a toxic product of no food value is likely to have adverse effects..