After considering the evidence, Daniel M. Merfeld, Ph.D. Professor of Otology and Laryngology at Harvard Medical School states that fluoridation is ineffective...
Sources: The Hot Press Newsdesk, 28 Mar 2013
"In fact," the professor states, "research shows no significant difference in the number of cavities for US communities with and without fluoride in the drinking water. As another example, the vast majority of West European countries do not fluoridate; yet the dental health of Western Europe is no worse than for US communities that fluoridate.”
Professor Merfeld also deals with the ethical issue, and how the chemical is known to cause dental fluorosis.
"It is accepted that fluoridation causes severe problems for some individuals," he points out. "Kidney patients are told to avoid fluoride, and the CDC recommends that bottled water with less fluoride be used when mixing infant formula.
Furthermore, fluoride is known to cause dental fluorosis (a developmental disruption of dental enamel that yields tooth discoloration) in millions of children. Finally, while not yet conclusive, there is a growing body of peer-reviewed research, including a very recent publication by colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health, that links higher levels of fluoride in children’s drinking water with reduced IQ.”
Another point that Professor Merfeld addresses is that fluoridating water imposes the uncontrolled delivery of a drug on citizens.
"If you want to ingest fluoride, you can get fluoride tablets from your pharmacy, but you will need a prescription," he says. "Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It is a medication that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulates as a drug. If you read the fluoride tablet page in the online Physicians’ Desktop Reference for Consumers, it notes, 'This drug has not been found by FDA to be safe and effective'. Yet fluoride is mass distributed via water.” (Our emphasis)
Across the world, opposition to fluoridation is growing, and Professor Merfeld makes it absolutely clear that this must be taken seriously by the relevant authorities.
"About 70 communities (in the US) have rejected fluoridation since 2010. Civil rights leaders oppose fluoridation because its negative side effects disproportionately impact poor communities. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters Professionals’ Union, which represents knowledgeable scientists, lawyers, and other environmental professionals, opposes fluoridation. Many scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, oppose fluoridation.
Finally, the US National Research Council of the National Academies published a comprehensive review in 2006 that concluded that the current EPA standard was not adequately protecting health and, based on the available evidence at that time, recommended that the maximum contaminant level for fluoride be lowered. This recommendation placed the maximum contaminant level near the level provided via fluoridation.”
The campaign against fluoridation of the water supply in Ireland is gathering momentum. Hot Press writer Adrienne Murphy, who has carried out the Hot Press investigation into fluoridation yesterday appeared on the Today programme on RTE, emphasising the importance of the 27 Questions which Hot Press has asked of the Minister in charge of fluoridation policy, Alex White. Hot Press is currently awaiting answers from the Minister.
"After considering a great deal of evidence, the benefits of fluoridation do not seem to justify the risks. This is my personal decision," declares Merfeld, before concluding:
"If you decide fluoride is right for your family, I suggest that you consider a topical application by using toothpaste with fluoride. You can even choose to swallow toothpaste, but due to the fluoride content that is not recommended.
Given this, does it make sense to swallow water with fluoride? Nonetheless, if you decide that ingesting fluoride is right for you, I respect your decision. Each of us regularly makes personal health decisions, often in consultation with health-care providers, without impacting others. This provides an ethical approach for fluoride as well. Why force fluoride on anyone, especially those who are sensitive to its side effects?"
Read Merfeld's entire argument, here.
"It is accepted that fluoridation causes severe problems for some individuals," he points out. "Kidney patients are told to avoid fluoride, and the CDC recommends that bottled water with less fluoride be used when mixing infant formula.
Furthermore, fluoride is known to cause dental fluorosis (a developmental disruption of dental enamel that yields tooth discoloration) in millions of children. Finally, while not yet conclusive, there is a growing body of peer-reviewed research, including a very recent publication by colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health, that links higher levels of fluoride in children’s drinking water with reduced IQ.”
Another point that Professor Merfeld addresses is that fluoridating water imposes the uncontrolled delivery of a drug on citizens.
"If you want to ingest fluoride, you can get fluoride tablets from your pharmacy, but you will need a prescription," he says. "Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It is a medication that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulates as a drug. If you read the fluoride tablet page in the online Physicians’ Desktop Reference for Consumers, it notes, 'This drug has not been found by FDA to be safe and effective'. Yet fluoride is mass distributed via water.” (Our emphasis)
Across the world, opposition to fluoridation is growing, and Professor Merfeld makes it absolutely clear that this must be taken seriously by the relevant authorities.
"About 70 communities (in the US) have rejected fluoridation since 2010. Civil rights leaders oppose fluoridation because its negative side effects disproportionately impact poor communities. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters Professionals’ Union, which represents knowledgeable scientists, lawyers, and other environmental professionals, opposes fluoridation. Many scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, oppose fluoridation.
Finally, the US National Research Council of the National Academies published a comprehensive review in 2006 that concluded that the current EPA standard was not adequately protecting health and, based on the available evidence at that time, recommended that the maximum contaminant level for fluoride be lowered. This recommendation placed the maximum contaminant level near the level provided via fluoridation.”
The campaign against fluoridation of the water supply in Ireland is gathering momentum. Hot Press writer Adrienne Murphy, who has carried out the Hot Press investigation into fluoridation yesterday appeared on the Today programme on RTE, emphasising the importance of the 27 Questions which Hot Press has asked of the Minister in charge of fluoridation policy, Alex White. Hot Press is currently awaiting answers from the Minister.
"After considering a great deal of evidence, the benefits of fluoridation do not seem to justify the risks. This is my personal decision," declares Merfeld, before concluding:
"If you decide fluoride is right for your family, I suggest that you consider a topical application by using toothpaste with fluoride. You can even choose to swallow toothpaste, but due to the fluoride content that is not recommended.
Given this, does it make sense to swallow water with fluoride? Nonetheless, if you decide that ingesting fluoride is right for you, I respect your decision. Each of us regularly makes personal health decisions, often in consultation with health-care providers, without impacting others. This provides an ethical approach for fluoride as well. Why force fluoride on anyone, especially those who are sensitive to its side effects?"
Read Merfeld's entire argument, here.
RSS Feed