Non-mercury dentist

nope

I agree with Fitzgeme, alternatives exist and you can have them if you wish. Although I disagree with the statement in your quote with regard to a direct link to immune issues and other health issues from amalgam. This is a lie. No study has ever found a direct link between health issues and amalgam fillings.

Omelette, you haven't said one thing yet on this forum that any qualified dentist would agree with. Your dentist advised you apply the toothpaste in such a way to stop you getting cavities. Please enlighten us as to the perceived dangers of fluoride?

I must say, you wouldn't stay a patient of mine for very long...

I could just as easily offer 20000 to ask somebody to prove that fluoride is unsafe. It is completely meaningless. Some people just want to believe that conditions that are unexplainable by any other means must be caused by something, and they lay that blame squarely at the feet of fluoride, or mercury in amalgam or eating meat or that the wind blows from the west. It has no basis in fact (yet). I base my opinions on science. There isn't one single study that has yet to convince me that fluoride is harmful. The benefits outweigh the risks.

Let me present some facts for you. Fluoride is in the water supply. Even in non-fluoridated areas and bottled water. It is a naturally occurring mineralisation of all water, both fresh and salt. FACT, irrefutable.

The unique caries preventing properties of fluoride are well established. They were initially discovered by a man called H. Trendley Dean in the 1920's while conducting epidemiological studies of a condition he called 'mottling' which is now known as fluorosis. He noted that in areas such as the Colorado where the water had higher natural concentrations of fluoride that there were higher rates of mottling but much lower rates of decay. He then set out to discover at what level of fluoridation could a balance be struck between rates of fluorosis (which is a harmless aesthetic concern in 90% of cases) and decreases in the caries rate. He estimated that this concentration was 1-2parts per million.

Trendley Dean's theories and scientific evidence were buttressed and reproduced in many epidemiological surveys in many parts of the world where fluoride was naturally higher in concentration in the water supply. He argued that in areas where the fluoride concentration was lower that it should be optimised so that the rest of the US could benefit from this discovery.

Fluoridation is one of the most studied public health measures in the history of medecine. To date there have been only a handful of studies that suggest a possible detrimental effect to health beyond fluorosis. One study suggested a possible link between fluoridation and an increased incidence in osteosarcoma (an incredibly rare bone cancer) in adolescent males.

The central controversies regarding fluoride lie in its systemic delivery in fluoridated water systems, the source of the fluoride and the 'mass medication' argument.

First systemic vs topical delivery. Systemic delivery works best for developing teeth and seems to have a negligible effect in adults relative to topical application. Therefore, the main reason that water is fluoridated is to prevent children getting decay in their teeth early. The earlier you get decay in your adult teeth, the earlier you are likely to lose them later on in life. This is particularly true of children in lower socioeconomic groups who may not have access to the education or may not live in an environment where oral hygiene is a priority.

We know the mechanism of action of fluoride and why it works to help teeth become more resistant to decay. Let one of these anti-fluoride experts argue with peer reviewed, published microscopy and biochemistry studies that prove that fluoride works to fight decay. They won't, because they can't.

You seem to think that fluoride is bad for you no matter what the source. Let me tell you that even if fluoride had bad effects, it wouldn't be in the extremely low systemic exposure you get by brushing your teeth with it and spitting it out. In toxicology, the cardinal rule is the dose makes the poison. As I said previously, even if you lived in a bubble and drank nothing but distilled water all day, you would still be exposed to fluoride, mercury and radiation. It just can't be helped, it's part of life. The human body has developed systems for metabolising and defending against these things, otherwise we wouldn't have lasted very long as a species.

In terms of the sourcing argument, this I can't really speak much about. I know that it Ireland the source is an industrial byproduct which is either sodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid. Most people object to this because they see it as industrial waste and poison. I can't argue against these accusations very well except to say that again the dose makes the poison. In Ireland we are talking 0.6-0.8 parts per million. The other thing is that salts and acids dissociate in water to form positive and negative ions. As fluorine is highly electronegative it is highly reactive and will form other compounds in water.

In terms of mass medication, as someone with somewhat libertarian outlook, I somewhat disagree with water fluoridation. The fact is, we don't live in a libertarian country. We live in a country with partially socialised medicine. I say if the government pays for dental care for people, it has a right to reduce the costs of that provision, especially if it is in the best interests of the people it is providing care for. That is not even to mention the judgement of hte Supreme Court in 1961 which stated that fluoride was a nutrient and not a medication due to the fact that it occurred naturally in the water supply. Water fluoridation amounted to an optimisation of that fluoride concentration. This argument makes sense to any sensible person. The only counter is that the source is no longer sodium fluoride as it was when the judgement was made but sodium hexafluorosilicate. Which still results in fluoride in the water, the same fluoride that comes from sodium fluoride.

With regard to the quoted doctors, I doubt they are more qualified than Professor John Clarkson, whose PhD thesis was on fluoridation, who devised an updated index for classification of fluorosis, whom was the President of the International Association for Dental Research and who was the former Dean of the Dublin Dental School. From whom I learned all about fluoride.

I can understand an objection to water fluoridation and the systemic delivery of fluoride. There is an argument that it is not needed due to the fact that there is so much topical fluoride available (notwithstanding the mountain of data proving that caries rates are lower in the Republic where water is fluoridated vs in the North where water isn't - they both have topical fluoride available). But I won't accept an argument against topical fluoride application. There just isn't a sane argument against it. None of the people you have cited even argue against it, but you choose not to use fluoridated toothpaste. I'm sorry but that is just nonsense and any possible objection about health risks have absolutely no basis in science.

Which leads me to the reason why you probably wouldn't be a patient of mine for very long. You would get sick of me asking you to use fluoridated toothpastes, mouthrinses or gels. Because I practice evidence based dentistry. Not opinion based mumbo-jumbo. And the only way you wouldn't have a mouthful of cavities/fillings is if you had immaculate oral hygiene and didn't consume refined sugar.

omelette wrote: »

- off-topic?... ahhh, told you so!

Fillings? - I think 5, maybe 6. btw, I could cite multiple animal studies that show conclusively that it's what we eat, not how often we brush (if ever!) that determines whether or not you develop cavities.

Show studies please.

omelette wrote: »

the obvious I hear you say - well, yes, my point is that you do not hear dentists lobbying the government demanding that sugar etc. is banned. Why? 'cos you guys make a damn good living out of it! Same as you guys make plenty from financial incentives from the likes of Colgate for recommending their poison to your customers. Don't know about Ireland but the yanks average $10,000 for peddling this fluoride to their unsuspecting patients.

The last resort of the failed argumentalist - personal attacks. Be very careful.

omelette wrote: »

going even further off-topic, my nephew got all his teeth 'lacquered' - no proper term forthcoming! - a few years ago, the promise being that he would not have to bother about tooth decay after that, and for 200-300 euro if memory serves. Well, a few months ago he had to get all the 'gunk' removed as it was flaking off of its own accord. Another dental scam...

Finally, I think it's a travesty that you consider spending a few hours to educate yourself by listening to top experts in their field as too much trouble, particularly if you are recommending this poison to people - of course you still haven't confirmed that you are a dentist! So no, I won't summarise their conclusions. You also haven't provided a link to the study...

What's interesting is that in these few posts although I have provided links to information, practically all of it has been just ignored by you 'experts'. Either you are just paid-trolls or you are woefully uneducated.

We have ignored them because they are rubbish, poorly put together opinion pieces. We subscribe to evidence based practice. You do not.