Letter: A flawed case

Last updated 11:20 14/02/2013

Relevant offers


Coverage upsets DHB chair Let's hope for a deal on the courthouse Another day in the Hamilton East zoo Um, Te Rapa has tourists too Fix our river walkway, okay? Servian: Theatre comments were personal view Editor's note: Online poll on fluoride Mystery Samaritan saves Patchy the cow Seats in Founders Theatre 'appalling' Who remembers Garden Place in the glorious 70s?

Fluoride proponents cite a 2003 US study (Collins) in support of claiming fluoride is safe. That study does not confirm such a conclusion and its 227 pages throw up statements such as: Five communities which stopped fluoridation did not find that caries rates increased. (pg 6) Early theory on fluoride held it needed to be incorporated into developing enamel before the tooth emerged from the gums - therefore, fluoride needed to be swallowed. (Pg 11) Recent research has now concluded that the theory was wrong and the 'benefits' of fluoride accrued from 'topical' exposures, eg direct application to the teeth and gums. (Pg 11) "Given the weakness in design and the methodological flaws to which many of the studies were subject, the data from these recent studies must be treated with some caution." (Pg 17)

Findings: Other Health Effects "The absence of finding any conclusive evidence does not prove that fluoride cannot cause other potential effects."(Pg 46) The 'experts' are throwing up contradictory 'evidence' which simply adds to people's confusion. There is growing opinion internationally that fluoride may not be as beneficial as claimed and additional research is needed.

Ad Feedback

- Waikato


Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content