Is WDDTY Magazine Anti-Fluoride?

October 15, 2013 at 12:28 am (Alternative Medicine) (, , , )

Well, on the basis of this report on their website it would seem so. They do seem to focus on the negative aspects…

If you want an overview of fluoride, you might like to try this paper from the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals (EVM) – and if you’re interested in fluoridation of water, there’s always the systematic review from York Uni. Basically, the evidence suggests it can reduce dental caries, and increase the risk of dental fluorosis (with other potential risks and benefits being less certain). If you look up the executive summary of the York review, the conclusions include this:

The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities. This evidence on benefits and harms needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, costs and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. All of these issues fell outside the scope of this review.

They look at the benefits and the risks. They evaluate the strength of the evidence for the suggested benefits and risks. They provide a balanced overview that attempts to refer to all the factors that might warrant consideration – and they tell you which of these they have addressed themselves. It seems to me to be a pretty thorough overview of the available evidence, and to be fair and balanced.

Here, by comparison, is what WDDTY tell you (or at least told you – I’m not sure how old the WDDTY article is) about fluoride in toothpaste:

Toothpaste can contain amounts of fluoride damaging to adults and lethal to children. Yet, manufacturers are lax about providing warnings or directions about a substance that is almost as toxic as arsenic.

The most damning aspect concerns the types of toothpaste being offered for children.

Fluoride? Damaging. Lethal. Toxic. Toothpaste manufacturers? Lax. Wow, that sounds overwhelmingly negative and actually pretty worrying. In fact, it seems almost chilling.

To examine the levels of fluoride in dental products mainly toothpastes and the level of detail disclosed in the labelling on all products containing fluoride, holistic dentist Tony Lees conducted a survey of the products sold in most of the main outlets supermarkets and major chemists in a typical British city. [...] His findings make a chilling commentary on the fact that toothpaste manufacturers, like most makers of toiletries, are basically allowed to provide the flimsiest of detail about their products.

There we go. Chilling. I was right to feel chilled back there. Vindication for my fear, right there. And from a holistic dentist via a health journal, no less. (They do still refer to their lifestyle magazine as a journal, right?)

At the moment, Tesco are being criticised for stocking WDDTY. (Their line is that the content of the magazine is a matter for the publishers and that Tesco are not moral guardians or censors.) Just for fun, here’s what WDDTY wrote about Tesco:

Tesco

Tesco’s own brand, Total Care Kids, contains 0.4 per cent sodium monofluorophosphate, which appears to be a standard amount of fluoride contained in kiddy toothpastes. Like most other products, it doesn’t display any evidence of a PL number despite making therapeutic claims. It boasts that the product is “not tested on animals”, which is a good thing for the laboratory monkeys and rats of the world as it contains around 526 ppm of fluoride (26 mg in a 50-ml tube) which can lead to mottling or cavitation of children’s teeth if accidentally swallowed.

Tesco also sells Pearl Drops Smokers toothpaste. The manufacturer has not even bothered to give the percentage of fluoride contained in Pearl Drops presumably because it figures that smokers are already engaging in slow motion self poisoning. Again, there is no warning about accidental overdosing and no PL number displayed.

The only fluoride free toothpastes available at Tesco were Euthymol and Sensodyne Sensitive. There were no fluoride free brands for children.

It looks to me like they are complaining about the composition of Tesco’s own brand toothpaste (and that of other brands stocked by Tesco), about the labelling of the available toothpastes, and about the lack of choice in that there are (or at least were) no fluoride-free toothpastes available for children. Hardly a ringing endorsement. (Luckily for Tesco, I don’t take anything in WDDTY seriously and their online article will play no part in any decision on where I buy my toothpaste.)

More

To read my previous posts on What Doctors Don’t Tell You, click here. For an almost scarily thorough list of posts criticising WDDTY, try Josephine Jones’ round-up.

About these ads

11 Comments

  1. WDDTY: My Master List | Josephine Jones said,

    […] Is WDDTY Magazine Anti-Fluoride? jdc, Stuff and Nonsense, 15/10/13 […]

  2. Dan Germouse said,

    Dental fluorosis from artificial water fluoridation is proven, not suggested. It is the supposed benefit which the York review said was merely suggested. The York review is outdated anyway. The 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards is a far more comprehensive review of fluoride toxicity, although some important research has been published since then.

  3. Thisblogisdead.com said,

    Sure is toxic. fluoride used to be used to treat overactive thyroid, its a halogen group VII. Fluoride in the water is a medical fallacy so nil point to septics, unless you are a fluoride believer that is and un point to WDDTY.

  4. Secure your copy of WDDTY » What "What Doctors Don't Tell You" Don't Tell You said,

    […] Unless of course Tesco put it there because it’s a low-sales item. Something’s got to occupy the coveted back of the bottom shelf slot, after all, and it’s unlikely to be Loaded, even with its modesty bag that is entirely a matter for the publishers. […]

  5. mythbuster said,

    Why would anyone be ‘pro fluoride’? It is a Halogen and known to precipitate hypothyroidism – in fact it used to be used as a ‘treatment’ for hyperthyroidism! When they introduced fluoride into the water in Gateshead the rates of hypothyroidism went up.

    Flouridosis of the skeleton is not conducive to better dental health, it makes the teeth brittle.

    An interesting parting shot. Hitler was the first ‘scientist’ to add flouride to water – he asked a homeopath what he could put in the water to ‘affect the collective mind of the nation’.

    Whether you belief in the magic pills or not, it is interesting that in Kent the ‘proving symptoms’ of fluoride poisoning on the mind are:

    Paranoia
    financial insecurity
    Materialism

    When the modern German water board was asked by the government to put fluoride into the water they looked into it. They said they only would if the government would underwrite any claims for injury as a result. The German government politely declined.

    Nuff said

  6. dingo199 said,

    @mythmuster…..several citations needed there my friend.
    Think we can just accept your opinions, without evidence for what you claim? And who cares what the homeopathic “proving” symptoms of fluoride are? That’s pure, unadulterated fantasy anyway.

    PS, it is “fluorosis”, not “fluoridosis”. At least get the name of the condition correct before you pretend to be an expert on it.

  7. mythbuster said,

    So I take it Dingo because the only critique you have is a bit of semantics and spelling, the points I raised in support of the toxic nature of fluoride are accepted as fact.

    What citations do you need? No one needs to be an expert to google Dingo, that what the septics out there have forgotten, they think just because some fiddled study funded by a drug company is published in a rag peer reviewed by their buddies it somehow becomes fact.

    LOL

  8. dingo199 said,

    @Mythbuster (aka thisblogisdead – what is it with the multiple identities with you guys anyway?)
    Of course you don’t need to be an expert to Google – I see even you must have managed it.

    But the point is that it is YOU who has made the claims, so it should be YOU who directs others to the source of those claims (ie provide a citation or a link) so they can view the source data or information directly.

    What you have done is just throw out what appear to be random mutterings about how horrible fluoride is (dished up with a nice side helping of Godwin by dragging Hitler into the conversation, then rambling on about quite irrelevant homeopathy nonsense and some junk about the German water board, as though any of that amounts to scientific evidence). You then have side-stepped my request for the standard requirement for you to provide evidence for the claims you make by saying: “Go Google it”. That is a sign of either laziness, dishonesty, or a deliberate ploy to mislead people by disguising the source of your information. So what are you afraid of? Embarrassed that your sources will fail to stand up to objective scientific scrutiny? Or frightened that they come from the antifluoride equivalent of a “fiddled study funded by a drug company published in a rag peer reviewed by their buddies”, and we will all see them for what they are?

    “LOL” indeed.

    PS:
    Have you even read JDC’s post about fluoridation? He is merely pointing out that WDDTY’s coverage is entirely one sided by discussing (and exagerrating) harms of fluoride while dismissing the benefits. JDC doesn’t pretend fluoride cannot be harmful, and his sources of information are cited appropriately. And none of them is a publication in some “rag” as you call them – one is a review from York University, the other is a report from the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals. Many who are opposed to fluoridation still cite the York review, often quote mining only the bits that support their agenda. Are you also going to accuse these antifluoride campaigners of citing a “fiddled study funded by a drug company published in a rag peer reviewed by their buddies”?

  9. mythbuster said,

    oooh, touched a nerve.

  10. Chris said,

    Oooh, the whole comment went over the clueless troll’s head.

  11. dingo199 said,

    Clearly.
    Mind you, I am surprised he posted 3 consecutive comments using the same nym.
    Perhaps Santa could bring him some new socks for Xmas?

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 406 other followers

%d bloggers like this: