Want to avoid GMOs and other toxic food ingredients? Then get our unique new mobile app that puts YOU in control. (Last chance - ONLY available before we launch at the end of summer)
If you've read the UK Government's latest paper on fluoride (fluride) in the water supply . . . and the media hype surrounding it . . . you could be forgiven for thinking that water fluoridation is a good thing.
Of course . . . that is exactly what you are MEANT to think. However, it doesn't take much of a look at the study itself to see that this is, once again, hot air from those who would have you regularly ingest one of the most toxic substances known to man, simply because it makes your job easier.
One of the most appropriate quotes of all time - at least, in relation to what passes for "medicine" these days - is "There are lies, damned lies . . . and statistics". Never has this been more clearly the case than with the arguments in favour of water fluoridation.
Common sense says that if you ingest the totally un-natural forms of fluoride that are (in many places) commonly added to drinking water, such as sodium-fluoride (rat poison) or hexafluorosilicic acid (the most corrosive acid known to man), you may well experience problems. Indeed, the plethora of films, articles etc in the alternative media that have been released in recent years make a pretty solid case for why you should avoid ALL fluoride-additives (including toothpaste).
Unfortunately, this isn't good for Governments (who benefit from the reduced mental capacity associated with water fluoridation, which makes populations easier to control) or for the phosphate fertilizer industry, which produces mountains of the stuff every year as a byproduct of their operations . . . . mountains that otherwise have to be disposed of as toxic waste (which is exactly what they are). This is, of course, very, VERY expensive and so they have very successfully lobbied (i.e. bribed) politicians to let them dump it in the water that you and I drink - nice of them, isn't it?
Enter the UK Government's latest effort to subdue the masses and force them to accept fluoridation - the authoritative-sounding "Water fluoridationHealth monitoring report for England 2014". (Water fluoridation in the UK is, mercifully quite rare).
On the face of it, this "independent study" appears to support the cause for fluoridation with headlines like
"On average, there are 15% fewer five-year olds with tooth decay in fluoridated areas than non-fluoridated areas"
"The report provides further reassurance that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure"
WOW, 15% . . . .AND it's "safe", where do I sign?
For those of you used to dealing with medics or politicians though, you might realise that there's a lot more to it than this.
15% . . . sounds impressive, right? Well, not exactly. You see, this is just the first of many examples of statistical abuse that plague this (and every other favourable) report.
So how many damaged teeth do these five-year old's actually have (the method they used in the "study")?
Fluoridated kids - 0.67 teeth damaged
Non-fluoridated kids - 0.89 teeth damaged.
Doesn't sound so impressive now does it?
They obviously thought so to, because they then used some statistical trickery to manipulate the figures, resulting in . . . surprise, surprise . . . higher figures for the non-fluoridated group and lower ones for the fluoridated group . . . not very scientific, is it?
In fact, they did this time and time again - admittedly "adjusting" the figures whichever way they felt like it, simply to bamboozle the journalists (admittedly, not hard) as well as the public (who rarely ever read these reports . .. but then neither do most of the "journalists", they just repeat the press-releases that they are given!).
The "difference" was even less in older kids - 0.67 Vs 0.71 for fluoridated Vs non-fluoridated 12-year olds . . . at least until they introduced their statistical trickery, which once again made the results look much more impressive than they are.
For those of you who take an interest in your health, you might be glad to hear that finally, one of these mainstream "studies" considered this sign of Fluoride toxicity, which causes anything from spots on the teeth to total disintegration. Here, they use a different trick . . . they provide absolute figures instead of comparisons, which they report in their summary as...
"1% in Newcastle (fluoridated) and 0.2% in Manchester (non-fluoridated)"
Did anyone see what they did there - the HID the fact that there is a 400% increase in fluorosis in people drinking fluoridated water (and failed to account for the fluorosis in those who have non-fluoridated water, which is almost certainly caused by toothpaste and other unnatural sources of fluoride (bottled water, sodas etc).
Now, given how nasty fluorosis is and how badly it affects people, it must be included in the statistics concerning hospital admissions right . .. WRONG! At least . . it isn't reported, as they are only interested in admissions for caries . . . but how many of them were caused by fluorosis? We'll never know, because they never checked!
I'll give a more complete review of this study later, but these "findings" are representative of the shoddy "science" used by these people to sell what can only honestly be referred to as poison . . . which brings me to . . .
Ah, doesn't the headline from the summary fill you with confidence . . . .
"The report provides further reassurance that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure."
Well, we've just seen some examples of how they butchered the "effectiveness" data, so what about "safety"?
First of all, the authors seem to have been VERY choosy in what they looked at . . . for example, in relation to osteosarcoma (a debilitating cancer of the bones), they ONLY looked at under-25s (whose overall exposure will be limited by their age) and over 50s (many of whom will have lived relatively fluoride-free lives . . . at least until being forced to accept it in their tap-water). This seems ridiculously biased, and so it goes on, with multiple examples of dodgy statistics (all "adjusted" to make them look better, of course).
But there is one of these . . . one that they gloss over in their declaration of "safety", that exposes them. Perhaps it is the most telling point of ALL in this study . . . and that is overall mortality (death rates) between the two groups.
The Fluoridated group had an INCREASED MORTALITY RATE of 5% above that of the non-fluoridated group.
Yes, 5% MORE deaths in those who drank fluoride-laced water (and again, this study ignores fluoride from other sources, like toothpaste, which may have artificially raised the death rate in the "non-fluoridated" group).
So there you have it folks . . . "safe and effective", or more correctly "only kills 5% more people and is of no benefit at all".
It really goes back to the question that SHOULD have been asked by anyone who read that headline . . .
"Safe" - compared to what, and "effective" at doing what?
The answers to that my friends just might entice you to look into the rabbit hole. Happy digging!