Browsing in a bookshop I came across a Merck Manual of Medical Information and I looked up Fluoride. What I read was really ignorant stuff. If this is the information doctors and dentists have to go by, small wonder they start to pooh, pooh the concerns on fluoride toxicity as it is not in 'their' manual.
Here is this Manual entry on fluoride.
Take note:
1 Nowhere is stated that fluoride is a powerful poison.
2 The claim that fluoride is necessary for the formation and health of bones and teeth is false. Calcium is needed for healthy bones and teeth, not fluoride, which is toxic to teeth and bones.
3 The claim that fluoride deficiency can lead to tooth decay and possibly osteoporosis is also false. Fluoride deficiency does not exist. The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy spells this out as follows: 'a deficiency state (of fluoride) reversed by the mineral alone, has not been induced.' This means that fluoride is not needed for healthy bones and teeth. (Claim 2)and that poor oral health is not caused by the absence of fluoride.
4 Therefore, the claim that ingesting fluoride either by adding fluoride to drinking water or by using fluoride supplements would significantly reduce the risks of tooth decay is a fantasy.
There is quite some fake research to back up this fantasy. For example a research comparing Townsville (fluoridated) with Brisbane (un-fluoridated) showing that Townsville had much better oral health. This research is invalid. Why?
Here is the reason: it has been found by genuine research that oral health is linked to socioeconomic background. People in higher socioeconomic strata teach their children more consistently to clean their teeth regularly and how to clean. So, a comparison of town people versus other town people should compare like with like. This means comparing groups of same gender, same age, same socioeconomic background etc. from both towns. This was not done in the Townsville/Brisbane study.
The research Townsville versus Brisbane seems initially to do everything right: selected groups according to gender, age, socioeconomic background etc. But when it came to statistical analysis everything was grouped together and the figures that were produced represented anonymous teeth. This way you can prove anything you like by mixing socioeconomic backgrounds. It makes this research invalid.
On the other hand, a recent South Australian research comparing fluoridated areas versus un-fluoridated areas showed no statistical differences in oral health when like was compared with like. This meant comparing groups of same gender, same age, same socioeconomic background etc. in fluoridated areas with same groups in un-fluoridated areas. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2004.html
There is a long history of fake research in relation to fluoride. It all started in the 1940's with the Manhattan Project to make the nuclear bomb. See this web site, go to 'Vested interests in water fluoridation' and scroll down to the end.
5 In the paragraph on 'Fluoride Excess' we find another false claim. Here it is claimed that too much fluoride can lead to mottled teeth (dental fluorosis). Not to worry about that, it is only an appearance thing and the enamel would be even more resistant to cavities. This is completely wrong. It turns out that dental fluorosis weakens tooth enamel. Research in Tucson showed that more fluoride in the water supply led to more cavities, not less. This was confirmed in a more recent study. Go to the section 'Teeth' of this web site and scroll down to the Tucson study or see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/news/26.html
The entry on fluoride in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy is more realistic than the one in the Manual of Medical Information. At last we find toxicity mentioned.
However, here too we find errors. For example, there is a strong suggestion that fluoride is only weakly toxic: only communities drinking water with more than 10 parts per million (ppm) would be adversely affected. This is quite wrong as in India research found that communities ingesting water containing 0.5 ppm were adversely affected.
Furthermore, what is here completely missing is the realisation that over time fluoride is accumulating inside the body. So, no matter how little you ingest regularly, over time it is going to have an effect. In this respect our internal environment is not much different from that of fish swimming in polluted waters and getting very toxic over time. And the more toxic our bodies become, the more we become prone to serious health conditions.
We had already a look at this phony fluoride deficiency. It would be interesting to know the spacious reasoning of this Food and Nutrition Board as to why they ignored a sound scientific criterion and how they arrived at this deficiency idea. It would seem that if you are no longer dealing with scientific criteria that you step right into a world of fantasy
But the clincher is that the entries in both manuals are no longer relevant as dental research in the last 20 years has found that fluoride's working is on the surface of the enamel. On the outside of your teeth. This is called a topical working. In other words it is fluoridated toothpaste you need if you want any benefit from fluoride. There is no point in swallowing fluoride and getting it throughout your whole system. This is called a systemic working. The phony fluoride deficiency was about a systemic working.
See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topial-systemic.html
Since the real thing is the topical activity of fluoride, water fluoridation has been called obsolete by a Nobel Prize winner. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlson-interview.html
The experience in Europe confirms this. In Europe there is an almost total absence of water fluoridation, but fluoridated toothpaste is widely used and oral health is good. In April 2003 over 40 years of water fluoridation in Basel, Switzerland was terminated as ineffective. There are even studies showing that cavity rates improved when fluoridation ended, while in New York teeth are rotting away with plenty of water fluoridation since 1965.
See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/1154.html
13 January 2006
Mr Mark H. Beers, MD
Editor-in-Chief
The Merck Manual of
Medical Information
Merck Research Laboratories
Division of Merck & Co, Inc
Whitehouse Station, N JDear Mr Beers,
Recently I came across the Merck Manual of Medical Information, second home edition (2003) of which you claim to be the Editor-in-Chief. Looking up 'fluoride' I couldn't believe what I was reading. Nowhere is stated or indicated that fluoride is a strong poison.
If, on the other hand you would look up fluoride in the Merck Index, then its poisonous nature is clearly spelled out. Also, in the Merck Veterinary Manual is a section on fluoride poisoning. But the Manual on Medical Information is silent about this. And this omission is repeated in the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. This is extraordinary. Are doctors, dentists and the general public supposed not to know about the toxicity of fluoride? Why is this so?
Besides, the whole entry on fluoride is nonsensical. It is claimed in the Medical Information Manual that fluoride deficiency can lead to tooth decay and possibly to osteoporosis. Yet the Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy tells us that 'fluorine is not considered an essential mineral because a deficiency state, reversed by the mineral alone, has not been induced.' This is a sound scientific criterion. It is unclear why this criterion is referred to in the Manual as the view from some authorities. It is more likely that most authorities would support a sound scientific criterion.
In the same paragraph is stressed that a Food and Nutrition Board considers fluoride essential for the prevention of dental decay. Well, you can't have it both ways: either a mineral is essential and a deficiency can cause x, y, z symptoms, or it is not essential. As there is no deficiency state of fluoride, it is clearly not essential. This is borne out by the experience in Europe, where there is good oral health without water fluoridation.
There is another reason why 'fluoride deficiency' is an absurdity. The toxicity of fluoride is caused by fluoride playing havoc with enzyme systems at all levels. Enzymes are biological facilitators of biochemical reactions, which form the basis of all life processes. So, fluoride is a spanner in the works at all levels.
Fluoride accumulates over time inside your body and your internal environment becomes steadily more and more toxic. Not surprisingly therefore, fluoride has been implicated in many adverse health effects. See: http://www.fluorideaction.net/health One of these adverse health effects is mottled teeth. They are a symptom of low level fluoride poisoning. It is extraordinary to find nothing on these basic facts in your Medical Manual. But there is more: since the last twenty years the thinking about fluoride's action has changed. It is presently thought that the main effect of fluoride is topical (toothpaste) and not from ingesting (systemic) as the entries of your manuals suggests.
If I may quote: 'Laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominantly after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.'
US Centers for Disease Control in 1999.
See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html
So, by the standards of the US Centers for Disease Control the entries of both manuals you are the Editor-in-Chief of are years out of date. I hope they will very soon be replaced with up to date information, including the toxicity of fluoride.
Meanwhile we put this letter on our website. See http://www.rag.org.au scroll down to fluoride and click. Then on the main menu click on Misinformation.
Yours sincerely,
Heimen Julius
Brisbane, Australia
For: Residents Opposing Water Fluoridation
Response from Merck
27 Jan 2006
Response to above letter
8 February 2006
Mr Mark Beers MD
Merck &Co.,Inc
PO Box 4, UN-D100
West Point PA 19486-0004
USADear Mr Beers,
Thank you for your letter of 27 January 2006.
In the first paragraph of your letter you state that both manuals (of Medical Information; and of Diagnosis and Therapy) describe medical conditions. It is therefore unclear why the following medical conditions were left out:
Severe symptoms have occurred from ingestion of less than one gram; death from 5 to 10 gram. Acute ingestion of large doses may lead to abrupt abdominal pain, intense vomiting and diarrhea, hematemesis and melena, dehydration and thirst. This is followed by symptoms of systemic toxicity including muscular weakness, convulsions, tetany; lethargy, coma, respiratory arrest, arrhythmia, hypotension, cardiovascular collapse; hypocalcemia, hypomagnesia, hypokalemia; metabolic and/or respiratory acidosis; albuminuria, anuria. Chronic ingestion may cause mottling of tooth enamel and osteosclerosis. See clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, R.E. Gosselin et al., Eds (Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 5th ed., 1984) Section III pp 185-193.
This text was literally taken from the Merck Index. Any doctor or dentist who would read this would immediately understand that fluoride is a powerful poison. But in the Medical Information manual nothing is said about the poisonous nature of fluoride. Why not? This omission is what I have called misinformation.
All there is in this manual are mottling of teeth which is dismissed as an appearance thing (wrong!) And occurring rarely, dense but weak bones and abnormal bone growth in case too much fluoride is consumed. That is all and this is clearly not good enough as many doctors and dentists haven't a clue what you are talking about if you state that fluoride is a strong poison.
And then there is this phoney fluoride deficiency. In your view I had selectively misquoted. Yes, did I? Let us see. The text of the Diagnosis and Therapy manual states: "Some authorities do not consider fluorine an essential mineral because a deficiency state, reversed by the mineral alone, has not been induced."
For a start these 'some authorities' are clearly members of the scientific community. And their view is very clear: a deficiency state of fluoride has not been found.
Then the text continues with 'However, the Food and Nutrition Board of etc., etc., considers fluorine essential for the prevention of dental caries and possible osteoporosis.' Why? On what grounds? This is precisely what is missing. So, your claim that the text describes a disagreement is hollow. Only of you set out the grounds of this Food and Nutrition Board against the argument of the scientific community, then you can claim that you describe a disagreement. But this is not done. Instead the scientific view is dismissed and the view of the Food and Nutrition Board is pontificated as the correct one: there is a fluoride deficiency. In your letter you state that the matter (disagreement) is not settled, but I did not find this in the text of the manual. On the contrary fluoride deficiency is stated as fact in the Medical Information manual. This is what I called misinformation.
In the last paragraph of your letter you claim that 'we do not advocate for or against the addition of fluoride in drinking water' etc., etc. Then why was the severe toxicity of fluoride left out of your manuals? Only if you advocate water fluoridation and make common cause with some vested interests, the omission makes sense. But if this is not the case, then I strongly suggest that you update your manuals with an additional text such as you find in the Merck Index.
Also, you could add that modern thinking about fluoride as a dental prophylactic is that it should be used topical (toothpaste) and that because of the toxicity of fluoride it should not be ingested.
Yours sincerely,
Heimen Julius
