In fluoride in Community water supplies and its effect on oral health and other physical results, Jonathan Milne has not been informed of the current research.
I fully reject the bad and largely RFK JR conspiracies for vaccines and other clinically proven medicinal products, but has rightly opposed fluoridation, especially with reference to increased concern about the effect of fluoride on the developing brain.
The required mechanical and continuous expenses required
A 2015 BECA report on engineering requirements for a fluoride plant includes fluoride analyzer, chemical delivery area, equipment housing, building services, showering showers, fluoride dosage control, mechanical research, fluoride flow meter, upgrading of drainage systems, upgrading systems. The PLC system, the operator’s benefits, the neighborhood/forklift for handling requirements, the upgrading of safety, the full -time workshop, equipment, protective protection equipment, power supply/upgrade access, access vehicles, installing a service water system and possible land market.
Possible requirements include the training of operators, waste disposal, operating procedures, emergency plans and increased monitoring and reporting.
Estimated, let’s say that twenty years of operating expenses must be calculated for fluoride chemicals, other required chemical additives, salaries, salaries or contracts, maintenance and depreciation.
These requirements may seem that the cost of installing and maintaining the acquisition of fluoridation across the country is huge with the Christchurch City Council, estimating only $ 63 million for the fluorescent water supply.
On a national scale that inflates in hundreds of millions of dollars and the question should be asked what benefit?
Essentially no dental benefit from fluoridation
Two recent published UK studies, an updated Cochrane libraries and the latest 5 -year -old statistics in this country show that there is very little or no benefit for dental health by swallowing fluoride from fluoridized community water and other studies show that there is a measurable development.
The catfish study compared children from two parts of the Cumbria, one with artificial fluorization (on average about 0.9 mg/l) and the other without.
The study found that in the case of children, they followed since they were born, fluoridation made a moderate difference with 4% fewer children who drank fluorid water with apparent decomposition on their baby’s teeth.
Although there was a difference of similar size (3%) in children in the older school group with permanent teeth, there was not enough evidence to determine whether this difference was accidentally achieved.
The report states that other ways of preventing teeth decomposition can be better now that the use of fluoride toothpaste is so common and tooth decay levels are much lower than it was 40 years ago.
The study failed to show a significant additional decrease in caries for deprived children, so fluoridation did not reduce inequalities.
A newer study using 10 years of dental files of 6.4 million adults in England has essentially found a decrease in teeth decomposition for those living in fluoridated areas, no evidence that fluoridation has reduced social inequalities and no reduction in the number. It is the largest study ever carried out on the effectiveness of fluoridation for adult dental health.
This Lotus study was published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, funded by the United Kingdom Ministry of Health and led by researchers at the University of Manchester. It was intended to inform policy makers of what to expect for future dental and economic results if the government chose to expand fluoridation across England. Currently, only 10% of England is fluoridized.
The study found that “extremely small” reductions in caries that most people would not consider meaning.
An economic cost-benefit analysis found that individuals would benefit greatly annually in dental spending and the authors warned that the recovery of costs from expansion is unlikely and that their financial analysis did not take into account that if the capital of expansion costs were to be expanded.
In October 2024, the Cochrane Library, which is particularly respected for independent revisions of health interventions, published an up -to -date evaluation of water fluorization to prevent dental caries.
After a thorough search and review of the studies available, he concluded that modern elements do not show a reduction in cavities above 4%and there may be no benefit at all.
The latest study by 2022 has found a decrease in only 0.16 reduced teeth estimated as an amount so small that it was a questionable clinical or public value and possibly net financial loss rather than benefit.
The main conclusions of the Cochrane report were:
• Adding fluoride to water can slightly increase the number of children who have no teeth decomposition either in their baby’s teeth or permanent teeth. (However, these results also included the possibility of small or no difference in teeth wear).
• It could not be guaranteed if the addition of fluoride to the water reduced tooth decay to the permanent teeth of the children.
• It was also not certain whether there were effects on the decomposition of the teeth when fluoride was removed from water supply. and
• It was also not sure if fluoride reduces the differences in teeth decomposition between richer and poorer people.
The report has only identified 22 acceptable quality studies in children and no one in adults, underlining the lack of studies of high quality of fluoride efficacy despite the claims of the fluoride promotion that there are thousands of studies and that its effectiveness has been proven.
With the power of this country’s Health General Manager to direct local authorities to Community communities of 500 population or more, hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent wasted on almost no benefits and the expansion of practice could not lead to dental savings.
In this country
Thus, the fully biased is the Ministry of Health for the fluoridation that the contract that forged the establishment of the former National Fluoride Intelligence Service included a requirement that the service “… does not act in any way that it can contradict or be incompatible with its politics and its policy They will not activate the convenience.
Three cognitive prejudices clearly apply to decision -making for the ministry on fluoridation. It is that it has a strong tendency for excessive dependence on pre -existing information, avoiding information that challenges its beliefs and searching for ways that support existing beliefs.
On the contrary, she contradicts her own information.
In a national average, the last data of the Ministry (2023) by the Ministry’s dental service show that for 5 years old, 16,020 children from non -fluoridated areas had a slightly better dental health than 18,259 from fluoridized areas with reference to both the percentage and percentage.
Why then did the Minister of Finance, Hon Nicola Willis come in and stopped extremely waste of hundreds of millions of dollars for the irrelevant fluoride infrastructure, operation, maintenance and depreciation?
As far as this country is concerned, Jonathan Milne refers to the 20 -year -old Lee/Dennison study in Canterbury and Wellington as a leading fluoridation study, but this study was criticized as incorrect.
Among the serious defects in the study was that the history of fluoridation of the subjects was not known (nor if they used fluoride toothpaste or not), two of the communities interrupted by fluoride agents during the lifetime of the subjects, there was no fortune, there was no standard of reliability.
Fluoride as neurotoxin
There are now increasingly powerful research indications that fluoridated water can damage the growing brain and cause reduced IQs in children and this is a particularly risk for developing fetus when consumed by the mother.
The financial cost of such an effect on a national scale could certainly speed up the cost of filling some cavities.
Following a 7 -year legal battle in the federal court, a historical ruling by the US Federal Court of the Northern District of California ordered the US Environmental Protection Service (EPA) to take regulatory action to eliminate the “irrational risk” of the health of children.
The court found that water fluoridation at a concentration of 0.7 parts per million (the level currently considered “optimal” in the US) has an irrational risk of reduced IQ in children – especially for very young people – and that this risk was enough to require EPA to determine a regulatory reaction.
The concentration of fluoride in the community fluorization of the county water is on average of about 0.85 parts per million.
[Judge Chen’s findings of fact and conclusions of law can be found at:
]
This valid decision should make it necessary for the Director General of Health to immediately redefine the local authorities to cease the development of the fluoride infrastructure, which were forced to take over the health provisions (fluoridation of drinking water) Act 2021.
Fluoride systems currently operate should also be ordered to stop, at least the principle of precaution.
If you do not do this, it will be a strong breach of duty by a responsible employee and the abolition of the Hippocratic principle of non -physicality, as incorporated by the phrase “first, does not hurt”.
Four global experts who told California Court on the neurotoxic effect of fluoride in the developing brain and their consent is that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk to human health associated with human health.
The evidence on these issues were presented to the Parliament’s Health Selection Committee, which reported to the House to fluorize the drinking water account, but was ignored.
Conclusion
Tooth decay rates in all developed countries have been dramatically reduced since the 1970s. Only some countries are fluoridized, so fluoridation cannot be the reason.
Fluoring does not need to continue. More public money will be saved by stopping fluoridation than by expanding it.
The above evidence can only be concluded that the voluntary and sad ignorance of fluoride issues is endemic to the Ministry of Health and this transfers to announcements of gross misinformation by the Ministry, the Minister, the General Manager and the General Manager.
There is no doubt that fluoridation will eventually be forced to stop in New Zealand through public pressure on both public health and economic reasons, the faster the better happens.
