Dr Stanfield, please consider where I see opportunity to tighten up your logic here in a way that I believe points to different recommendations than the current video: 1) the fact that the study finding ill effects was done at higher concentrations than the US water system recommendations neither proves nor disproves safety at the lower concentrations... it's not been study, so it's safety is in question at those levels to begin with, even more so when you consider the following, 2) just as the positive effects of flouride have fallen from 25% to 4% most likely due to the use of flouride in toothpastes leading to much more non-water sourced exposure to the benefits, so too for the potential harms. thus, the levels in US water are not accounting for the exposure from toothpaste added to the water exposure. what's needed is comparisons of the various permutations of the most prevelant flouride exposure to try to find a sweet spot of benefit/risk. 3) how long were the studies done at about 2-3X the level of US water recommendations? Months? A few years? How does this compare to a lifetime of exposure to flouridated water? so, I think the most reasonable conclusion is there are benefits to flouride but also levels at which it is harmful, and we currently do not know where those levels where harm seems to be tipping the scale, AND we do not know at what level of flouride in the water for how much time those dangerous levels are reached in the very varied context of other flouride exposure to individuals. Again, please consider this, let me know if you agree/disagree re the basic logic, and consider doing an updated video if you agree. Thanks!
Yes, they have tested that. Do you think you are such a genius that you're the only person to have thought of this? Really you people are beyond arrogant.
No I don’t think I’m a genius for suggesting that. Just trying to be accurate scientifically. If they have rigorously tested for that, show me the test results and what they used to accurately measure it.
Just an FYI, there are only three provinces in Canada that still put flouride in their water. Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba. I live in BC, Canada and we do not have flouride in our water, I have no idea if it makes a difference or not, I only bring this up because Canada was lumped in with the States as having flouride added to the water, which is less than 50% correct.
@@thebigpicture2032 We nixed it way back in 1975 for tax costs and ethical issues. It was a big deal at the time. I was in grade 8 and remember it as huge news.
I had no idea! Thanks for informing us. I was under the impression that we had it in all provinces. I'm on the border of ON (I have a well, not city water)/QC and at my apt in the city (Montreal West) I've installed an expensive filtration system to remove fluoride for nothing! LOL. At least I get good filtered water overall.
Flouridated products (toothpaste, mouthwash, dentist visits, etc) are widespread and cheap enough to supplement fluoride to our health regimen. Sure, there are fluoride filters for drinking water, but what about our bathing water, irrigated water for crops/food, and other sources that use the water that we consume? Mass medication is not the solution in today's age since fluoridated toothpaste is so readily and cheaply available.
Maybe they are cheap enough for you, but there are poor people who can't afford these products. Regardless, the data clearly doesn't support RFK and the people he has fooled
Rather than adding fluoride to water, have you wonder what causes to cavities teeth? That’s big question My answer is mostly high carbs diet They should removing carbs rather than adding fluoride
@@xamantiwari Sure, though I think you will have an easier time removing something people are not addicted to, rather than trying to change their diets. Remove flouride from public drinking water and let people choose if they want to add it back to their health regimen.
At around 5:30, Brad says that IQ effects are seen at over 1.5 mg/L, but US water only has 0.75 mg/L and that's "MUCH LESS" That isn't much less, that's about half. From a pharmacology view, that's very close indeed.
@@Alex-zm8ss Wild! I don't know that pharmacological effects are always linear. But if we ask whether we'd rather have great teeth or a normal IQ, just look at Hollywood.....
@@Alex-zm8ss Dosage effects are often not linear. This is not a good assumption at all. Also, 1 - 3 points of IQ loss is going to require a very high powered experiment to prove, that's well within a normal error margin for IQ tests.
As said in the video, if direct contact produces the best results, then it should only be in oral hygiene products. Also, in the video it failed to mention when originally discovered, were the people drinking from a well? Nature has a way to balance itself, so it is possible that other minerals in that water helped prevent any negative side effects of fluoride, especially since the amounts were high enough to stain teeth. Most water now is filtered and then anti-bacterial agents are added, it is stripped of many beneficial nutrients.
Basing fluoride safety levels solely on the amount in one liter of water is fundamentally flawed, as it ignores the reality of how people consume water and other sources of fluoride. Individuals drink vastly different amounts of water depending on their age, activity level, and climate, meaning one person could ingest several times more fluoride than another even with the same water supply. Furthermore, fluoride is present in numerous other sources, such as tea, processed foods, and dental products, contributing significantly to total intake. For example, a single cup of tea can contain up to 3-4 mg of fluoride, meaning just a few cups combined with fluoridated water can easily exceed safe daily limits, quickly leading to dangerous levels of fluoride exposure and increasing the risk of dental or skeletal fluorosis. A one-size-fits-all water standard fails to account for these variables, making it an oversimplified and imprecise measure of fluoride exposure.
Just buy a filter. That way, poorer more vulnerable individuals can still have the benefit of fluoride in drinking water, and you can avoid it with a filter.
Brad. I’m very surprised that you think from a pharmacological aspect 1.5mg/L is toxic but only half that is safe. Not a large safety margin. We have no biological need for fluoride so it is against informed consent to add it to water. The effects are considered to be topical so just use a toothpaste and reduce sugar intake. Have a look at the dental caries graphs for countries that don’t fluoridate. They are also in decline.
In a recent Federal Court case (Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. EPA) The court ruled that the current recommended level of fluoride in drinking water in the United States (0.7 milligrams per liter, or mg/L) poses an unreasonable risk to public health. The court found that the EPA had not adequately addressed the risks of fluoride, especially to the developing brains of infants.
The issue is not directly fluoride in water, some crops like tea concentrate fluoride in water, and therein lies the risk. There are plenty of studies that discuss the negative health effects of daily consuming teas that were once irrigated by fluorinated water.
It’s not medication it poison, its not the normal fluoride found in spring water, it’s waste from Aluminium manufacturing which is poisonous, toxic and shouldn’t be on the planet let alone in our water. It Is a disgrace and the people that are allowing it should go to prison for 20years.
@@LiterallyaFacePalm just because it's a mineral, doesn't mean it's safe. There are lots of natural things that are not safe. Hell, even vitamins can be unsafe. There is nothing that should be forcefully given to people in tap water without consent or proper dosage. Vitamin A is healthy and natural and necessary, but if we put it in the tap water, some people might get hypervitaminosis. "It's a freaking mineral" is not even rometely an intelligent argument
The body also needs electrolytes, but I agree that fluoride isn't convincingly necessary. And definitely not the heavy metals, agrochemicals, and petro based compounds permeating the US water supply.
Like I said. I only want water. not bacteria and viruses. you can kill them both at a water treatment facility by using intense UV exposure. you can only help reduce them at your home by using the same method.
Its actually pretty easy in order to consume enough fluoride to be dangerous at 0.7ppm you need to absorb somehow either by skin or mouth 500 liters of water for a average male of 70kg in an short span of time, would be in around of few hours. Now if for some reason the fluoride in your system accumulates (WHICH IS NO THE CASE FOR 99.999% of people out there), by consuming around 3liter of tap water per day it would take you 250 days to achieve acute toxicity levels by the WHO. It takes healthy kidneys from 3 to 10 hours to get rid of the fluoride in your body, that is why the acute accumulation of fluoride is very rare. There you go now you have been educated.
Hmmm. 1.5mg/L in drinking water has been shown to cause decrease in IQ in children, but half that amount, 0.7mg/L is perfectly fine. In order to prove that in children, the time frame tested has to be limited. What about doubling the time, or tripling it? What about an adult that has been drinking fluoridated water his whole life? Consuming any of the halogen's is not healthy. I understand the rationale for that in drinking water, but the need for fluoride in water nowadays is dubious. How do we know the benefits of flouride in drinking water in poorer populations is an acceptable risk? Let's see, 4% less cavities in children compared with unknown potential IQ compromise in the future. I am not discounting the fact that people can struggle financially, but you have to be pretty poor to not even be able to afford the cheapest toothpaste. Cheap toothbrushes are like a buck for a 3 pack.
This guy in the video is propaganda pusher. It’s been proven beyond reasonable doubt IN COURT recently. Yet he stands here spewing nonsense. Our water shouldn’t be medicated. Period.
While you (and the study) are talking about concentration, RFKjr is talking about long term effect/accumulation. I didn't look into the details of the study, but I question its validity against the latter. If a low concentration Flouride is shown to be non-harmful but higher ones does, it's almost certainly a BIG red warning: what if you drink lots of water? What if there are other sources of Flouride intake besides water? If Flouride is harmful above certain level, then it likely means it relies on the liver (or other organs) to do the detox job. Why add to the work load? What if there are other toxins in modern society that also relys on liver to work harder? It's not only an accumulation effect of one toxins over time, but also such accumulation over different toxins. Rather than to argue and get confused here, simple: just find alternatives w/o toxicity and get rid of Flouride! You're talking about science, but you need to look and think deeper!
It's fluoride, not flouride fyi. It doesn't accumulate to the body. It's a ion which is present in natural water as part of a salt, like chlorine, or sodium for example. Honestly, your comment show little understanding, while I get your concern on a long-term point of view. But the fact is that there is no need to add fluoride into water. Preventing cavities can and should be done by preventing eating food with large amount of sweet. In bonus, you reduce diabetes and other metabolic disease, which fluoride won't prevent. America tend to try solving problem by piling others problems instead of fixing root causes.
@@anykeyh You rightfully identified that I'm not an expert on the topic of F, not even writing the word correctly (thx for the spelling check). And I'm NOT pretending to be one! BUT, in the end you basically agree with my opinion on simply avoiding this F thing. Why? You don't need to be an expert in this world on every topic but still has the capability to easily pinpoint who is (more) right and wrong. You just need some logic and commen sense! Dr Brad and many others' issue is they think they know the topic well and claim to be experts, but they are blinded by the forest. By being picky on my use of word "accumulation" but ignoring the word before ("long term effect", I put there because long term effect is a superset or more general form of accumulation and I'm not sure if F is accumulative or not, but I'm 100% certain that its effect is accumulative as long as you continusly providing F into your body, and that is what REALLY matters!) and pointing out my lack of chemical knowledges, unfortunately, almost put you into the same group. This is the same behavior that some people, particularly so called scientists (I was a scientist and not proud of being identified with many of such CURRENT scientists, they are arrogant and smart on a narrow subject but stupid on big pictures) are so against RFKjr being the head of HHS. While, I'm glad that in the end you basically reached the same conclusion as I'm: just avoid this F thing! So you're on the boarder wall, science is not literal, it's logic and understanding! Jump down and you're welcome! And I like your comment on america's solving one issues by adding 10 more issues. RFKjr is not a scientist, but more trustworthy than many, many so called scientists, because he is smart, logical and more importantly, he is brave to stand out at this age with his wealth.
The reason processed food is “bad” is because its hyper palatable and we overconsume. We cant just say processed food is bad. Lots of respect dr. Brad, would love to hear more of your thoughts on that!
Rather than adding fluoride to water, have you wonder what causes to cavities teeth? That’s big question My answer is mostly high carbs diet They should removing carbs rather than adding fluoride
Dear Dr Brad, good line of argumentation, but I have to clarify that we do not add fluoride to our salt and milk in Germany as a standard. They are the food products where producers can!! add fluoride if they declare it. But only a tiny fraction does. That was a misunderstanding. We do not add fluoride anywhere on a regular basis.
I don't think the Cochrane review is any good at all for controversial studies. It's not reliable. Contrarian reviews and studies are not incorporated necessarily in Cochrane reviews
I don't think Cochrane reviews are at all great. Mainstream institutions or processes rarely deal with controversial health issues. They are either too scared, ignorant, judgemental of the black sheep research or don't look Deep enough around the world for contrarian views
We do not know how much fluoride people are consuming in total since it comes from many sources such as in as in pesticides, toothpaste, firtilizers etc.. It is irresponsible. to dispense medication to everyone without being able to control the dosage received.
I used to drink a LOT of water as a kid and now my teeth are damaged from fluorosis. I'd much rather get fluoride from toothpaste/mouthwash, that way it's easier to control the dose.
Professor Phillipe Grandjean who is a giant in the field was frozen out of Harvard beacause he didn't sign a contract that prevented him from doing research in flouride there. He is thoroughly against the decision to add flouride to the drinking water. I know him personally. With large names at Harvard advocating for the decision and 3M (one of the largest producers of PFAS) providing substantial funding, It should be quite clear why they asked him to sign the contract. The benefits from adding flouride to the water are minimal. I cannot comprehend why you would take the risk with a compound that has been clearly demonstrated to cause harm. It's difficult to robustly identify effects at lower concentrations for any compound. As an epidemiologist myself I know that we do not have perfect sensitivity in our studies, especially when the outcome is difficult to meassure and the test for the effector is expensive and imprecise. Regardless i look forward to visiting Harvard medical school later in my PhD. I have no respect for JFK jr.
I’ve had fluorosis for as long as I can remember and never knew what it was. The hygienist I’ve seen over the years always said they didn’t know what was causing the browning. Now I know why. The more fluoride I intake the more visits to the dentist. Very clever.
The one thing this doctor doesnt consider is that fluoride isnt just in water supplies and dental products, residual fluoride is also in countless food products, cosmetic products, and other products that use water supplies for their production. People and animals are consuming WAY above maximum contamination levels. The risks outweigh the benefits.
Agreed. I started filtering out the flouride from my home and my goiters have reduced almost completely. The thyroid is drastically under researched. The radiation from all our phones really does a lot of damage as well.
Fluoride At 1.5 MG/L IQ loss was about 2-5 points. Fluoride At .75MG/L (Half the dose) we could be looking at 1-3 Points of IQ loss. Leaded Gas caused on average 3 points of IQ loss.
Rather than adding fluoride to water, have you wonder what causes to cavities teeth? That’s big question My answer is mostly high carbs diet They should removing carbs rather than adding fluoride
Former US health provider here who also has an MPH...First, thank you for an always-great overview, along with some research specifics, of this issue. Second, I have some key questions about a few related issues to which I'd like to see answers--if they are known--and I'd also like to see some other studies, if any, to arrive at a much better informed decision. However, from what I already knew and from what you presented, I would lean towards ceasing to add fluoride to drinking water. There are certainly potential negatives--and we have certainly seen where the WHO has sometimes been wrong, and thus I don't fully trust their recommendations and toxicity level standards. From what I've read, it is estimated that the cost of fluoridation of drinking water is approximately 50 cents per person per year in typical areas, and in communities of under 10,000 people that the cost rises to about $2.30-3/person/year. So, there is also the cost--though studies claim an ROI of about $20-30 saved on dental care for every dollar spent for fluoride added to water...THOUGH ROI calculation (even if correct) is ONLY related to future dental care savings and does NOT include potential negatives, like possible IQ loss ramifications, increased bone fragility, etc. and also, not only the potential morbidity/mortality associated with them, but also the costs thereof). With a heavy environmental science background, I'm also concerned about the issue of bioaccumulation in crops watered with fluoridated water, not to mention runoff from all the homes and industrial complexes that goes into the ground and our waterways. Next, I'm concerned anytime the government--or industry--decides what's best for everyone and mass medicates. A moral/ethical and legal question would be when it violates our rights and the extent to which government has a right to do this...and I would argue very rarely to none. Additionally, that's a very slippery slope, as they say, which makes one wonder if/when depression/anxiety/etc. reaches a certain percentage in the general population, if government would also feel it's correct to step in and start adding SSRI's (Zoloft, Prozac, etc.) to the drinking supply--or milk, or salt, etc.. Also, it seems from the studies presented in this excellent video, that water fluoridation creates fairly small benefits for both baby teeth (which people obviously lose anyway...but, of course, any cavity increase from removing fluoride would increase societal costs for the dental care, infections, or any other sequelae), and permanent teeth. And, when this video states that certain home filters can remove fluoride from drinking water, that causes one to estimate what the cost this would impose on Americans who choose to filter since we all know that good water filters are not cheap, usually need to be regularly replaced, and then go into landfills. Finally, from the studies it appears that the FAR more effective approach, which also virtually eliminates potential toxicity--since we spit during brushing and don't swallow the toothpaste--is to brush regularly with fluoride toothpaste. So...bottom line...from what I knew already of healthcare, environmental science, ROI, and the studies presented here, I'd vote to remove all fluoride from drinking water. Dr. Stanfield is to be commended for his work in underserved areas, and we need more wonderful, caring people like him, and it's important to consider "marginal" and less affluent and underserved communities, and so in the savings we would experience from not continuing to fluoridate the water, I would be fine with providing "subsidies" to those communities in the form of free fluoridated toothpaste and toothbrushes and educational programs to encourage regular brushing. (Truly, dental care is important and NOT just a cosmetic and dental cost issue. Studies consistently show that even basic dental self-care, of brushing well even just once daily, will add several years to a person's life.) I found it interesting what one Canadian lady posted below about there only being three main cities in Canada which still fluoridate their water, and thus, I'd love to see if studies (for the areas that stopped putting fluoride in water) have been done pre- and post-fluoridation which track cavities, dental problems, and cost thereof in those populations. And, I do support many of RFK, Jr.'s efforts to improve our health and to question many things the government thinks it has a right to suggest, and even legally order, for us. Studies overwhelmingly demonstrate the danger--as Dr. Stanfield points out here--of overly processed foods, high sugar and salt consumption, etc., and yet unless we prepare everything at home with fresh produce, canned goods often have high sugar and salt content, and fast foods and frozen foods have terrible ingredients and poor nutritional value. Additionally, people need to wise up to the old adage of "everything but in moderation" and quit stuffing their mouths and get off their butts and exercise reguarly. No one forces us to make bad food choices (including smoking) and to be sedentary...but, in fairness, the whole food industry is stacked against us with mostly unhealthy products, AND it's criminal to offer all the highly sugared and salted breakfast cereals and snacks that corporations offer for kids, along with billions yearly spent on ad campaigns that lure them into hugely unhealthy choices...that follow them into adulthood. For instance...why does the food industry add sugar and salt, at all, and certainly in the high amounts it does, to baby food. The babies wouldn't know the difference...EXCEPT that it gets their tastebuds used to the later adult food that they'll eat which is also loaded with sugar and salt and which they will then naturally crave and assume that it's "natural" and the way things SHOULD taste. A long post...sorry...but I do have a huge background in all of these issues, and it's such an important, multi-factorial problem. And, if we don't educate and look after ourselves and assume that responsibility for safe, healthy, smart, cost-effective choices in water, food, and everything else in our lives--including the way the US government regularly steals from Social Security--we can rest assured that the government and industry won't care and, in fact, will take advantage of us. Government and industry do NOT have our best interests at heart and, in reality, collude to take advantage of us. My best to everyone!
There is a class war going on in the United States and this is just part of it. Fluoridation of water benefits the whole society, but especially those who aren’t buying fluoridated toothpaste. That is the economically challenged and the nutty wealthy. I don’t care about politics, but I do care about the effects on the populist based upon policies.
Its the fact that fluoride made it into a ton of things other than just the tap water. We are receiving many times the amount we are supposed to because it ends up in food, drinks, already was in dental products, etc. We see the same problem with the sources of microplastics, mercury, etc. Its not the natural occurrence that is the problem, its us messing with it artificially that ends up with 10s or 100s of times the concentrations we are supposed to get that are the problem.
Exactly; why are people so blind and deaf for common sense wtf. This apathy and intellectual snobism is why people got so sick in the first place. Aweful world with aweful people, especially in charge of health
I think the debate comes with how do you determine what chemicals and what is the load on the human system. Lets take a step back and consider. We used to play with mercury We used to put lead paint on kids toys until the 70s, not to mention how much we spewed in the air with leaded gasoline We used asbestos until the 90s We allowed smoking on airplanes until 2000 There are microplastics in your body as you are reading this right now. If we want to go the European route and add fluoride to salt or another alternative I am open to it. I just want to know we're not substituting one form of chemical blindness for another.
@@Ruktiet The reason people are so blind and deaf is because what's important is the reasoning that brought him to the conclusion. Just doing something for the sake of doing it doesn't make sense. And if you find this particular argument compelling from the commenter why isn't RFK making that argument? I can say it's 12 o'clock every hour and be right twice a day. Our public health officials should have basis for 'what' they are saying.
Its actually pretty easy in order to consume enough fluoride to be dangerous at 0.7ppm you need to absorb somehow either by skin or mouth 500 liters of water for a average male of 70kg in an short span of time, would be in around of few hours. Now if for some reason the fluoride in your system accumulates (WHICH IS NO THE CASE FOR 99.999% of people out there), by consuming around 3liter of tap water per day it would take you 250 days to achieve acute toxicity levels by the WHO. It takes healthy kidneys from 3 to 10 hours to get rid of the fluoride in your body, that is why the acute accumulation of fluoride is very rare.
@@Edpro01-z5d Thanks for the addition. And well put, acknowledging the concern and addressing it to a logical point with out being dismissive. Respect.
An interesting study from Denmark looked into other sources of flouride. They found high flouride in different brands of tea and recommended only one cup of tea per day for children and pregnant women. We do not add flouride in drinking water and have not done it for decades. We do however have fairly high flouride content in our drinking water already. To be honest, I see no point in adding it to drinking water. We will all be better off by investing in dental care in schools for challenged areas.
You are doing a marvelous job of trying your best to educate the masses here in the USA and in many parts of the world to adopt FACT and EVIDENCE-based recommendations, especially those related to HUMAN HEALTH. With the current political environment in the USA, there is so much misinformation being propagated by anti-establishment politicians it is outright dangerous for those who follow such nonsense
That's the problem....there is rarely fact based evidence..it's twisted and effected immensely by interests .. conflict of interest. Even the most mainstream and supposedly trusted evidence sources have become problematic in many instances
It's extremely hard to have fact based .. evidence based. Evidence is fractured across the globe in a manner never seen before, cultured by financial and other conflicts of interest. Whenever, I hear fact based evidence from a RUclipsr I don't get too excited.. because in reality it's so muddied and distorted. Discussing these kinds of things such as fluoride requires incredible detective work based on human behaviour, economic interests, the money trail, a wide range of evidence from literally everywhere
None of this matter as much as the fact that its unnecessary, and there are unknowns. end of story... We as the human race have a tendency to say "This is good" and want proof that its not. As opposed to "I don't need this unless there's proof that its effective, I actually have the problem it's design to treat, and more importantly that its safety is indisputable." Smoking was claimed as healthy once upon a time. So was drinking and eating uranium. When common sense and no science needed should tell one this is probably NOT healthy and and at the very least not something I need. As far as levels go the government has been historically incorrect on many. Look at vitamin D, and DHA, and Folic acid. Etc. So many severe diseases corrected by disregarding the approved "levels" and getting the proper amounts instead. In the US we had Fluoride in the water, at the same time Dentists prescribing chewable fluoride tablets like candy to pre-teens across the country, while at the same time we had fluoride in our toothpaste (which kids swallow), fluoride in bubble gum flavored mouth rinses (that kids swallow).. So much for "levels"..
Is it possible that the form of fluoride in Colorado water was different to the form found in toothpastes and drinking water? Calcium fluoride vs sodium fluoride vs hydrofluorosilicic acid, for example? And could those different forms have different effects (a) on tooth strength and (b) on other parts of the body, for good or ill?
The flouride in toothpaste is makes our teeth brittle in the long run (which causes more cavities in the long run). Hence, dentists that claim flouride is beneficial are not telling the truth in its entirety.
Fluoride was given to holocaust prisoners to pacify them. Fluoride also happens to be a byproduct of fertilizer production that is notoriously hard to dispose of.
First off, I think mass medicating is never a good idea. Everyone's talking about milligrams and parts per million as if the United States or any country has a universal standard. Sure, they may try to standardize the amount of fluoride, but the number will always be a variable. Fluoride is also not a nutrient like calcium or magnesium. You don’t need fluoride to live. Fluoride is also very reactive, and just to isolate fluoride for its health effects and not expand its ramifications is short sighted. And finally to suggest that we need fluoride in the water because people are poor is an extremely weak and misleading premise. You can get a tube for a dollar. And yes I understand people are in extreme poverty, but these same people can't even get clean water in the first place.
Excellent and balanced look in to certain claims using evidence. Whether or not one agrees with RFK Jr, he brings up issues that at the very least should be looked into as per good scientific evidence or at the very least anecdotal evidence. One subject I cannot find any real studies on is the effects of nuclear testing in the 1940s on child development, more specifically autism, ADD, and similar. My Dad was part of these battlefield tests in the early 1950s and he claims that these issues were not common before, including in our family (this includes how some children were simply diagnosed as "slow" or similar before these terms were common).
Thanks for this, but I believe that with modern life, the scope always has to be expanded. The antagonists to Iodine are ... fluorides, bromides and perchlorates. Thyroid imbalance is at record levels in the US, but water - both the tap water and the bromide-treated water that many people swim in - is loaded with iodine antagonists; processed food tends to be high in bromides and virtually devoid of iodine. And as for the focus of the effect on children, of course I care about that; but if it can affect children, it can affect adults (recall fluoride-containing antibiotics that are easily toxic). From one pov I might think that if the fluoride were confined to the mouth only, it might be better; but I'd guess the fluoride might easily reach the brain. But to drink that water and expose the entire body to if (remembering that people are also bathing in that water) ... none of this makes sense. It's true that proper diet and intelligent dental care can solve the problems related to cavities (and if the world ever truly adopts laser dentistry alone with early detection, children need never have fillings - yes, those "miracles of construction" that become a permanent vulnerability). There's too much more to talk about, but I hope that the scientific community will ultimately start considering the "whole human being," because the current methods seem to be severely lacking.
Its actually pretty easy in order to consume enough fluoride to be dangerous at 0.7ppm you need to absorb somehow either by skin or mouth 500 liters of water for a average male of 70kg in an short span of time, would be in around of few hours. Now if for some reason the fluoride in your system accumulates (WHICH IS NO THE CASE FOR 99.999% of people out there), by consuming around 3liter of tap water per day it would take you 250 days to achieve acute toxicity levels by the WHO. It takes healthy kidneys from 3 to 10 hours to get rid of the fluoride in your body, that is why the acute accumulation of fluoride is very rare.
I think one important part that lack context is how to fluoride is attached to the hydroxyapatite. this is actually done by replacing the hydroxyl group found in the hydroxyapatite. this is a problem for the natural environment and process that your teeth should be experiencing. Those Hydroxyl groups act as buffers to the acidic environment in your mouth after eating. the real problem with fluoride is that is locks into the hydroxyapatite and prevents those hydroxyl groups from detaching and reattaching to the fundamental structure of the Hydroxyapatite. Sure, it might prevent a cavity by stopping the acids from getting between the calcium and phosphate, but fluoride dose not act as a base in the same way the hydroxyl group dose. in other word the acid is not neutralized and the more fluoride you have on your teeth the less surface area is available to release those hydroxyl groups, and that acid has to go somewhere.... so, it's going to find a spot that does not have fluoride and start dissolving the tooth without much competition from the moving hydroxyl groups. again, fluoride is stuck to the tooth and isn't able to release or become mobile.
I would love to hear one of the political advocates actually acknowledge the impact of socioeconomic status on overall health. I feel that component is so often ignored.
Just because the iq changes are measurable over a certain dose of fluoride doesn't mean it's not having an undesirable effect. Fluoride is bioaccumulative. Only half of it is excreted via kidneys and the rest is stored in tissues. Tea is high in fluoride. When iodine intake is adequate, fluoride is not a problem, but most people have poor iodine intake.
This is something I have been curious about in recent times and made me wonder if fluoride is even the best method to reduce tooth decay. Recently I heared of nano-hydroxyapatite a lot and its use in toothpaste. The pros could be reduction of tooth decay with no fluorosis and no weakening of the teeth (which as much as I know fluoride causes), while the cons could be minimal effectiveness and health concerns. I would love if you could make a video about it at some point, but it's possible that there isn't enough research out yet.
Also, fluoride does very little to improve dental health. Everyone I know who has rotten teeth has been drinking and brushing with fluoride their whole lives. If flouride was working, dental health wouldn't be such a common crisis. My teeth were rotting too, and flouride didn't help me, but I finally managed to reverse my dental decay with a Weston A. Price diet.
Its actually pretty easy in order to consume enough fluoride to be dangerous at 0.7ppm you need to absorb somehow either by skin or mouth 500 liters of water for a average male of 70kg in an short span of time, would be in around of few hours. Now if for some reason the fluoride in your system accumulates (WHICH IS NO THE CASE FOR 99.999% of people out there), by consuming around 3liter of tap water per day it would take you 250 days to achieve acute toxicity levels by the WHO. It takes healthy kidneys from 3 to 10 hours to get rid of the fluoride in your body, that is why the acute accumulation of fluoride is very rare. There you go now you have been educated.
I don't know anyone in America who drinks tap water - people aren't crazy enough to drink water that is supplied via rusty pipes. I personally buy filtered water for 50c/gallon at a filtered water dispenser vending machine.
Thank you for this video, however this does not address the net consumption of fluoridated water. How many glasses? 1 or 8? Showers? Agriculture? All these things are absorbing the fluoride. Also, PLEASE address how it affects the pineal gland in the brain. Thanks again for your insight.
My water supply is not fluoridated and I switched to non fluoride toothpaste around 10 years ago and have not had a cavity in quite a few years. I also eat low carb so it could be the lack of sugar.
The only decent argument I see for keeping fluoride in drinking water is that children in poor communities still need it for their dental health. Maybe we should give out free fluoridated toothpaste to those that get food stamps. Or better yet, allow food stamps to be used to buy fluoridated tooth paste. I suspect in the long run, it would be cheaper too.
my concern is getting too much from a combination of sources, tea being one (one cup daily only). I drink filtered water. I can see the argument for removing fluoride
Fluoride is toxic, plain and simple. It should not be added to the water even at low levels. As someone who drinks a large quantity of water every day, this concerns me. For the sake of having safe and clean water, the government should be removing fluoride from water it instead of adding it. Everyone already knows that using fluoride toothpaste helps prevent cavities. People should have the choice. The government should not be forcing any treatment on people.
Young children don't readily brush their teeth. Having it in the water provides the necessary amount. My daughter never had a cavity until she stopped getting fluoride in her late 20's . Her child has crowns at age 8. Dental cavities can lead to an abscess which can lead to death if left untreated.
The best measure against tooth decay in children and adults is not drinking sugary "soft drinks" like Coca-Cola. Another simple measure is rinsing your mouth with water after meals. Rinsing the mouth with salty water works even better
Brad you should stay on point. Towards the end of the video you tangent onto a discussion about sugar to make a weak point that people should be more concerned about sugar rather than worry about flouride in drinking water. That's not making the case for flouride.
Many fluorides exist. Which have been studied and which have been added to drinking water? Also, many people filter their drinking water. Could this be a confounding factor?
I'm the only one in my family who regularly drank tap water, and growing up I had no cavities at all, despite a comparable diet (still had sodas just as often as my siblings) and worse dental hygiene, I never got cavities, unlike them. Correlation isn't causation, but not having terrible, debilitating toothaches is pretty good, so...
I'm of the opinion that it should not be added to our water. I think an important question is, why are we getting cavities and malocclusion in the first place? A modern diet of soft and sugary foods. I feel like fluoride and other things that improve the teeth like xylitol and hydroxyapitite, are the bandaids on a problem caused by diet. No other animals have problems with their teeth like we do, unless they are domesticated.
Nothing from a doctor is going to help people understand this issue. If you wanna know why we still do this you just need to understand the government contracts that are involved with fluoridation
That man is complicit in the deaths of children in Samoa from anti vaccine nonsense. The guy is a kook and he shouldn't be promoted in any sense just because he virtue signals to healthy eating.
it should only be topical like in toothpaste. There don't seem to be any studies of the build-up of fluoride over time in your system. If it can cause problems at any level it shouldn't be in your body and I should have the option of it being in my water or not in the first place.
Hello Doctor - how about effect of fluoride on the mouth microbiome? Read much that changes this and made worse from standpoint of body production on nitric oxide. Nitric oxide critical for blood vessel dilation so lowers blood pressure and allows more blood flow. I am older endurance runner and need increased blood flow to muscles and too all humans need too. So i avoid anything with fluoride and for toothpaste use the new hydroxyapatiite which has similar tooth benefits for deducing decay although less extent but not any reduction in nitric oxide or other beneficial mouth microbes. Please can comment on this? Also thinking fl might more benefit those without good dental hygiene practices.
This is about choice, my choice of what I consume, not yours Dr Stanfield. If there is a percentage of the population the wants fluoride in their water, provide them with an additive but leave the rest of us out of it.
Flouride and hydroxyappetite have the same outcomes for teeth, but hydroxyappetite is the compound our body creates and is not associated with any level of health risk like flouride. You dont need flouride. SLS toothpastes will also damage your mouth faster than non. Keeping your mouth closed while you sleep amd breathing through your nose as often as reasonable does wonders for your dental health. Lack of flouride is not the issue. Period.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
For extra insights + a free health checklist, sign up here 👉 drstanfield.com/pages/sign-up
Dr Stanfield, please consider where I see opportunity to tighten up your logic here in a way that I believe points to different recommendations than the current video:
1) the fact that the study finding ill effects was done at higher concentrations than the US water system recommendations neither proves nor disproves safety at the lower concentrations... it's not been study, so it's safety is in question at those levels to begin with, even more so when you consider the following,
2) just as the positive effects of flouride have fallen from 25% to 4% most likely due to the use of flouride in toothpastes leading to much more non-water sourced exposure to the benefits, so too for the potential harms. thus, the levels in US water are not accounting for the exposure from toothpaste added to the water exposure. what's needed is comparisons of the various permutations of the most prevelant flouride exposure to try to find a sweet spot of benefit/risk.
3) how long were the studies done at about 2-3X the level of US water recommendations? Months? A few years? How does this compare to a lifetime of exposure to flouridated water?
so, I think the most reasonable conclusion is there are benefits to flouride but also levels at which it is harmful, and we currently do not know where those levels where harm seems to be tipping the scale, AND we do not know at what level of flouride in the water for how much time those dangerous levels are reached in the very varied context of other flouride exposure to individuals.
Again, please consider this, let me know if you agree/disagree re the basic logic, and consider doing an updated video if you agree. Thanks!
What causes all these intracranial calcifications? Serious question? Are they of concern?
Hi can you do a video on Bovaer in milk.
Where in Auckland do you practice.
Did you fail to find the root cause of tooth cavities?
Fluoride on the teeth is one thing, but are they testing for consuming it every day, bathing in it, and cooking with it? And over how many years?
Yes, they have tested that. Do you think you are such a genius that you're the only person to have thought of this? Really you people are beyond arrogant.
@@jackson8085the last time I checked we only have teeth in our mouths, not stomachs. Why swallow? Maybe you should look it up to confirm, Mr expert? 👄
@@jackson8085
No studies have been done on that
No I don’t think I’m a genius for suggesting that. Just trying to be accurate scientifically. If they have rigorously tested for that, show me the test results and what they used to accurately measure it.
Never assume “They must have tested for that”
Just an FYI, there are only three provinces in Canada that still put flouride in their water. Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba. I live in BC, Canada and we do not have flouride in our water, I have no idea if it makes a difference or not, I only bring this up because Canada was lumped in with the States as having flouride added to the water, which is less than 50% correct.
I’m glad I’m in BC where we nixed that.
@@thebigpicture2032 We nixed it way back in 1975 for tax costs and ethical issues. It was a big deal at the time. I was in grade 8 and remember it as huge news.
I had no idea! Thanks for informing us. I was under the impression that we had it in all provinces. I'm on the border of ON (I have a well, not city water)/QC and at my apt in the city (Montreal West) I've installed an expensive filtration system to remove fluoride for nothing! LOL. At least I get good filtered water overall.
THANKS for helping Separate FACTS for FICTIONS...! 😊👍👍 -70SomethingGuyu
Saskatoon SK resident here, we have fluoride in our water.😅
Flouridated products (toothpaste, mouthwash, dentist visits, etc) are widespread and cheap enough to supplement fluoride to our health regimen. Sure, there are fluoride filters for drinking water, but what about our bathing water, irrigated water for crops/food, and other sources that use the water that we consume? Mass medication is not the solution in today's age since fluoridated toothpaste is so readily and cheaply available.
@@Muzick exactly!
RFK talks about correlation... while Brad refers to causation.
They're not the same claims.
🙂
Maybe they are cheap enough for you, but there are poor people who can't afford these products. Regardless, the data clearly doesn't support RFK and the people he has fooled
Rather than adding fluoride to water, have you wonder what causes to cavities teeth? That’s big question
My answer is mostly high carbs diet
They should removing carbs rather than adding fluoride
@@xamantiwari Sure, though I think you will have an easier time removing something people are not addicted to, rather than trying to change their diets. Remove flouride from public drinking water and let people choose if they want to add it back to their health regimen.
At around 5:30, Brad says that IQ effects are seen at over 1.5 mg/L, but US water only has 0.75 mg/L and that's "MUCH LESS" That isn't much less, that's about half. From a pharmacology view, that's very close indeed.
the range of IQ loss is 2-5 points. So linearly 1-3 points of IQ reduction from .75MG/L makes sense.
@@Alex-zm8ss Wild! I don't know that pharmacological effects are always linear. But if we ask whether we'd rather have great teeth or a normal IQ, just look at Hollywood.....
Yeah. “Much less” would be like 1-2 orders of magnitude in this context, I would think.
@@christianblack2916 we banned leaded gas for a number of reasons. But the average IQ drop from leaded gas was 3 points.
@@Alex-zm8ss Dosage effects are often not linear. This is not a good assumption at all. Also, 1 - 3 points of IQ loss is going to require a very high powered experiment to prove, that's well within a normal error margin for IQ tests.
Brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste is very different from adding it to the water supply and drinking it your entire life.
As said in the video, if direct contact produces the best results, then it should only be in oral hygiene products. Also, in the video it failed to mention when originally discovered, were the people drinking from a well? Nature has a way to balance itself, so it is possible that other minerals in that water helped prevent any negative side effects of fluoride, especially since the amounts were high enough to stain teeth. Most water now is filtered and then anti-bacterial agents are added, it is stripped of many beneficial nutrients.
Basing fluoride safety levels solely on the amount in one liter of water is fundamentally flawed, as it ignores the reality of how people consume water and other sources of fluoride. Individuals drink vastly different amounts of water depending on their age, activity level, and climate, meaning one person could ingest several times more fluoride than another even with the same water supply. Furthermore, fluoride is present in numerous other sources, such as tea, processed foods, and dental products, contributing significantly to total intake. For example, a single cup of tea can contain up to 3-4 mg of fluoride, meaning just a few cups combined with fluoridated water can easily exceed safe daily limits, quickly leading to dangerous levels of fluoride exposure and increasing the risk of dental or skeletal fluorosis. A one-size-fits-all water standard fails to account for these variables, making it an oversimplified and imprecise measure of fluoride exposure.
@ exactly. It’s the combined exposure over early childhood in particular.
Exactly, and people can also buy fluoride free toothpaste if they want so the consumer has options. With water we only have 1 source
It's a distinction without a difference. They data is clear, it's not doing any of the tings you say it is...
Respect you for working in a semi-rural community.
I don’t want fluoride in my water. It should be in toothpaste only and that way you can have the option of flouride if you want it.
i dont think theres a way to have an option. either its there for everyone or not. I prefer not, because why?
Right, if it’s for teeth why is it ingested? If I want more fluoride for my teeth I’d just brush after every meal.
Tea is also a source of fluoride 😢
Just buy a filter. That way, poorer more vulnerable individuals can still have the benefit of fluoride in drinking water, and you can avoid it with a filter.
@@Matt-uv2yg They simply need to start brushing their teeth and stop eating sugar in all its forms.
Brad. I’m very surprised that you think from a pharmacological aspect 1.5mg/L is toxic but only half that is safe. Not a large safety margin. We have no biological need for fluoride so it is against informed consent to add it to water. The effects are considered to be topical so just use a toothpaste and reduce sugar intake. Have a look at the dental caries graphs for countries that don’t fluoridate. They are also in decline.
That's basically what he said.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6923889/
In a recent Federal Court case (Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. EPA) The court ruled that the current recommended level of fluoride in drinking water in the United States (0.7 milligrams per liter, or mg/L) poses an unreasonable risk to public health. The court found that the EPA had not adequately addressed the risks of fluoride, especially to the developing brains of infants.
Teeth are more important than brains though 👄 🍔 🍟
Brad Stanford just doesn’t like the new admin, it likely comes down to his desire to “support the current thing”.
@@NateBhe has no idea. He’s a
propaganda pusher. RFK was right in his claims. medications or rather toxic chemicals don’t belong in our water. Period.
The issue is not directly fluoride in water, some crops like tea concentrate fluoride in water, and therein lies the risk. There are plenty of studies that discuss the negative health effects of daily consuming teas that were once irrigated by fluorinated water.
Is there a list of teas we should avoid?
@@earx23 I have no idea. Your best bet is to get tea sourced from a place that doesn't have fluoride in their water, or just move to coffee
What studies?
I’d not heard of this!
@@NateB Bro, go to google scholar, type tea fluoride health risks, read
I never agreed to having fluoride in my water. It's 'medication' without consent.
And the dosage can't be monitored. Different people drink different amounts of water
It’s not medication it poison, its not the normal fluoride found in spring water, it’s waste from Aluminium manufacturing which is poisonous, toxic and shouldn’t be on the planet let alone in our water. It Is a disgrace and the people that are allowing it should go to prison for 20years.
I’m all for adding fluoride, statins, insulin, antidepressants, viagra and ozempic to the tap water. Science is never wrong.
It's a freaking mineral. And it only strengthens your teeth. What are you on?
@@LiterallyaFacePalm just because it's a mineral, doesn't mean it's safe. There are lots of natural things that are not safe. Hell, even vitamins can be unsafe. There is nothing that should be forcefully given to people in tap water without consent or proper dosage. Vitamin A is healthy and natural and necessary, but if we put it in the tap water, some people might get hypervitaminosis. "It's a freaking mineral" is not even rometely an intelligent argument
all that needs to be in water. is water
The body also needs electrolytes, but I agree that fluoride isn't convincingly necessary. And definitely not the heavy metals, agrochemicals, and petro based compounds permeating the US water supply.
@ true. I supplement with a mix for that.
You don’t want any of the things in water that keeps us from getting bacterial and viral infections?
Like I said. I only want water. not bacteria and viruses. you can kill them both at a water treatment facility by using intense UV exposure. you can only help reduce them at your home by using the same method.
Its actually pretty easy in order to consume enough fluoride to be dangerous at 0.7ppm you need to absorb somehow either by skin or mouth 500 liters of water for a average male of 70kg in an short span of time, would be in around of few hours. Now if for some reason the fluoride in your system accumulates (WHICH IS NO THE CASE FOR 99.999% of people out there), by consuming around 3liter of tap water per day it would take you 250 days to achieve acute toxicity levels by the WHO.
It takes healthy kidneys from 3 to 10 hours to get rid of the fluoride in your body, that is why the acute accumulation of fluoride is very rare.
There you go now you have been educated.
Please review more RFK stuff. SUPER interesting
Hmmm. 1.5mg/L in drinking water has been shown to cause decrease in IQ in children, but half that amount, 0.7mg/L is perfectly fine. In order to prove that in children, the time frame tested has to be limited. What about doubling the time, or tripling it? What about an adult that has been drinking fluoridated water his whole life? Consuming any of the halogen's is not healthy. I understand the rationale for that in drinking water, but the need for fluoride in water nowadays is dubious. How do we know the benefits of flouride in drinking water in poorer populations is an acceptable risk? Let's see, 4% less cavities in children compared with unknown potential IQ compromise in the future. I am not discounting the fact that people can struggle financially, but you have to be pretty poor to not even be able to afford the cheapest toothpaste. Cheap toothbrushes are like a buck for a 3 pack.
Not to mention it's far cheaper to give toothpaste to poor families (food banks, ect...) than it is to medicate an entire cities water supply.
This guy in the video is propaganda pusher. It’s been proven beyond reasonable doubt IN COURT recently. Yet he stands here spewing nonsense. Our water shouldn’t be medicated. Period.
Would like to hear about xylitol also and how it effects teeth and gums. Thanks for today's video, good info!
It kills strep mutans which causes plaque
While you (and the study) are talking about concentration, RFKjr is talking about long term effect/accumulation. I didn't look into the details of the study, but I question its validity against the latter. If a low concentration Flouride is shown to be non-harmful but higher ones does, it's almost certainly a BIG red warning: what if you drink lots of water? What if there are other sources of Flouride intake besides water? If Flouride is harmful above certain level, then it likely means it relies on the liver (or other organs) to do the detox job. Why add to the work load? What if there are other toxins in modern society that also relys on liver to work harder? It's not only an accumulation effect of one toxins over time, but also such accumulation over different toxins. Rather than to argue and get confused here, simple: just find alternatives w/o toxicity and get rid of Flouride! You're talking about science, but you need to look and think deeper!
It's fluoride, not flouride fyi.
It doesn't accumulate to the body. It's a ion which is present in natural water as part of a salt, like chlorine, or sodium for example.
Honestly, your comment show little understanding, while I get your concern on a long-term point of view.
But the fact is that there is no need to add fluoride into water. Preventing cavities can and should be done by preventing eating food with large amount of sweet. In bonus, you reduce diabetes and other metabolic disease, which fluoride won't prevent.
America tend to try solving problem by piling others problems instead of fixing root causes.
@@anykeyh You rightfully identified that I'm not an expert on the topic of F, not even writing the word correctly (thx for the spelling check). And I'm NOT pretending to be one! BUT, in the end you basically agree with my opinion on simply avoiding this F thing. Why? You don't need to be an expert in this world on every topic but still has the capability to easily pinpoint who is (more) right and wrong. You just need some logic and commen sense! Dr Brad and many others' issue is they think they know the topic well and claim to be experts, but they are blinded by the forest. By being picky on my use of word "accumulation" but ignoring the word before ("long term effect", I put there because long term effect is a superset or more general form of accumulation and I'm not sure if F is accumulative or not, but I'm 100% certain that its effect is accumulative as long as you continusly providing F into your body, and that is what REALLY matters!) and pointing out my lack of chemical knowledges, unfortunately, almost put you into the same group. This is the same behavior that some people, particularly so called scientists (I was a scientist and not proud of being identified with many of such CURRENT scientists, they are arrogant and smart on a narrow subject but stupid on big pictures) are so against RFKjr being the head of HHS. While, I'm glad that in the end you basically reached the same conclusion as I'm: just avoid this F thing! So you're on the boarder wall, science is not literal, it's logic and understanding! Jump down and you're welcome! And I like your comment on america's solving one issues by adding 10 more issues. RFKjr is not a scientist, but more trustworthy than many, many so called scientists, because he is smart, logical and more importantly, he is brave to stand out at this age with his wealth.
So how’s it been going for us listening to all these “experts”? Think for yourself people! That’s the only way to heal the corrupted world.
The reason processed food is “bad” is because its hyper palatable and we overconsume. We cant just say processed food is bad. Lots of respect dr. Brad, would love to hear more of your thoughts on that!
What’s the difference between medication and poison?
The dose
You’re only prescribed 8 glasses of tap water per day though. Too much and you’ll start going woke and voting Dems. ❤
Rather than adding fluoride to water, have you wonder what causes to cavities teeth? That’s big question
My answer is mostly high carbs diet
They should removing carbs rather than adding fluoride
talking medication when you don't have a need for it could probably be considered poisoning yourself.
Great walk through, thanks!
So, 1,5 mg have negative cognitive effects in children, but 0,7 mg doesent? I wouldnt take the risk of drinking water with 0,7 mg
Yeah. There's no evidence that there's a negative impact at 0.7mg, but why not also say there's no evidence it doesn't have a negative impact?
@@mark-147 Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2006 May;17(4):421-8. doi: 10.1007/s10552-005-0500-6. PMID: 16596294.
@@mark-147the risk for bonecancer in boys begin at 0,7 mg according to the research above
The report above is about fluoride is causing bone cancer in boys in USA from the level of 0,7 mg
Who says 1.5 ppm will have "negative cognitive effects"? Nobody. What is said is that we know up to 1.5 ppm is safe.
I appreciate the analysis. Thank you.
Dear Dr Brad, good line of argumentation, but I have to clarify that we do not add fluoride to our salt and milk in Germany as a standard. They are the food products where producers can!! add fluoride if they declare it. But only a tiny fraction does. That was a misunderstanding. We do not add fluoride anywhere on a regular basis.
"Do no harm" should be the default -meaning: don't put the fluoride in the drinking water.
You should mention Cochrane review is widely considered the "gold standard" for systematic reviews in healthcare
@@giventofly76 he usually does say exactly that!
I don't think the Cochrane review is any good at all for controversial studies. It's not reliable. Contrarian reviews and studies are not incorporated necessarily in Cochrane reviews
I don't think Cochrane reviews are at all great. Mainstream institutions or processes rarely deal with controversial health issues. They are either too scared, ignorant, judgemental of the black sheep research or don't look Deep enough around the world for contrarian views
Great video and a good review, thanks.
You are the man Brad, keep the honest opinions coming.
Thousands of people have been saying this for decades. The difference is they were silenced!
We do not know how much fluoride people are consuming in total since it comes from many sources such as in as in pesticides, toothpaste, firtilizers etc.. It is irresponsible. to dispense medication to everyone without being able to control the dosage received.
I used to drink a LOT of water as a kid and now my teeth are damaged from fluorosis. I'd much rather get fluoride from toothpaste/mouthwash, that way it's easier to control the dose.
Professor Phillipe Grandjean who is a giant in the field was frozen out of Harvard beacause he didn't sign a contract that prevented him from doing research in flouride there. He is thoroughly against the decision to add flouride to the drinking water. I know him personally. With large names at Harvard advocating for the decision and 3M (one of the largest producers of PFAS) providing substantial funding, It should be quite clear why they asked him to sign the contract.
The benefits from adding flouride to the water are minimal. I cannot comprehend why you would take the risk with a compound that has been clearly demonstrated to cause harm. It's difficult to robustly identify effects at lower concentrations for any compound. As an epidemiologist myself I know that we do not have perfect sensitivity in our studies, especially when the outcome is difficult to meassure and the test for the effector is expensive and imprecise.
Regardless i look forward to visiting Harvard medical school later in my PhD. I have no respect for JFK jr.
I’ve had fluorosis for as long as I can remember and never knew what it was. The hygienist I’ve seen over the years always said they didn’t know what was causing the browning. Now I know why. The more fluoride I intake the more visits to the dentist. Very clever.
The one thing this doctor doesnt consider is that fluoride isnt just in water supplies and dental products, residual fluoride is also in countless food products, cosmetic products, and other products that use water supplies for their production. People and animals are consuming WAY above maximum contamination levels. The risks outweigh the benefits.
I don't think I really want it in drinking water for sure, it's not healthy.
Great Topic! Good job.
Some thyroids are very sensitive to fluoride in water
Great thanks what’s your source and confidence intervals and recommendation?
Agreed. I started filtering out the flouride from my home and my goiters have reduced almost completely. The thyroid is drastically under researched. The radiation from all our phones really does a lot of damage as well.
Fluoride At 1.5 MG/L IQ loss was about 2-5 points.
Fluoride At .75MG/L (Half the dose) we could be looking at 1-3 Points of IQ loss.
Leaded Gas caused on average 3 points of IQ loss.
Fluoride toothpaste is different because you're not consuming toothpaste.
Exactly! You spit the toothpaste out, so it's an effective method of treating your teeth without having to consume if, unlike fluoridated water.
You don't understand your mouth. Anything in your mouth , your body absorbs
spitting the flouride out consumes at least less than drinking it.
@@dfusa4869 LOL, thanks Doctor RUclips.
Rather than adding fluoride to water, have you wonder what causes to cavities teeth? That’s big question
My answer is mostly high carbs diet
They should removing carbs rather than adding fluoride
Former US health provider here who also has an MPH...First, thank you for an always-great overview, along with some research specifics, of this issue. Second, I have some key questions about a few related issues to which I'd like to see answers--if they are known--and I'd also like to see some other studies, if any, to arrive at a much better informed decision. However, from what I already knew and from what you presented, I would lean towards ceasing to add fluoride to drinking water. There are certainly potential negatives--and we have certainly seen where the WHO has sometimes been wrong, and thus I don't fully trust their recommendations and toxicity level standards. From what I've read, it is estimated that the cost of fluoridation of drinking water is approximately 50 cents per person per year in typical areas, and in communities of under 10,000 people that the cost rises to about $2.30-3/person/year. So, there is also the cost--though studies claim an ROI of about $20-30 saved on dental care for every dollar spent for fluoride added to water...THOUGH ROI calculation (even if correct) is ONLY related to future dental care savings and does NOT include potential negatives, like possible IQ loss ramifications, increased bone fragility, etc. and also, not only the potential morbidity/mortality associated with them, but also the costs thereof).
With a heavy environmental science background, I'm also concerned about the issue of bioaccumulation in crops watered with fluoridated water, not to mention runoff from all the homes and industrial complexes that goes into the ground and our waterways. Next, I'm concerned anytime the government--or industry--decides what's best for everyone and mass medicates. A moral/ethical and legal question would be when it violates our rights and the extent to which government has a right to do this...and I would argue very rarely to none. Additionally, that's a very slippery slope, as they say, which makes one wonder if/when depression/anxiety/etc. reaches a certain percentage in the general population, if government would also feel it's correct to step in and start adding SSRI's (Zoloft, Prozac, etc.) to the drinking supply--or milk, or salt, etc.. Also, it seems from the studies presented in this excellent video, that water fluoridation creates fairly small benefits for both baby teeth (which people obviously lose anyway...but, of course, any cavity increase from removing fluoride would increase societal costs for the dental care, infections, or any other sequelae), and permanent teeth. And, when this video states that certain home filters can remove fluoride from drinking water, that causes one to estimate what the cost this would impose on Americans who choose to filter since we all know that good water filters are not cheap, usually need to be regularly replaced, and then go into landfills. Finally, from the studies it appears that the FAR more effective approach, which also virtually eliminates potential toxicity--since we spit during brushing and don't swallow the toothpaste--is to brush regularly with fluoride toothpaste.
So...bottom line...from what I knew already of healthcare, environmental science, ROI, and the studies presented here, I'd vote to remove all fluoride from drinking water. Dr. Stanfield is to be commended for his work in underserved areas, and we need more wonderful, caring people like him, and it's important to consider "marginal" and less affluent and underserved communities, and so in the savings we would experience from not continuing to fluoridate the water, I would be fine with providing "subsidies" to those communities in the form of free fluoridated toothpaste and toothbrushes and educational programs to encourage regular brushing. (Truly, dental care is important and NOT just a cosmetic and dental cost issue. Studies consistently show that even basic dental self-care, of brushing well even just once daily, will add several years to a person's life.)
I found it interesting what one Canadian lady posted below about there only being three main cities in Canada which still fluoridate their water, and thus, I'd love to see if studies (for the areas that stopped putting fluoride in water) have been done pre- and post-fluoridation which track cavities, dental problems, and cost thereof in those populations. And, I do support many of RFK, Jr.'s efforts to improve our health and to question many things the government thinks it has a right to suggest, and even legally order, for us. Studies overwhelmingly demonstrate the danger--as Dr. Stanfield points out here--of overly processed foods, high sugar and salt consumption, etc., and yet unless we prepare everything at home with fresh produce, canned goods often have high sugar and salt content, and fast foods and frozen foods have terrible ingredients and poor nutritional value. Additionally, people need to wise up to the old adage of "everything but in moderation" and quit stuffing their mouths and get off their butts and exercise reguarly. No one forces us to make bad food choices (including smoking) and to be sedentary...but, in fairness, the whole food industry is stacked against us with mostly unhealthy products, AND it's criminal to offer all the highly sugared and salted breakfast cereals and snacks that corporations offer for kids, along with billions yearly spent on ad campaigns that lure them into hugely unhealthy choices...that follow them into adulthood. For instance...why does the food industry add sugar and salt, at all, and certainly in the high amounts it does, to baby food. The babies wouldn't know the difference...EXCEPT that it gets their tastebuds used to the later adult food that they'll eat which is also loaded with sugar and salt and which they will then naturally crave and assume that it's "natural" and the way things SHOULD taste.
A long post...sorry...but I do have a huge background in all of these issues, and it's such an important, multi-factorial problem. And, if we don't educate and look after ourselves and assume that responsibility for safe, healthy, smart, cost-effective choices in water, food, and everything else in our lives--including the way the US government regularly steals from Social Security--we can rest assured that the government and industry won't care and, in fact, will take advantage of us. Government and industry do NOT have our best interests at heart and, in reality, collude to take advantage of us. My best to everyone!
There is a class war going on in the United States and this is just part of it. Fluoridation of water benefits the whole society, but especially those who aren’t buying fluoridated toothpaste. That is the economically challenged and the nutty wealthy.
I don’t care about politics, but I do care about the effects on the populist based upon policies.
someone have to be in jail for this
Its the fact that fluoride made it into a ton of things other than just the tap water. We are receiving many times the amount we are supposed to because it ends up in food, drinks, already was in dental products, etc. We see the same problem with the sources of microplastics, mercury, etc.
Its not the natural occurrence that is the problem, its us messing with it artificially that ends up with 10s or 100s of times the concentrations we are supposed to get that are the problem.
Exactly; why are people so blind and deaf for common sense wtf. This apathy and intellectual snobism is why people got so sick in the first place. Aweful world with aweful people, especially in charge of health
I think the debate comes with how do you determine what chemicals and what is the load on the human system. Lets take a step back and consider.
We used to play with mercury
We used to put lead paint on kids toys until the 70s, not to mention how much we spewed in the air with leaded gasoline
We used asbestos until the 90s
We allowed smoking on airplanes until 2000
There are microplastics in your body as you are reading this right now.
If we want to go the European route and add fluoride to salt or another alternative I am open to it. I just want to know we're not substituting one form of chemical blindness for another.
@@Ruktiet The reason people are so blind and deaf is because what's important is the reasoning that brought him to the conclusion. Just doing something for the sake of doing it doesn't make sense. And if you find this particular argument compelling from the commenter why isn't RFK making that argument? I can say it's 12 o'clock every hour and be right twice a day. Our public health officials should have basis for 'what' they are saying.
Its actually pretty easy in order to consume enough fluoride to be dangerous at 0.7ppm you need to absorb somehow either by skin or mouth 500 liters of water for a average male of 70kg in an short span of time, would be in around of few hours. Now if for some reason the fluoride in your system accumulates (WHICH IS NO THE CASE FOR 99.999% of people out there), by consuming around 3liter of tap water per day it would take you 250 days to achieve acute toxicity levels by the WHO.
It takes healthy kidneys from 3 to 10 hours to get rid of the fluoride in your body, that is why the acute accumulation of fluoride is very rare.
@@Edpro01-z5d Thanks for the addition.
And well put, acknowledging the concern and addressing it to a logical point with out being dismissive.
Respect.
An interesting study from Denmark looked into other sources of flouride. They found high flouride in different brands of tea and recommended only one cup of tea per day for children and pregnant women.
We do not add flouride in drinking water and have not done it for decades. We do however have fairly high flouride content in our drinking water already. To be honest, I see no point in adding it to drinking water. We will all be better off by investing in dental care in schools for challenged areas.
You are doing a marvelous job of trying your best to educate the masses here in the USA and in many parts of the world to adopt FACT and EVIDENCE-based recommendations, especially those related to HUMAN HEALTH. With the current political environment in the USA, there is so much misinformation being propagated by anti-establishment politicians it is outright dangerous for those who follow such nonsense
That's the problem....there is rarely fact based evidence..it's twisted and effected immensely by interests .. conflict of interest. Even the most mainstream and supposedly trusted evidence sources have become problematic in many instances
It's extremely hard to have fact based .. evidence based. Evidence is fractured across the globe in a manner never seen before, cultured by financial and other conflicts of interest. Whenever, I hear fact based evidence from a RUclipsr I don't get too excited.. because in reality it's so muddied and distorted. Discussing these kinds of things such as fluoride requires incredible detective work based on human behaviour, economic interests, the money trail, a wide range of evidence from literally everywhere
Thank u! We'll done as usual!
None of this matter as much as the fact that its unnecessary, and there are unknowns. end of story... We as the human race have a tendency to say "This is good" and want proof that its not. As opposed to "I don't need this unless there's proof that its effective, I actually have the problem it's design to treat, and more importantly that its safety is indisputable." Smoking was claimed as healthy once upon a time. So was drinking and eating uranium. When common sense and no science needed should tell one this is probably NOT healthy and and at the very least not something I need. As far as levels go the government has been historically incorrect on many. Look at vitamin D, and DHA, and Folic acid. Etc. So many severe diseases corrected by disregarding the approved "levels" and getting the proper amounts instead. In the US we had Fluoride in the water, at the same time Dentists prescribing chewable fluoride tablets like candy to pre-teens across the country, while at the same time we had fluoride in our toothpaste (which kids swallow), fluoride in bubble gum flavored mouth rinses (that kids swallow).. So much for "levels"..
No one knows the exact amount of fluoride that is absorbed by the body from drinking water, bathing in water, using toothpaste and mouthwash.
Is it possible that the form of fluoride in Colorado water was different to the form found in toothpastes and drinking water? Calcium fluoride vs sodium fluoride vs hydrofluorosilicic acid, for example? And could those different forms have different effects (a) on tooth strength and (b) on other parts of the body, for good or ill?
The flouride in toothpaste is makes our teeth brittle in the long run (which causes more cavities in the long run).
Hence, dentists that claim flouride is beneficial are not telling the truth in its entirety.
Fluoride was given to holocaust prisoners to pacify them. Fluoride also happens to be a byproduct of fertilizer production that is notoriously hard to dispose of.
First off, I think mass medicating is never a good idea. Everyone's talking about milligrams and parts per million as if the United States or any country has a universal standard. Sure, they may try to standardize the amount of fluoride, but the number will always be a variable. Fluoride is also not a nutrient like calcium or magnesium.
You don’t need fluoride to live. Fluoride is also very reactive, and just to isolate fluoride for its health effects and not expand its ramifications is short sighted. And finally to suggest that we need fluoride in the water because people are poor is an extremely weak and misleading premise. You can get a tube for a dollar. And yes I understand people are in extreme poverty, but these same people can't even get clean water in the first place.
Tax sugar companies to pay for dental care.. Coca-cola would sell us cocaine if they could...
This is now done for sugary drinks in my country. They don't pay for dental care, but those drinks now just cost more.
the name coca cola came from the ingredient cocaine. Now they use caffeine
Excellent and balanced look in to certain claims using evidence.
Whether or not one agrees with RFK Jr, he brings up issues that at the very least should be looked into as per good scientific evidence or at the very least anecdotal evidence.
One subject I cannot find any real studies on is the effects of nuclear testing in the 1940s on child development, more specifically autism, ADD, and similar. My Dad was part of these battlefield tests in the early 1950s and he claims that these issues were not common before, including in our family (this includes how some children were simply diagnosed as "slow" or similar before these terms were common).
Thanks for this, but I believe that with modern life, the scope always has to be expanded. The antagonists to Iodine are ... fluorides, bromides and perchlorates. Thyroid imbalance is at record levels in the US, but water - both the tap water and the bromide-treated water that many people swim in - is loaded with iodine antagonists; processed food tends to be high in bromides and virtually devoid of iodine. And as for the focus of the effect on children, of course I care about that; but if it can affect children, it can affect adults (recall fluoride-containing antibiotics that are easily toxic). From one pov I might think that if the fluoride were confined to the mouth only, it might be better; but I'd guess the fluoride might easily reach the brain. But to drink that water and expose the entire body to if (remembering that people are also bathing in that water) ... none of this makes sense. It's true that proper diet and intelligent dental care can solve the problems related to cavities (and if the world ever truly adopts laser dentistry alone with early detection, children need never have fillings - yes, those "miracles of construction" that become a permanent vulnerability). There's too much more to talk about, but I hope that the scientific community will ultimately start considering the "whole human being," because the current methods seem to be severely lacking.
Its actually pretty easy in order to consume enough fluoride to be dangerous at 0.7ppm you need to absorb somehow either by skin or mouth 500 liters of water for a average male of 70kg in an short span of time, would be in around of few hours. Now if for some reason the fluoride in your system accumulates (WHICH IS NO THE CASE FOR 99.999% of people out there), by consuming around 3liter of tap water per day it would take you 250 days to achieve acute toxicity levels by the WHO.
It takes healthy kidneys from 3 to 10 hours to get rid of the fluoride in your body, that is why the acute accumulation of fluoride is very rare.
Amazing that most of the initial study locations were in the goiterbelt. Iodine was proposed as a better halide.
my son drinks about 10 times more water than me - how does that pan out?
I think one important part that lack context is how to fluoride is attached to the hydroxyapatite.
this is actually done by replacing the hydroxyl group found in the hydroxyapatite. this is a problem for the natural environment and process that your teeth should be experiencing. Those Hydroxyl groups act as buffers to the acidic environment in your mouth after eating. the real problem with fluoride is that is locks into the hydroxyapatite and prevents those hydroxyl groups from detaching and reattaching to the fundamental structure of the Hydroxyapatite. Sure, it might prevent a cavity by stopping the acids from getting between the calcium and phosphate, but fluoride dose not act as a base in the same way the hydroxyl group dose. in other word the acid is not neutralized and the more fluoride you have on your teeth the less surface area is available to release those hydroxyl groups, and that acid has to go somewhere.... so, it's going to find a spot that does not have fluoride and start dissolving the tooth without much competition from the moving hydroxyl groups. again, fluoride is stuck to the tooth and isn't able to release or become mobile.
What do you think about Bryan Johnson’s article on fluoride? He says it needs to be taken out of the water. What’s your opinion? Does he have a point?
I would love to hear one of the political advocates actually acknowledge the impact of socioeconomic status on overall health. I feel that component is so often ignored.
Hi doctor, is there a way to regain face fat pad ? And thanks for your hard work and I appreciate your honesty.
My kids seem to like swallowing toothpaste which is a real concern! Also let’s try our best to cut down on our sugar intake - the real culprit!
People shouldn't be forced to take it. In the UK they have been using chlorine instead for decades
Would be interesting to know the reasoning Germany had to remove it.
Not necessarily a rational choice.
@volos_olympus I wouldn't want it in my water, and I'm glad we didn't add it.
@volos_olympus of course, but it would still be interesting.
Because they put it in the salt.
Same concept different delivery.
Fluoride 1.5 mg/l makes the peasants dumb and lame. Don't worry though we only added half that much in our water. It's totally fine guys ~WHO
Yep! 👍
I agree with RFK jr
Fluoride does not need to be added to drinking water. Period.
Just because the iq changes are measurable over a certain dose of fluoride doesn't mean it's not having an undesirable effect. Fluoride is bioaccumulative. Only half of it is excreted via kidneys and the rest is stored in tissues. Tea is high in fluoride. When iodine intake is adequate, fluoride is not a problem, but most people have poor iodine intake.
This is something I have been curious about in recent times and made me wonder if fluoride is even the best method to reduce tooth decay. Recently I heared of nano-hydroxyapatite a lot and its use in toothpaste. The pros could be reduction of tooth decay with no fluorosis and no weakening of the teeth (which as much as I know fluoride causes), while the cons could be minimal effectiveness and health concerns. I would love if you could make a video about it at some point, but it's possible that there isn't enough research out yet.
The collective IQ in these responses, doesn't reach 100, in total.
Also, fluoride does very little to improve dental health. Everyone I know who has rotten teeth has been drinking and brushing with fluoride their whole lives. If flouride was working, dental health wouldn't be such a common crisis. My teeth were rotting too, and flouride didn't help me, but I finally managed to reverse my dental decay with a Weston A. Price diet.
How about everyone just takes care of their own teeth instead of depending on government to pump chemicals into our water.
I would error on the side of caution.
We should NOT be adding anything to our drinking water that is NOT absolutely necessary.
Its actually pretty easy in order to consume enough fluoride to be dangerous at 0.7ppm you need to absorb somehow either by skin or mouth 500 liters of water for a average male of 70kg in an short span of time, would be in around of few hours. Now if for some reason the fluoride in your system accumulates (WHICH IS NO THE CASE FOR 99.999% of people out there), by consuming around 3liter of tap water per day it would take you 250 days to achieve acute toxicity levels by the WHO.
It takes healthy kidneys from 3 to 10 hours to get rid of the fluoride in your body, that is why the acute accumulation of fluoride is very rare.
There you go now you have been educated.
I don't know anyone in America who drinks tap water - people aren't crazy enough to drink water that is supplied via rusty pipes. I personally buy filtered water for 50c/gallon at a filtered water dispenser vending machine.
Thank you for this video, however this does not address the net consumption of fluoridated water. How many glasses? 1 or 8? Showers? Agriculture? All these things are absorbing the fluoride. Also, PLEASE address how it affects the pineal gland in the brain. Thanks again for your insight.
Were those small differences in drinking fluoridated water statistically significant?
Please cite significance in all your statistics and comparisons.
My water supply is not fluoridated and I switched to non fluoride toothpaste around 10 years ago and have not had a cavity in quite a few years. I also eat low carb so it could be the lack of sugar.
The only decent argument I see for keeping fluoride in drinking water is that children in poor communities still need it for their dental health. Maybe we should give out free fluoridated toothpaste to those that get food stamps. Or better yet, allow food stamps to be used to buy fluoridated tooth paste. I suspect in the long run, it would be cheaper too.
my concern is getting too much from a combination of sources, tea being one (one cup daily only). I drink filtered water. I can see the argument for removing fluoride
Fluoride is toxic, plain and simple. It should not be added to the water even at low levels. As someone who drinks a large quantity of water every day, this concerns me. For the sake of having safe and clean water, the government should be removing fluoride from water it instead of adding it. Everyone already knows that using fluoride toothpaste helps prevent cavities. People should have the choice. The government should not be forcing any treatment on people.
Young children don't readily brush their teeth. Having it in the water provides the necessary amount. My daughter never had a cavity until she stopped getting fluoride in her late 20's . Her child has crowns at age 8. Dental cavities can lead to an abscess which can lead to death if left untreated.
Young children absolutely need good dental hygiene and the establishment of oral care routine is a basic parental duty.
The best measure against tooth decay in children and adults is not drinking sugary "soft drinks" like Coca-Cola. Another simple measure is rinsing your mouth with water after meals. Rinsing the mouth with salty water works even better
Brad you should stay on point. Towards the end of the video you tangent onto a discussion about sugar to make a weak point that people should be more concerned about sugar rather than worry about flouride in drinking water. That's not making the case for flouride.
I don't care whether fluoride has benefits or disbenefits. Compulsory medication is wrong. If you want to take fluoride via toothpaste, be my guest.
Many fluorides exist. Which have been studied and which have been added to drinking water? Also, many people filter their drinking water. Could this be a confounding factor?
I'm the only one in my family who regularly drank tap water, and growing up I had no cavities at all, despite a comparable diet (still had sodas just as often as my siblings) and worse dental hygiene, I never got cavities, unlike them. Correlation isn't causation, but not having terrible, debilitating toothaches is pretty good, so...
Where did they find kids who "don't like sugary drinks"? 😂
I'm of the opinion that it should not be added to our water. I think an important question is, why are we getting cavities and malocclusion in the first place? A modern diet of soft and sugary foods. I feel like fluoride and other things that improve the teeth like xylitol and hydroxyapitite, are the bandaids on a problem caused by diet. No other animals have problems with their teeth like we do, unless they are domesticated.
Nothing from a doctor is going to help people understand this issue. If you wanna know why we still do this you just need to understand the government contracts that are involved with fluoridation
The people will not he given the decision to consume flouride or not…. That is all you need to know about these doctors
Whether or not he’s right about fluoride, I cannot listen to Rumpelstiltskinnedy
Speak for four years. It would be unbearable.
Sorry your girl lost!
God bless RFK Jr. I love that man.
That man is complicit in the deaths of children in Samoa from anti vaccine nonsense. The guy is a kook and he shouldn't be promoted in any sense just because he virtue signals to healthy eating.
Robert F. Brainworm going to lead to a lot more of crazy crap happening in the U.S.
"Just use a water filter"... Or how about just not adding it to begin with 😐
it should only be topical like in toothpaste. There don't seem to be any studies of the build-up of fluoride over time in your system. If it can cause problems at any level it shouldn't be in your body and I should have the option of it being in my water or not in the first place.
Hello Doctor - how about effect of fluoride on the mouth microbiome? Read much that changes this and made worse from standpoint of body production on nitric oxide. Nitric oxide critical for blood vessel dilation so lowers blood pressure and allows more blood flow. I am older endurance runner and need increased blood flow to muscles and too all humans need too. So i avoid anything with fluoride and for toothpaste use the new hydroxyapatiite which has similar tooth benefits for deducing decay although less extent but not any reduction in nitric oxide or other beneficial mouth microbes. Please can comment on this? Also thinking fl might more benefit those without good dental hygiene practices.
Oh OK, so it's probably not necessary in our water because we have it in our toothpaste twice per day.
This is about choice, my choice of what I consume, not yours Dr Stanfield. If there is a percentage of the population the wants fluoride in their water, provide them with an additive but leave the rest of us out of it.
Flouride and hydroxyappetite have the same outcomes for teeth, but hydroxyappetite is the compound our body creates and is not associated with any level of health risk like flouride.
You dont need flouride.
SLS toothpastes will also damage your mouth faster than non.
Keeping your mouth closed while you sleep amd breathing through your nose as often as reasonable does wonders for your dental health.
Lack of flouride is not the issue. Period.
ADD FLUORIDE VS delete sugar.
you are so human😭
Just have it in the toothpaste.
Did you fail to find the root cause of tooth cavities?