Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Regarding the health effects of ingested fluoride and
the debate over reliability of various study designs, not
mentioned is the elephant in the middle of the room;
age-specific exposure.
It is well documented that fluoride is incorporated more
readily into mineralizing new bone than into existing
bone. Substitution of fluoride for hydroxyl ion in the
crystal lattice makes bone more brittle and by
predominately decreasing tensile strength, mechanical
failure and fracture propagation are strongly influenced.
(Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, U.S. Dept of
Health and Human Services, Feb. 1991.
It is also known that the pharmacokinetics of fluoride in
infants reveal a completely different pattern compared
to that found in adults. Infants retain 87% of fluoride
dosage compared to about 50% for adults (Adv Dent
Res June 1994).
Taking her cue from KJ Rothman (Am J Epidemiol
1981, 114:253-259), who warned that age-specific
effects must be evaluated: “failure to identify the
appropriate time window for exposure may result in
misclassification which can adversely affect the ability
to detect an association,” Elise Bassin limited her
analysis of osteosarcoma to cases less than 20 years
old and found a “robust” link between fluoridation and
osteosarcoma (Cancer Causes Control 2006,
17:421-428).
Hip fracture is likewise an age-specific effect. Exposure
to 1 ppm fluoridated water for 20 years prior to
menopause, a period of increased bone remodeling,
resulted in a 100% increase in hip fracture for women
at age 75 (J Am Med Asso. Vol 268 No 2, 1992, Fig. I).
Had these women grown up on fluoridated water the
results may have been even more significant.
Therefore, a hip fracture study that selects women age
55 and older, an osteosarcoma study that includes
adult subjects, or a meta-analysis that conceals the
age-specific factor by blending all data together, will
never reveal the true nature of fluoride’s toxicity to bone.
And any government entity that propagates and defends
such transparently shoddy science while refusing to
fund studies based on age-specific exposure is clearly
in the business of shunning the well being of a nation’s
citizens in order to defend a failed and libelous public
health policy.
Sincerely,
Maureen Jones, Archivist
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
1205 Sierra Ave.
San Jose, CA 95126
408 297-8487
Fluoridation - Bad To The Bone
Regarding the health effects of ingested fluoride and the debate over reliability of various study designs, not mentioned is the elephant in the middle of the room; age-specific exposure.
It is well documented that fluoride is incorporated more readily into mineralizing new bone than into existing bone. Substitution of fluoride for hydroxyl ion in the crystal lattice makes bone more brittle and by predominately decreasing tensile strength, mechanical failure and fracture propagation are strongly influenced. (Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Feb. 1991.
It is also known that the pharmacokinetics of fluoride in infants reveal a completely different pattern compared to that found in adults. Infants retain 87% of fluoride dosage compared to about 50% for adults (Adv Dent Res June 1994).
Taking her cue from KJ Rothman (Am J Epidemiol 1981, 114:253-259), who warned that age-specific effects must be evaluated: “failure to identify the appropriate time window for exposure may result in misclassification which can adversely affect the ability to detect an association,” Elise Bassin limited her analysis of osteosarcoma to cases less than 20 years old and found a “robust” link between fluoridation and osteosarcoma (Cancer Causes Control 2006, 17:421-428).
Hip fracture is likewise an age-specific effect. Exposure to 1 ppm fluoridated water for 20 years prior to menopause, a period of increased bone remodeling, resulted in a 100% increase in hip fracture for women at age 75 (J Am Med Asso. Vol 268 No 2, 1992, Fig. I). Had these women grown up on fluoridated water the results may have been even more significant.
Therefore, a hip fracture study that selects women age 55 and older, an osteosarcoma study that includes adult subjects, or a meta-analysis that conceals the age-specific factor by blending all data together, will never reveal the true nature of fluoride’s toxicity to bone.
And any government entity that propagates and defends such transparently shoddy science while refusing to fund studies based on age-specific exposure is clearly in the business of shunning the well being of a nation’s citizens in order to defend a failed and libelous public health policy.
Sincerely, Maureen Jones, Archivist Citizens for Safe Drinking Water 1205 Sierra Ave. San Jose, CA 95126 408 297-8487
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests