top of page

New York Times "Upshot" gets shot down by actual facts

We recently came across this little blog published in the NYT under the "Upshot" section, written by Aaron E. Carroll.

Being safe water activists we are interested in the effects of fluoride, and as fluoride is supposed to help teeth, we were interested in to see what he had to say, especially with his provocative title "Surprising little evidence about the usual wisdom about teeth."

We were expecting to finally read some truth about water fluoridation, but he did not mention it until nearly the end:

"No review of dental health would be complete without at least acknowledging water fluoridation. Much of the evidence is old because it’s getting hard to do studies. "

It is true that the evidence is old, however, the writer goes on to say:

"It would be somewhat unethical to withhold fluoridation at this point from some people, because the evidence in favor of the practice is so compelling."

This statement is completely false.

A. Fluoride is NOT a nutrient, fluoridation chemicals are added to reduce a medical condition, not to make water safe to drink, and fluoridation chemicals are toxic waste products, not naturally occurring, and b. as such, it is actually unethical to put into our drinking water.

Secondly, the only compelling evidence about fluoride is that it is neither ethical, nor efficient, nor safe.

The recent Cochrane Review author's conclusions are that there is NO evidence that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults, and that there is little evidence to show that fluoride improves outcomes of the poor over the rich.

In fact, recent studies in England corroborate older research that shows fluoride reduces thyroid function as it is a known endocrine disruptor, according to the National Research Council, 2006.

Other studies dating back to 1995 show that fluoride can cross the blood brain barrier and cause damage to neuronal growth and cells, changing behavior (see the Fluoride Action Network for the original research articles.)

While it is true that 'U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that in areas where the water supply is deficient, providers prescribe oral fluoride supplementation to children' Mr. Carroll neglected to mention the fact that nearly 58% of black kids now have fluorosis, a mild to moderate mottling of the teeth, which is a signature observable indicator of excess intake of fluoride.

The ADA conveniently recently downgraded fluorosis to a "cosmetic" effect, however, common sense tells you that if something that gets into your tooth enamel and can eventually cause pitting and chipping, it is not benign.

As Dr Curatola, a NYC resident and NYU Associate Professor in dentistry says, "some studies have emerged showing some fluoridated communities having an even higher rate of decay than non-fluoridated communities. "

“I believe the true value of fluoride was overestimated and the onslaught of emerging evidenced-based research is causing many dental professionals to reevaluate fluoride’s application and use.”

Dr. Curatola adds, “The National Research Council has issued a lengthy report documenting ‘huge gaps in fundamental research on the effectiveness of fluoride’.”

As reported is a previous blog, the Journal of the ADA recently published an article on a research paper with the headlines:

Within the abstract, the authors conclude that "Even low levels of sugar consumption were associated with dental caries (tooth decay) despite the use of fluoride.

There is only one conclusion - the evidence overwhelmingly opposes the efficacy of fluoride.


Fluoride is labelled as a neurotoxin.

#NYTupshot #neurotoxin #efficacyoffluoride #aaronECaroll

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
No tags yet.
Follow Us
  • Facebook Classic
  • Twitter Classic
  • Google Classic
bottom of page