Apparently pediatricians often recommend fluoride supplements for breastfed babies, but I'm not interested in using it with my little one.

I don't think there's anything sinister going on, but I also believe that breastmilk is the perfect food for my infant and there's no need to add anything else (except a little sunshine for vitamin D ).

Maybe we should all do like the chick from WifeSwap and brush our teeth with butter and clay.

If one reads how fluoridation came about, the industrial and commercial forces that drove it, it should really give one pause. It's another one of those, "Can we come up with a good excuse to talk people into buying this poisonous byproduct so we don't have to throw it away?" type things.

Apparently pediatricians often recommend fluoride supplements for breastfed babies, but I'm not interested in using it with my little one.

My mother has lousy teeth. According to her, one of the first things she asked her doctor when pregnant was what she could do to make sure my teeth were healthy. He told her the best things was to give me fluoride pills as a baby.

On the plus side, I've never had a cavity. On the minus side, I've been sick my entire life and have a malfunctioning immune system. I can't help but wonder if the fluoride pills were a contributing factor.

Texas...
I have little to base my next comment on however; from the articles I have read, the medical/dental professionals appear to be amongst the stronger proponents for fluoride use - no prizes for working that one out. You also have my vote for breast-feeding and sunshine - there is no substitute for breast milk when it comes to the development of a healthy immune system and although I sympathise with the mum's for the discomfort they can suffer as a result of breastfeeding, three months of discomfort (if it can be tolerated) provides for a lifetime of protection.

Gene...
It is interesting you mention a malfunctioning immune system, I have non-Hodgkin's lymphoma which is (basically) terminal cancer (or lifelong cancer as I prefer to call it, after all, birth is terminal) of the immune system and when I came across the articles mentioned, the very same thought crossed my mind.

From what I have read there was (at the time) legitimate medical purpose behind the implementation of fluoridation in our drinking water supply but what level of research was conducted is still somewhat unclear to me. A primary reason that fluoridation was initiated was because of the belief that INGESTED fluoride would provide enamel protection and hence decay prevention in the teeth as they developed within the gum line during infancy - a very worthy protocol in my mind.

During the 50 years since it's inception however; there has been a great deal of documented research that clearly shows that ingested fluoride has no uptake to undeveloped teeth. This is further supported by statistical data (as variable and manipulated as that can be) that demonstrates NO SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION in tooth decay through the two generations that have had (the benefit??) of fluoridation. One scholarly document went so far as to state that there was NO RECORDABLE DECREASE in tooth decay as a result of fluoration BUT, that fluoride treatment applied professionally, directly to the enamel surface of teeth once they become exposed played a significant role in decay prevention/protection.

Interestingly, manufacturers of dental hygiene products and in particular mouthwashes advise NOT to swallow. My C**gate toothpaste states, among other things, that using their product WILL 'Strengthen weak tooth enamel". When I looked closely I discovered this claim carried a 'small print' disclaimer - 'While Brushing' - again, direct contact with the tooth enamel and, no residual benefit. Whilst everyone I know spits and rinses after brushing almost completely preventing ingestion, we are brushing our teeth using a product with an active constituent that is classed a poison and is used commercially to kill rodents. We have removed lead from paint and gasoline but check the chart...

From: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/f-lead.html

Based on LD50 data from Robert E.
Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of
Commercial Products 5th ed., 1984 «That's 23 years ago...

I thought I could accept brushing with a fluoride based product because I spit it out but I doubt I would chew gum if it had lead in it and I spit that out too. Perhaps I better get this butter and clay recipe .

It is the ingested fluoride that carries the heightened health risks and in reviewing those risks - cancer, brain damage, kidney failure, thyroid damage, bone disease AND - the way we ingest fluoride is through our water supply AND the evidence (appears) to be conclusive, even irrefutable, are the authorities poisoning us? I make no place here for any conspiracy theories however; as I said in my initial post, is the general population being deceived and if we are, why?

The problem with getting anything done about it is that we're told now that there is MORE need. The consumption of bottled water has supposedly decreased the ingestion of fluoridated water considerably, enough so that they are whining again about kids not getting enough.

The trouble is, what ISN'T taken into consideration is how much we get from secondary sources. How many canneries use local, fluoridated water? How much makes it into our other drinks, food, etc. Not only did I drink a lot more water as a kid, but I also ate all those things, and they forced us to have fluoride "swish" at school.

It's scary. I've heard people say that they believe that the skyrocketing number of gastrointestinal problems might be traced to it. I have Crohn's disease, and I've often wondered if maybe there wasn't some connection. Who knows. It is the uncertainty that bothers me, since no one seems to care.