So how come you posted
Fluoride from topical sources such as fluoridated drinking water is taken up by cariogenic bacteria when they produce acid. Once inside the cells, fluoride interferes with enzyme activity of the bacteria and the control of intracellular pH. This reduces bacterial acid production, which directly reduces the dissolution rate of tooth mineral. only to then claim it isn't true? I would generally have agreed with your interpretation of topical, but it seems that that is not the case. It does make sense - water does not all suddenly totally leave the mouth leaving no trace behind.
It does not remain in the mouth long enough to have much of an effect, certainly nothing like as much as brushing toothpaste onto the enamel.
Hence its a waste of time.
And so your evidence for this is? Given you keep citing material that contradicts your claim.
And that guy is saying it has no benefit on early development - he could be right - but that is one guy and you just previously linked to something citing numerous studies that totally contradict him!
I'm sorry you've yet to explain what you meant there.
He was quoted as specifically referring to tooth formation, not teeth generally.
Featherstone makes it clear, as he has in other publications, that fluoride
incorporated
during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant
role in caries protection.
Furthermore, i kinda suspect he's being misrepresented, perhaps quote mined. The article refers to 2000. I just googled him and found an absstract from 2007 saying
Dental caries is a bacterially based disease that progresses when acid produced by bacterial action on dietary fermentable carbohydrates diffuses into the tooth and dissolves the mineral, that is, demineralization. Pathological factors including acidogenic bacteria (mutans streptococci and lactobacilli), salivary dysfunction, and dietary carbohydrates are related to caries progression. Protective factors which include salivary calcium, phosphate and proteins, salivary flow, and fluoride in saliva can balance, prevent or reverse dental caries.
Fluoride works primarily via topical mechanisms which include (1) inhibition of demineralization at the crystal surfaces inside the tooth, (2) enhancement of remineralization at the crystal surfaces (the resulting remineralized layer is very resistant to acid attack), and (3) inhibition of bacterial enzymes.
Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces tooth decay via these mechanisms. Low but slightly elevated levels of fluoride in saliva and plaque provided from these sources help prevent and reverse caries by inhibiting demineralization and enhancing remineralization. The level of fluoride incorporated into dental mineral by systemic ingestion is insufficient to play a significant role in caries prevention. The effect of systemically ingested fluoride on caries is minimal. Fluoride “supplements” can be best used as a topical delivery system by sucking or chewing tablets or lozenges prior to ingestion.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.16...9.tb01989.x/abstract
So he is obviously is in favour of flouride in water as a protective mechanism and clearly also disagrees with your interpretation of "topical".
Should've gone specsavers dogsmilk lol.
The guy quoted has himself said that there is little gain in systemic fluoride to a bunch of other dentists in the ADA.
Of course he is pro fluoridation, what he is saying is that:
a) He knows that the topical effect is far far more important than ingesting it
and
b) He doesn't give a shit about anything but your teeth.
I am doing whats called using the words out of the mouth of the donkey to kick the donkey in the ass :p.
No. He is quoted as saying
Featherstone continues to give water fluoridation credit for helping reduce tooth decay
– not because it is ingested – but because, he states, fluoridated water and other
fluoride-containing beverages, foods, and oral care products contribute to the daily
topical application of fluoride by bathing the teeth.
That's quite unequivocally saying he sees water flouridation as combating tooth decay. But as I said I am wary of the way he's being presented in what is very clearly a partisan article that seems he may be being quote mined, but I'm not sure. Like the tooth development thing is all about enamel. But what about bacteria during that stage? It simply doesn't say.
Durhhh...so you're happy for dentists to give you pearly whites and to hell with the consequences?
Christ sake, I think you swallowed far too much lol.
No, I'm saying it makes sense for dentists to confine themselves to issues concerning the field of dentistry. I would say that it is far better for any concerns about more general health risks that could be associated with flouride to be investigated by people with the relevant expertise concerning whatever that issue may be. For example there does seem to be evidence flouride can affect IQ - the issue seems to be at what level this occurs. I would not expect a dentist to be concerning themselves with investigating how flouride affects IQ. Because they are a dentist and dentists do not take responsibility for conducting research on how chemicals can affect IQ. They do dentistry. Why do you expect dentists to preoccupy themselves with health matters that aren't about dentistry?
Has it ever occured to you that it might be a good idea for dentists to have at least a bit of medical knowledge about the way certain chemicals affect the body??!!
How about mercury? Do you think they perhaps that they just don't care about much outside of profit and thats why things are the way they are? There's your 'conspiracy' angle for you. No-ones that dumb that they think mercury is good for you apart from some fox news anchors with bra sizes larger than their IQ.
As for the rest of your post I'm afraid its total bollocks.
He was NOT specifically talking about JUST tooth growth in the section of text quoted!!
YOU have added the text with him stating that water fluoridation DOES have an effect from a separate link..not me!
I'm sick of repeating myself.