Reply to thread

This is the misconstrued question the pro-fluoridation lobby peddles to try to promote a ridiculous answer.

The more reasonable question is...

to which the very logical and historically correct answer is...

The short explanation is two fold. Firstly, many dentists rely on advice and policy from the health organisations for indemnity from malpractice suits. So they follow the 'company' line.

Secondly, the American Dental Association carried out internal research to show that dentists made more revenue in fluoridated areas than unfluoridated... there was more money to be made treating fluorosis and associated effects from fluoridation than cavaties. 

The cost of filling or removal of a tooth pales into insignificance compared to regular whitening every year or new veneers every 10 or 15 years, as the attached average dental charges for 2011 in Australia show. http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/healthinsurance/whatiscovered/averagedental.htm

The way they justified the 'greater good' arguement for mass fluoridation is exactly the same as the tobacco industry used with a policy of:

Although hygienic and physiological concerns continued to be voiced, clinical medicine claimed that individual assessment and judgment was required.17 During this era, there was a strong tendency to avoid altogether causal hypotheses in matters so clearly complex. There was””and would remain””a powerful notion that risk is largely variable and thus, most appropriately evaluated and monitored at the individual, clinical level.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/

...to tell their patients that fluorosis or plaque or stain was something peculiar to them .

The bottom line... they make more money from the effects of fluoridation while untruthfully insisting that fluorosis and staining is a minor side effect to be suffered by the few for the greater good. Fluorosis increases with fluoridation to well over 30% of people according to recent surveys.