“There is NO compelling evidence of fluoridation of drinking water increasing rates of osteosarcoma.”
The claim about fluoridation leading to higher rates of osteosarcoma is based entirely upon a study by Bassin et al (2006).
Within the paper itself, the authors stress a number of potential confounders and biases. They admit the study to be an exploratory analysis and urge for future work to either confirm or refute the findings of the study.
The confidence expressed within the study in no way mirrors that of the anti-fluoridation advocates when they hold up the study as evidence. With the paper now in press for 7yrs, one would have expected anti-fluoride advocates to have other studies that support the claim of Bassin et al (2006) to wave around as evidence of a relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. The silence here speaks volumes.
While it is likely that such a basic analysis to have many confounders, one can look at the rates of osteosarcoma across Australia prior to Queensland adding fluoride to most of the community drinking water to see if there is any hint of relationship worth pursuing. However, I did this and found that Queensland did not have a lower rate, but in fact had the highest average rate of osteosarcoma (0.35%) shared with South Australia (SA had the highest rate for one gender, of 0.5% in males).
Have you heard of any other anti-fluoridation arguments that I’ve not covered? Feel free to forward them to me via the post submissions forms here and, time pending, I’ll do what I can to provide a strong counter-argument based upon facts.