Naturopath misinformation campaign #438
While I was down the coast over the weekend, I happened to be a witness to what I have come to consider to be a fairly typical misinformation spiel by a naturopath.
Naturopaths are strong believers that naturally occurring "stuff" is intrinsically better for you than "stuff" that is "artificial". It's a fundamentally* flawed philosophy, but there's no point trying to discuss it with them. After all, their entire self-worth is tied into this philosophy, or they wouldn't be naturopaths. Argue against their fundamental principle, and they feel you are attacking them as a person.
In this particular case, the discussion was about fluoride. The naturopath in question described sodium fluoride as a "waste product from aluminium smelting" and said that it was poisonous.
She recommended that people should instead buy calcium fluoride from health shops. (Oh, and she had a brand recommendation, incidentally)
Ok, lets address the misinformation in these statements. First: is sodium fluoride a waste product from aluminium smelting, being foisted off on us as a cheap way for aluminium makers to dispose of their industrial waste?
Uh, no. Wrong on many different levels. For a start, sodium fluoride is
actually made by neutralising hydrofluoric acid, which is a byproduct of the production of superphosphate fertiliser. So it is made from a chemical by-product, but a different process. Describing it as "industrial waste" is certainly disingenuous at best, since we're talking about pure chemical processing systems here, and utilising by-products from one process to make something else is something we really, really want to do as much as possible. It's a far more energy efficient process, for a start, as well as reducing waste. Do naturopaths imagine that it would be better for the fertiliser makers to just dump their hydrofluoric acid, and toothpaste makers (for example) to create their own hydrofluoric acid using some other process? Much of modern life is based on such interlinked systems. Some of our most useful chemicals are by-products of an older manufacturing process. In fact, sometimes the older products have become dirt-cheap and common precisely because they produce a by-product so useful that it alone justifies the cost, thus producing a new demand system that makes the original product virtually free.
Second: is sodium fluoride poisonous?
Well, yes. Of course it is. That's why it comes in teeny tiny doses. All of modern medicine involves poisons, when it comes down to it. Pharmaceuticals are controlled because taking too much of them will kill or hurt you. The important thing is what they do in the small doses. Enough to do you good, not enough to hurt you. The lethal dose for a 70kg human is estimated at 5 - 10 g. Sodium fluoride in tablet form comes in a maximum dosage of 1 mg. So an average person would need to swallow 5,000 of them to commit suicide.
That's a lot of tablets in one go. And of course, doctors prescribing sodium fluoride take into account the local water supply, and will not prescribe it if there is fluoride, or will prescribe lower dosages where there are only low concentrations. Remember, aspirin is a poison, too. Sodium fluoride is pretty low down on the toxicity scale, around the 25th percentile of toxicity. That is to say, 75% of measured chemicals are more toxic, according to 3 separate ranking systems.
Third: is calcium fluoride a safer, better alternative?
Well, it's certainly safer, but I wouldn't call it better, and I wouldn't recommend that people waste money on it in an attempt to improve their health. Calcium fluoride is a naturally occurring compound, which is virtually insoluble. What that last bit means is that the body won't absorb it, so it's safe. But it also means that the body won't absorb it, so it's useless. Any money you spend on it is therefore money you may as well just flush straight down the toilet and skip the bother of remembering to take the tablets. It is instructive to examine the uses of calcium fluoride in industry, and think about where the statement about aluminium smelting may have come from.
See now, this kind of stuff is why I don't trust naturopaths when it comes to health matters. Especially ones who consider Rescue Remedy and ear candling to be useful. Of course, since I care about being accurate, I couldn't correct her misinformation at the time (I had to spend the ten minutes to research it), and I just know that most of her audience are not likely to be as sceptical as myself.
* That linked story just happens to give the lie to a statement made here: "By contrast, there are no known deaths attributed to treatment prescribed by modern naturopaths or naturopathic doctors. We do not prescribe drugs..." Well, ok, perhaps those deaths can't be definitely tied to the naturopathic treatment the men were receiving. Still, I'd feel pretty dishonest trying to stand behind the claim.
Naturopaths are strong believers that naturally occurring "stuff" is intrinsically better for you than "stuff" that is "artificial". It's a fundamentally* flawed philosophy, but there's no point trying to discuss it with them. After all, their entire self-worth is tied into this philosophy, or they wouldn't be naturopaths. Argue against their fundamental principle, and they feel you are attacking them as a person.
In this particular case, the discussion was about fluoride. The naturopath in question described sodium fluoride as a "waste product from aluminium smelting" and said that it was poisonous.
She recommended that people should instead buy calcium fluoride from health shops. (Oh, and she had a brand recommendation, incidentally)
Ok, lets address the misinformation in these statements. First: is sodium fluoride a waste product from aluminium smelting, being foisted off on us as a cheap way for aluminium makers to dispose of their industrial waste?
Uh, no. Wrong on many different levels. For a start, sodium fluoride is
actually made by neutralising hydrofluoric acid, which is a byproduct of the production of superphosphate fertiliser. So it is made from a chemical by-product, but a different process. Describing it as "industrial waste" is certainly disingenuous at best, since we're talking about pure chemical processing systems here, and utilising by-products from one process to make something else is something we really, really want to do as much as possible. It's a far more energy efficient process, for a start, as well as reducing waste. Do naturopaths imagine that it would be better for the fertiliser makers to just dump their hydrofluoric acid, and toothpaste makers (for example) to create their own hydrofluoric acid using some other process? Much of modern life is based on such interlinked systems. Some of our most useful chemicals are by-products of an older manufacturing process. In fact, sometimes the older products have become dirt-cheap and common precisely because they produce a by-product so useful that it alone justifies the cost, thus producing a new demand system that makes the original product virtually free.
Second: is sodium fluoride poisonous?
Well, yes. Of course it is. That's why it comes in teeny tiny doses. All of modern medicine involves poisons, when it comes down to it. Pharmaceuticals are controlled because taking too much of them will kill or hurt you. The important thing is what they do in the small doses. Enough to do you good, not enough to hurt you. The lethal dose for a 70kg human is estimated at 5 - 10 g. Sodium fluoride in tablet form comes in a maximum dosage of 1 mg. So an average person would need to swallow 5,000 of them to commit suicide.
That's a lot of tablets in one go. And of course, doctors prescribing sodium fluoride take into account the local water supply, and will not prescribe it if there is fluoride, or will prescribe lower dosages where there are only low concentrations. Remember, aspirin is a poison, too. Sodium fluoride is pretty low down on the toxicity scale, around the 25th percentile of toxicity. That is to say, 75% of measured chemicals are more toxic, according to 3 separate ranking systems.
Third: is calcium fluoride a safer, better alternative?
Well, it's certainly safer, but I wouldn't call it better, and I wouldn't recommend that people waste money on it in an attempt to improve their health. Calcium fluoride is a naturally occurring compound, which is virtually insoluble. What that last bit means is that the body won't absorb it, so it's safe. But it also means that the body won't absorb it, so it's useless. Any money you spend on it is therefore money you may as well just flush straight down the toilet and skip the bother of remembering to take the tablets. It is instructive to examine the uses of calcium fluoride in industry, and think about where the statement about aluminium smelting may have come from.
See now, this kind of stuff is why I don't trust naturopaths when it comes to health matters. Especially ones who consider Rescue Remedy and ear candling to be useful. Of course, since I care about being accurate, I couldn't correct her misinformation at the time (I had to spend the ten minutes to research it), and I just know that most of her audience are not likely to be as sceptical as myself.
* That linked story just happens to give the lie to a statement made here: "By contrast, there are no known deaths attributed to treatment prescribed by modern naturopaths or naturopathic doctors. We do not prescribe drugs..." Well, ok, perhaps those deaths can't be definitely tied to the naturopathic treatment the men were receiving. Still, I'd feel pretty dishonest trying to stand behind the claim.