OBJECTIVES: In the United States, 95 percent of teens and 85 percent of adults use the Internet. Two social media outlets, Facebook and Twitter, reach more than 150 billion users. This study describes anti-fluoridation activity and dominance on the Internet and social media, both of which are community water fluoridation (CWF) information sources. METHODS: Monthly website traffic to major fluoridation websites was determined from June 2011 to May 2012. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube fluoridation activity was categorized as "proCWF" or "anti-CWF." Twitter's anti-CWF tweets were further subcategorized by the argument used against CWF. RESULTS: Anti-CWF website traffic was found to exceed proCWF activity five- to sixty-fold. Searching "fluoride" and "fluoridation" on Facebook resulted in 88 to 100 percent anti-CWF groups and pages; "fluoridation" on Twitter and YouTube resulted in 64 percent anti-CWF tweets and 99 percent anti-CWF videos, respectively. "Cancer, " "useless, " and "poisonous" were the three major arguments used against fluoridation. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-fluoridation information significantly dominates the Internet and social media. Thousands of people are being misinformed daily about the safety, health, and economic benefits of fluoridation.
OBJECTIVES: In the United States, 95 percent of teens and 85 percent of adults use the Internet. Two social media outlets, Facebook and Twitter, reach more than 150 billion users. This study describes anti-fluoridation activity and dominance on the Internet and social media, both of which are community water fluoridation (CWF) information sources. METHODS: Monthly website traffic to major fluoridation websites was determined from June 2011 to May 2012. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube fluoridation activity was categorized as "proCWF" or "anti-CWF." Twitter's anti-CWF tweets were further subcategorized by the argument used against CWF. RESULTS: Anti-CWF website traffic was found to exceed proCWF activity five- to sixty-fold. Searching "fluoride" and "fluoridation" on Facebook resulted in 88 to 100 percent anti-CWF groups and pages; "fluoridation" on Twitter and YouTube resulted in 64 percent anti-CWF tweets and 99 percent anti-CWF videos, respectively. "Cancer, " "useless, " and "poisonous" were the three major arguments used against fluoridation. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-fluoridation information significantly dominates the Internet and social media. Thousands of people are being misinformed daily about the safety, health, and economic benefits of fluoridation.
Authors: Matheus Lotto; Tamires Sá Menezes; Irfhana Zakir Hussain; Shu-Feng Tsao; Zahid Ahmad Butt; Plinio P Morita; Thiago Cruvinel Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Maha El Tantawi; Asim Al-Ansari; Abdulelah AlSubaie; Amr Fathy; Nourhan M Aly; Amira S Mohamed Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 5.428