 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Politics of Fluoridation
Fluoridation was adopted more by politicking than by science according to Edward Groth III, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, with Consumers Union, publishers of the popular Consumers Reports magazine.
In a presentation made at the February 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Groth reported that, with three experimental fluoridation trials incomplete, enthusiastic fluoridation proponents successfully lobbied and persuaded the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) to endorse fluoridation in 1950 who, then with a few state dental officials, began vigorously promoting fluoridation with little, if any, scientific support.
According to Groth, whose 1973 Stanford University doctoral dissertation partially evaluated the use of scientific information in fluoridation policy-making. “There were no significant studies examining the long-term health of people in communities with naturally fluoridated water. .. (However,) exposure via drinking water, at levels not much higher than what was proposed for fluoridation, had been associated in numerous published studies, beginning around 1940, with serious adverse skeletal and neuromuscular effects, in India and other countries. Opposition to fluoridation initially came from scientists concerned about the lack of good evidence on possible health risks,” writes Groth
In order to get fluoridation passed, proponents often belittled opponents and used slick public relations schemes, while refusing to debate the issue, to get fluoridation accepted, reports Groth. Something they still do today
Said Groth, “Those who did openly oppose fluoridation were often subject of personal attack and professional reprisals. For decades, mainstream scientific journals would reject for publication any paper that did not articulate a strictly pro-fluoridation position on risk and benefit questions.”
“I myself had three manuscripts based on my doctoral dissertation rejected by U.S. public health journals in the 1970s,” says Groth. “My reviews of the evidence on risks and benefits of fluoridation were sent to anonymous pro-fluoridation referees, who found them “biased.” One editor advised that he wished to do nothing that might offer anti-fluoridationists any political leverage...(However,) I was politically outside the fray; my interest was exploring the interplay between political controversy and interpretations of scientific data. My papers were still rejected by several leading American journals in the 1970s, I believe because of a pervasive bias in favor of defending and promoting fluoridation,” writes Groth.
Groth reports of the early days of fluoridation, “ Leading PHS dental researchers lobbied every leading scientific organization, to gain endorsements of fluoridation. They cast fluoridation as a product of scientific progress under siege from anti-scientific forces, and rallied the scientific community in political support of the measure. They carried out a few studies looking for possible adverse effects of fluoridation; the studies were poorly designed and inconclusive, by today’s standards, but they found no convincing evidence of harm.
The PHS declared the issues closed, the debate over. The studies were roundly criticized as inadequate and biased by leading opponents of the day but fluoridation advocates rapidly took the stance that there was no longer any scientific doubt that fluoridation was safe and effective. Their political strategy was simply to steamroll the opposition, to insist that opponents had no basis for any valid objections. They focused on political campaigning, not on research; in fact, research all but halted, as it was politically inexpedient for the PHS to be studying questions they had already declared adequately answered.”
You can read Dr. Groth's entire report here: http://www.consumersunion.org/food/debate/bio.htm
***
Now, some dentists admit the benefits vs. the risks of fluoridation is a legitimate scientific controversy. Fluoridation may be immoral and outdated argues David Locker, BDS, PhD, professor and director of the Community Dental Health Services Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto in the November 2001, Journal of the Canadian Dental Association.
The British Medical Journal reported that fluoridation, touted as a safe cavity preventive, never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (October 2007)
A 1999 dental textbook, “Dentist, Dental Practice, and the Community,” by prominent researchers and dental university professors, Burt and Eklund, reports that Groth’s assessment is correct even today - that fluoridation is based more on unproved theories than scientific evidence.
The very-well respected scientific magazine, Scientific American reported that "Some recent studies suggest that over-
consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland," (January 2008) "Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift," writes author Dan Fagin.
And the silly dentists are acting like teenage hackers. The American Dental Association bought the domain name “www.fluoridealert.COM” and “www.fluoridealert.NET” to deceive web surfers away from fluoridation opponents’ website, http://www.fluoridealert.ORG , the website of the Fluoride Action Network, an international coalition of organizations opposed to fluoridation. Instead, with a slip of a “dot com,” unsuspecting web surfers are tricked to the American Dental Association’s pro-fluoridation information.
Why would they do that?
“Fluoridation campaigns provide a unique opportunity for dentistry to help reduce the incidence of dental disease while establishing political viability...,” according to the Journal of the American Dental Association, “Fluoridation Election Victory: A Case Study for Dentistry in Effective Political Action,” April 1981.
fluoride, fluoridation, dental, teeth, cavities, scientific fraud, PR, true belivers, fluoride dangers, Consumers Union, Consumers Reports
Not registered? Click here
|
Share this
|
Report this
|
Ah, Ms. Stride, why do you keep posting your anti-fluoride tirades in my local newspaper? You must have some sort of an "in" at this paper to keep letting you post this junk. As the retired fluoridation consultant for the State of California, I even had to ask myself what point are you trying to make with this article? You have actually rubber stamped what we in the pro-fluoride community have said for decades, namely that fluoridation is all about politics since we put the scientific issue to bed years ago. That leaves you only one outlet left and that is try and attempt to make the issue one of a vast political conspiracy to foist fluoridation on an unsuspecting populace. You know the vast preponderence of peer reviewed scientific information and study supports water fluoridation as a way to reduce tooth decay and save millions of public tax dollars. You know as well as I do that over 200 of the worlds leading health agencies from countries around the world have backed water fluoridation as one of the most important public health interventions ever. You know that the CDC has called fluoridation one of the top 10 most important public health achievements of the last 100 years!! That puts fluoridation on the same level as pasteurization of milk or immunization of our children!! You know that your side of the issue has had more than ample opportunity to voice your opinion at public forums all over the US when fluoridation comes up. Yet you continue to twist the facts about water fluoridation, such as you have done with the report from the National Science Academy, which had nothing to do with water fluoridation but rather about the naturally occurring fluoride levels around the country. You know there is no vast political, or any other, conspiracy to spread fluoridation to the citizens of America. Our views are backed with over 3,000 articles of peer reviewed science which has stood the scientific test. Your references are mostly journals that are not even health based.
As I said in my last post, I wouldnt normally respond to any of this but since I live here I feel its my duty to warn those who read your material that it is just an opinion, which you certainly have the right to express. Maybe I can convince the editor of the Telegraph to let me write an op-ed piece that is diametrically opposed to your views. After all, this is America.
Now, what usually happens after I respond to your opinions, is that you will come up with a new charge du jour, one that changes daily. What is it going to be this time, cancer, neurological damage, overdosing, criminal behavior, retarded children poisoning, unsafe chemicals, fluorosis, no human studies, pick one. Oh, and after you pick a new charge du jour, please provide me with peer reviewed science that 1) clearly shows that fluoride in the water was responsible for the disease/result in question and 2). Provide me with statistics that show just how many people have been damaged specifically by fluoridated drinking water. In other words, if 69% of the US is fluoridated, where are all the bodies in New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, you get the idea. OF the 50 most populous cities in the US, only San Diego remains unfluoridated, and that is about to change. Then San Jose.
Many people will read my post and some will disagree, and that is OK with me. So I will expect either a rebuttal of what I have said from you or some other anti-fluoride rant to appear in this column post haste, if not from you from other New Yorkers who are in the coalition to stop fluoridation. Why dont you publish this stuff in New York state, where you live, and not in my town? So dont disappoint me, fire away!!
David F. Nelson, D.D.S., M.S.
Retired Fluoridation Consultant to the State of California
El Dorado Hills, CA
If the "National Science Academy" fluoride report has nothing to do with fluoridation than why did the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control use that report for their recent advisory against using fluoridated water to prepare infant formula. And why did the National Kidney Foundation cite this fluoride report for their withdrawal of their fluoridation support and replace it with this: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.”
And your "3000 articles of peer reviewed science" has NOT withstood scientific investigation as you claim.
The York Review of fluoride/fluoridation science in 2000 was unable to "discover any
reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature
world-wide,"
A 2007 British Medical Journal report says that fluoridation never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical.
The National Institutes of Health had the same problem. "... the (NIH) panel was disappointed in the overall quality of the clinical data that it reviewed for its tooth decay consensus report. According to the panel, far too many studies were small, poorly described, or otherwise methodologically flawed" (over 560 studies evaluated fluoride use). This was in 2001
Always glad to hear from you.
You are a hoot!
Ah, Sally, you are a hoot as well. C'mon, you know as well as I do that the NSA report was all about the high levels of "naturally occurring fluoride" in the US. It was NEVER about community water fluoridation. Of course that report was cited to warn citizens who live in those areas of very high naturally occurring fluoride (Texas, Colorado, Arkansas) not to prepare infant formula with that water. Same reason the Kidney Foundation cited the report, as you know, kidney patients who are on dialysis should never use tap water that contains fluoride in their machines. With some areas in the US well over 1 ppm, the Kidney Foundation was just doing its due diligence in warning individuals with chronic kidney disease that might live in those areas.
See, its not so hard to figure out is it? FYI, the Sacramento County Health Officer, Dr. Glennah Trochet, vetted as much "peer reviewed" fluoridation science as her staff could find in 2002. She demanded any articles that did not meet the criteria for good, peer reviewed science be thrown out. That left her with several scientific articles, both pro and con. Guess what, the "good peer reviewed science" trumped the junk science articles by about 30 to 1. Of course you are going to find an occasional article from a peer reviewed journal that cautions people about fluoridation. But the total preponderance of pro-fluoridation articles Dr. Trochet and her staff reviewed confirms what the scientific community has always said. Dr. Trochet's report is available on several web sites. If not, you can email her and I am sure she will be more than happy to send you a copy. You probably ought to read it, for obvious reasons.
Anyway, its always fun to read your comments.
David F. Nelson, D.D.S., M.S.
Retired Fluoridation Consultant
California Dept. of Public Health
El Dorado Hills, CA
I'd love to read what Trochet wrote. Please tell me where it was published and who peer-reviewed it.
You wouldn't be referring me to a document an individual created with your help otherwise we might just have to change your title from Fluoridation Consultant to Fluoridation Cheerleader.
Now that you are retired, you should have enough time to read the NRC report. Clearly you haven't
SallyStride, I'd like to thank you for your continued efforts to inform the public about the danger of fluoridation. Dr. Nelson, we have all been lied to about fluoridation...In light of all the overwhelming negative evidence that is now available via the Internet...your persistent defense of the industry makes you look guilty or too stubborn to re-evaluate your perspective and admit that you were wrong... Sodium Fluoride is the only active ingredient in any store bought rat poison for crying out loud!!!
Actually Floyd, you should do some due diligence. If you check your rat poison, you will not find sodium fluoride as the main ingredient. Granted, in years past, it USED to be the main ingredient. Nowadays, they use an anti-coagulant because large doses of fluoride just werent very good at killing rats. But I appreciate your notion that the public is being fed "rat poison" by the govt. A real old anti-fluoride trick that hasnt worked any better than the fertilizer industry issue for you guys.
As to my guilt, or stubborness, I will gladly admit I am wrong when you show me some peer reviewed evidence to disprove my statements. All I hear from you is opinions. Just like noses, everyone has one! Please tell me the "lies" you refer to. Sounds like the old conspiracy theory to me. Go ahead, prove me wrong, but not with opinions, with peer reviewed science!
Ah, Sally, you never disappoint. No, I had no part of creating Dr. Trochets document. Her staff did the screening of the peer reviewed science to that point and Glennah vetted the information using pure science as the criteria as to what made a legitimate article. I am not sure where it was, or if it was published. When I left the State I was not allowed to take any of the scientific information with me. You could either contact Dr. Glennah Trochet at the Sac County Health Dept. or email your old friend, Dr. Mike Easley for a copy. I am sure Mike has one. And I am pretty sure Glennah's office has one she can send you.
Actually I have read the NAS report and find it not to be about community water fluoridation at all, but rather about the large levels of naturally occurring fluoride that exists in water around the US. Thanks to the influence of a few anti-fluoridationists on the panel, concern was raised about the levels of fluoride presently used in fluoridation today and these folks called for a level lower than what we use today. What is so thinly veiled, is that those people actually want to stop fluoridation in this country and this is their beginning attempt. News flash, it aint gonna happen. 69% of the US us already fluoridated using the range 0.7-1.25 ppm and they aint gonna lower that level.
Regards,
Dave Nelson
How IS mike. He was unexpectedly kind to me which is out-of-character for fluoridationists in my experience.
I know you really didn't read the NRC report.
You guys should come over from the dark side and see the light !!.